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

[webbles]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

Here's the current baptism interview questions for converts (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-prepare-people-for-baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng):

Quote

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of the world?

2. Do you believe that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?

4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? Have you ever committed a homosexual transgression?

5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?

   1. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bonds of a legal marriage between one man and one woman.

   2. The law of tithing.

   3. The Word of Wisdom.

   4. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to others.

6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?

They only ask if you are willing to obey the law of tithing.  Nothing in there about being a full tithe payer, which as you point out makes no sense since they aren't a member yet.  I don't think they've changed that much over the years but I'll have to see if I can find a 1980 version of the questions.

[webbles]

While looking for anything about baptism questions in the 1980s, I came across this old video 'The Mouth of Babes' from 1981.  An off-screen interviewer asks various questions about the church to the children.  Their answers are cute.

 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, webbles said:

While looking for anything about baptism questions in the 1980s, I came across this old video 'The Mouth of Babes' from 1981.  An off-screen interviewer asks various questions about the church to the children.  Their answers are cute.

 

"He has ears." child answering how Heavenly Father hears her prayers.

Haha! Thanks for the share! 😄

[cinepro]

11 hours 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.

I've only been in four baptismal interviews for kids: my own, and my three kids. So it's a pretty small sample. But I don't recall ever hearing any questions that were unusual for a soon-to-be eight year old. It was more like a conversation about different Church things.

The one thing I remember from my interview is that I had recently watched a science show on PBS where they talked about ice, and the segment ended with the hosts putting ice in iced tea and saying "I love it in iced tea. It's delicious!" So when the bishop asked me about drinking coffee, tea etc., I said "nope, except for ice in iced tea. It's delicious!" I can still remember how shocked my mom looked. Somehow I was still able to get baptized.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Not following this thread, so I don’t know if anyone has posted on this Wall Street Journal snippet, but here’s a Facebook post from Michael Ash on it:

I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (so I can't read their on-line artices), but here's a snippet of an article they just published regarind the show Under the Banner of Heaven:

From today's WSJ
"An LDS historian who was invited to the premiere [noted] afterward that “none of the Mormon scholars I was sitting with—all of whom know full well how to apply an open, critical gaze to our own culture and tradition—recognized ourselves or our people in the show.” I have yet to meet a fellow member of the LDS church, or even a friend, who sees the show’s portrayal of us as believable. The show seemingly leans into every misguided stereotype and trope the filmmakers could find."

(Shared by Braxton Bogard)

Edited May 9, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, cinepro said:

I've only been in four baptismal interviews for kids: my own, and my three kids. So it's a pretty small sample. But I don't recall ever hearing any questions that were unusual for a soon-to-be eight year old. It was more like a conversation about different Church things.

The one thing I remember from my interview is that I had recently watched a science show on PBS where they talked about ice, and the segment ended with the hosts putting ice in iced tea and saying "I love it in iced tea. It's delicious!" So when the bishop asked me about drinking coffee, tea etc., I said "nope, except for ice in iced tea. It's delicious!" I can still remember how shocked my mom looked. Somehow I was still able to get baptized.

 

Love it! Reminds me of the time I was watching my older son playing soccer, and his younger brother was sitting with me on the side lines, out loud said he wanted some Bud Light. And what he meant was Sunny Delight. I think he'd seen a Bud Light commercial during the many Jazz games we watched. He was maybe 3 or 4 can't remember. 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not following this thread, so I don’t know if anyone has posted on this Wall Street Journal snippet, but here’s a Facebook post from Michael Ash on it:

I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (so I can't read their on-line artices), but here's a snippet of an article they just published regarind the show Under the Banner of Heaven:

From today's WSJ
"An LDS historian who was invited to the premiere [noted] afterward that “none of the Mormon scholars I was sitting with—all of whom know full well how to apply an open, critical gaze to our own culture and tradition—recognized ourselves or our people in the show.” I have yet to meet a fellow member of the LDS church, or even a friend, who sees the show’s portrayal of us as believable. The show seemingly leans into every misguided stereotype and trope the filmmakers could find."

(Shared by Braxton Bogard)

Oh, the sheer hubris! As a consultant to the show wrote, ""When people say they can’t see themselves in this at all, I think, 'Really? Not at all? Nothing? Well, that sort of hubris is concerning.'"
But, I suspect that she thinks that believing in the truth claims of the Church is a mark of delusion and/or ignorance -- believing historians being the worst of them.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not following this thread, so I don’t know if anyone has posted on this Wall Street Journal snippet, but here’s a Facebook post from Michael Ash on it:

I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (so I can't read their on-line artices), but here's a snippet of an article they just published regarind the show Under the Banner of Heaven:

From today's WSJ
"An LDS historian who was invited to the premiere [noted] afterward that “none of the Mormon scholars I was sitting with—all of whom know full well how to apply an open, critical gaze to our own culture and tradition—recognized ourselves or our people in the show.” I have yet to meet a fellow member of the LDS church, or even a friend, who sees the show’s portrayal of us as believable. The show seemingly leans into every misguided stereotype and trope the filmmakers could find."

(Shared by Braxton Bogard)

I saw this quote from Dustin Black:

Quote

Dustin, tell us what went into creating this wickedly good series?

When you ask it like that, it was a very long journey. It was 10 years of my life off and on. It started off as a feature film. I had only two hours at my disposal and that was a real struggle to try and honour this story, to depict these characters and to do justice to how it evolved as they stepped into fundamentalism. I couldn't achieve it in 2 hours. I certainly couldn't achieve what the book did, in just 2 hours. It didn't feel like an investigation, it felt academic. It didn't ask the viewer to be as engaged as the reader was in the book and that was a big disappointment for me.

I was very frustrated and disheartened for a very long time, but thankfully I stuck with it till the mini-series became an acceptable and legitimate form again. At that point, I began to think of this as a 6 or 7 or even 8-hour show. With that, I was not only able to tell the Lafferty story, but also the Mormon history story and create this investigative story. In that sense, it was really important to me that this show made the audience engaged and active in the story.

I grew up in this (Mormon) church. There was a lot about this church that love, still love and miss, but I believed that it needed to be held accountable, especially for its treatment of women and I felt that it was about time that we ask those tough questions that the church doesn't allow when you are a member.

So "Under the Banner of Heaven" is intended as a vehicle for Dustin Lance Black to hold the Church "accountable" for, inter alia, "its treatment of women?"

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote

Having been Mormon, I know the language, and it meant that I knew how to reach out to people of faith and have meaningful conversations about it. I was ready for that.

This is not my story. This is Brenda Wright Lafferty's story. It is Pyre's investigation of her death and it is a death because she dared to be curious in a time and a faith where that was not allowed. It is all her's. But, I hope my experiences in the church make it feel that much more authentic because I can ask the questions and challenge the stereotypes and distinguish between fundamentalist Mormans, mainstream Mormons and cultural Mormons. I can tell you this, they all needed to be held to account in different ways and this show does that.

Seems like he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.  Per the WSJ article: "I have yet to meet a fellow member of the LDS church, or even a friend, who sees the show’s portrayal of us as believable."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Oh, the sheer hubris! As a consultant to the show wrote, ""When people say they can’t see themselves in this at all, I think, 'Really? Not at all? Nothing? Well, that sort of hubris is concerning.'"
But, I suspect that she thinks that believing in the truth claims of the Church is a mark of delusion and/or ignorance -- believing historians being the worst of them.

Can you name the “consultant”? 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I saw this quote from Dustin Black:

So "Under the Banner of Heaven" is intended as a vehicle for Dustin Lance Black to hold the Church "accountable" for, inter alia, "its treatment of women?"

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Seems like he doesn't know as much as he thinks he does.  Per the WSJ article: "I have yet to meet a fellow member of the LDS church, or even a friend, who sees the show’s portrayal of us as believable."

Thanks,

-Smac

Regarding Black’s ruminations, I’m tempted to cite Novak’s Law. 

[smac97]

Some excerpts from Rotten Tomatoes viewer reviews:

Quote

 

First of all don't pay attention to spamers who start their reviews here with "As LDS Church member..." blabla and rate this show low.
...
As for the accuracy I saw many reactions from ex-Mormons and those people who have friends among them, and they say that the routine life of the community is quite recognizable (Lafferty family really look like they could be their neighbors) and yes, the lingvo is very authentic too.

Yep.  Don't listen to the Latter-day Saints and whether they think Under the Banner is an accurate characterization of their faith and culture.

Quote

This series sheds light on how the average Mormon should be, and what can happen to a Mormon if their doctrine is obeyed to its logical conclusions as taught by their scriptures, temple, and so-called prophets.

 

Quote

Granted, they are things that I KNOW feel uncomfortable to have exposed to the world (as I'm an ex-Mormon myself), so I get the big reaction. The show is great. The quality is great. THE CONTENT IS GREAT because it IS factual. Believe it or not, ex-mormons tend to be just a touch more familiar with the church's *full* and *accurate* history. ... So far the accuracy of the church's history/doctrine has been spot-on. Color me impressed.

 

Quote

It's trying really hard. But it does capture the creepiness and derangement of the LDS belief system.

I think these sorts of reactions were what Black was going for.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you name the “consultant”? 

Lindsay Hansen Park. The below link doesn't have the quote, it's in her facebook feed though near the premiere of the show.

https://www.facebook.com/1574530763/posts/10223755618389823/?d=n

[CA Steve]

I do think it is a bit ironic when we complain that the series is not historically accurate.

Hopefully if the do a flashback of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon they will at least show it accurately.  😏

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Lindsay Hansen Park. The below link doesn't have the quote, it's in her facebook feed though near the premiere of the show.

https://www.facebook.com/1574530763/posts/10223755618389823/?d=n

Lindsay Hansen Park on the Exmormon Reddit:

Quote

I definitely don't believe in "the church," and I'm not even sure anyone even knows what that means. I do think many folks believe in the church, as in, the institution. I deal with too many prophets to do that. But I do believe in the Mormon people and there are things I highly value about my Mormonism. The messiness is part of it and I feel very drawn to the messiness of Mormonism.

I know this answer isn't satisfactory to many, and I think that's a symptom of the hierarchical narrative of Mormonism. The institution says we either have to believe in it or we don't, we are Mormon or we aren't, it's either true or the biggest fraud.

I reject all that thinking. For Sunstone, our tagline is, "There is More Than One Way to Mormon," and I believe that. Mormonism is so much bigger than the LDS institution, than the truth claims of Joseph Smith, and the black and white faith narratives. I know this because I hang out with so many different kinds of Mormons and I refuse to reduce it to the hierarchical narrative the institution sells us (and many exMormons still buy into).

Another poster (referencing LHP) :

Quote

If you think she still believes, you haven't been paying attention. I'm only a listener and don't know her personally, but if you've followed along with YOP, her MS interviews, and all the panel discussions she does for MS, she's very open about her journey. She loves her roots, and she's very balanced and fair-minded, but she no longer believes the church is true or good...

LHP responded:

Quote

Thanks. Yes!

And another comment from LHP:

Quote

I no longer have any faith or belief in the one-true-institution, except to say I think they are trying to do the best they can as a response to this messy doctrine.

Hmm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I do think it is a bit ironic when we complain that the series is not historically accurate.

Hopefully if the do a flashback of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon they will at least show it accurately.  😏

And surely these historians/scholars know about the pre 1990 temple endowments, which imo was pretty spot on. That's the one that I think a lot of members that are young do not believe and think is made up. But think they should know about the head in the hat thing. I'm sure the church is going to come forth with a statement about it, for the record. And maybe the temple will change once again. And become even more mainstream, imo. Much to some on here's aggravations. 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Lindsay Hansen Park on the Exmormon Reddit:

...

Thanks for the extra quotes. I confess that I was not at all interested in what she thought. For a historical consultant of the show, the producers sure let a lot get past her that she should well know is blatantly inaccurate, unrepresentative, and unfair. And yet, if she was an unwilling accomplish in the show's defects, she certainly isn't expressing any such frustration and instead actually chides those that call out such inaccuracies. Color me the opposite of impressed with her (hence my willingness to ad hominem dismiss her as a source of anything consequential).

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Thanks for the extra quotes. I confess that I was not at all interested in what she thought.

Same here.  She's an enthusiastic neophyte, with no particular training or expertise or experience.  But I suspect she is ideologically aligned with Dustin Lance Black, so...

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

For a historical consultant of the show, the producers sure let a lot get past her that she should well know is blatantly inaccurate, unrepresentative, and unfair.

They weren't looking to be "fair."  Dustin Lance Black has said the show is supposed to hold the Church "accountable."

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

And yet, if she was an unwilling accomplish in the show's defects, she certainly isn't expressing any such frustration and instead actually chides those that call out such inaccuracies. Color me the opposite of impressed with her (hence my willingness to ad hominem dismiss her as a source of anything consequential).

It's not ad hominem to decline to give any particular deference to her opinion. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  She's an enthusiastic neophyte, with no particular training or expertise or experience.  But I suspect she is ideologically aligned with Dustin Lance Black, so...

If by that you mean, at being a consultant for a TV show, I suppose that's true. If by that, you mean her understanding of LDS history is lacking, I think you are very, very wrong.

[smac97]

On 5/9/2022 at 2:50 PM, ttribe said:

If by that you mean, at being a consultant for a TV show, I suppose that's true. If by that, you mean her understanding of LDS history is lacking, I think you are very, very wrong.

Given the many patent inaccuracies in the series, I think my assessment seems pretty apt.  From Scott's post above:

Quote

From today's WSJ
"An LDS historian who was invited to the premiere [noted] afterward that “none of the Mormon scholars I was sitting with—all of whom know full well how to apply an open, critical gaze to our own culture and tradition—recognized ourselves or our people in the show.” I have yet to meet a fellow member of the LDS church, or even a friend, who sees the show’s portrayal of us as believable. The show seemingly leans into every misguided stereotype and trope the filmmakers could find."

I grew up in American Fork, about a mile from where Brenda Lafferty and her baby were murdered.  I grew up in the Church being depicted in the mini-series.  I then served a mission for the Church, then returned and attended BYU, got married, went back to BYU, and now live in Provo.  

I have seen plenty of reasons to question the competency of Lindsay Hansen Park relative to characterizing the Church, its members, its 1980s-in-Utah-County culture, and so on.  So if she has an "understanding of LDS history," she sure didn't seem to bring it to bear in the making of this mini-series.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And surely these historians/scholars know about the pre 1990 temple endowments, which imo was pretty spot on. That's the one that I think a lot of members that are young do not believe and think is made up. But think they should know about the head in the hat thing. I'm sure the church is going to come forth with a statement about it, for the record. And maybe the temple will change once again. And become even more mainstream, imo. Much to some on here's aggravations. 

Yes, the depiction was quite accurate, and the recreation of the Salt Lake Temple interior was especially good. I find the depiction of LDS/Utah culture to be an annoying caricature, where things I experienced from zealots are presented as the norm. I was on my mission during the events depicted, but I certainly don’t think the series accurately depicts the culture and people of mid-80s Utah. I think they were trying to underscore certain aspects of church life but ended up exaggerating. 

[Nofear]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Given the many patent inaccuracies in the series, I think my assessment seems pretty apt.

Given that we don't know how much control/influence her advice had on the script and recording, it's possible she was just overruled. But, also seeing her apparent celebration of the show despite the blatant and obvious short comings, I'm skeptical and tend to agree with you.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Nofear

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Given the many patent inaccuracies in the series, I think my assessment seems pretty apt.  From Scott's post above:

I grew up in American Fork, about a mile from where Brenda Lafferty and her baby were murdered.  I grew up in the Church being depicted in the mini-series.  I then in the army served a mission for the Church, then returned and attended BYU, got married, went back to BYU, and now live in Provo.  

I have seen plenty of reasons to question the competency of Lindsay Hansen Park relative to characterizing the Church, its members, its 1980s-in-Utah-County culture, and so on.  So if she has an "understanding of LDS history," she sure didn't seem to bring it to bear in the making of this mini-series.

Thanks,

-Smac

One, I think you overstate her power on the production. DLB and the director would make final decisions on presentation and content. While I think some of the decisions on presentation were not only erroneous but also a little sloppy, I don't lay that at her feet. I also try to understand why the presentation of certain issues may have gone the way they did (e.g. the Endowment participants already fully dressed in their robes prior to the beginning of session, for example). My primary criticism of the show, thus far, is its characterization of Allen Lafferty; from my reading it was the case that he was trying to convince the police to go after Ron and Dan right away. There was none of this 'men with beards' caginess. They're using Allen as a literary device (of sorts) to draw out the story, but I think it does a disservice to Allen Lafferty, the man.

Two, your criticisms are purely anecdotal and recognize the presence of no nuance or variation. I've met a number of members over the years who do fit much of the mold being presented in the show and I've actually sat down with a couple of former members of the FLDS and learned more about the fundamentalist culture in their sect. On my mission, I had at least two families attempt to win me over to their way of thinking about taxes and government while at dinner appointments. One of those families up and disappeared to Mexico at one point.

Three, she has long been recognized as one of the top experts not only on LDS polygamy, but also on the various fundamentalist offshoots. She was consulted, and provided interview commentary, for the A&E documentary "Warren Jeffs: Prophet of Evil." She is the executive director at Sunstone. She is hardly a neophyte.

I have actually taken time throughout the last couple of years to look at her work and follow her on social media. You, on the other hand, have a long history of attacking anything or anyone when their opinions don't line up with your view on the world. I find your opinion lacking in substance and grossly biased.

For the record:

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

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9644756/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

Edited May 9, 2022 by ttribe

[Amulek]

I watched episode three over the weekend. The historical and ethnographic inaccuracies continue to be a major stumbling block to me being able to enjoy the show. Then again, I am becoming increasingly convinced that I'm not really the intended audience for this program, so maybe that doesn't matter.

I really think I could get past all the misrepresentations though if the writing, pacing, character development, etc. were much stronger. The acting is fine and the production values are solid, but I just can't get past how much more is missing which would elevate this show from 'just okay' to 'pretty good' (or even great).

At the end of the day, maybe that's a worse indictment: not that it isn't a great show with respect to its depictions of Mormonism but that it just isn't that great of a show period.

Unless they really turn a corner, I honestly can't see myself recommending the show to anyone...ever.

 

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

DLB and the director would make final decisions on presentation and content.

I think this is (clearly) right. Lindsay Hansen Park was a consultant, not a creator. She had zero control over what made it onto the screen.

 

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I watched episode three over the weekend. The historical and ethnographic inaccuracies continue to be a major stumbling block to me being able to enjoy the show. Then again, I am becoming increasingly convinced that I'm not really the intended audience for this program, so maybe that doesn't matter.

I really think I could get past all the misrepresentations though if the writing, pacing, character development, etc. were much stronger. The acting is fine and the production values are solid, but I just can't get past how much more is missing which would elevate this show from 'just okay' to 'pretty good' (or even great).

At the end of the day, maybe that's a worse indictment: not that it isn't a great show with respect to its depictions of Mormonism but that it just isn't that great of a show period.

Unless they really turn a corner, I honestly can't see myself recommending the show to anyone...ever.

 

Same here. It suffers from an awful script, and that’s pretty fatal. That said, I don’t think the weird take on Utah Mormonism is malicious but intended to explain some cultural aspects to those coming at it cold. Unfortunately it resorts to exaggeration and rings really false.