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

[Teancum]

6 hours 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

I have found some of it believable and some not so much. The scene in episode 3 where they our outside the cabin in the mountains and Pyree suddenly gives the history of Huan's Mill and says he is a Mormon before a cop and then approaches the cabin smarmed was ludicrous.  But the temple portryal was pretty accurate and I as amazed at how well they got the garden room of the SLC temple right.

[Teancum]

3 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...

Is she a neophyte?  How so?  She seems fairly bright and well researched. But let's dipsarge her because she is ideologically aligned with Dustin Black.  And while we are talking about ideologically being aligned maybe you should look in the mirror a bit. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Scott's post quoted someone with an agenda that backed up his bias.  No surprise there.

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I grew up in American Fork, about a mile from where Brenda Lafferty and her baby were murdered. 

I lived in Salam when Brenda was murdered. I was attending BYU. I was 25 and had a young family.  I lived across the street from one the the SP members who ex'd the Lafferty's and was no their hit list.  So?

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I grew up in the Church being depicted in the mini-series.

So did I. 

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

  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 served a mission as well. Grew up in Sandy Utah. Lived in Salame till I moved east where my wife is from.

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

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

I have followed Lindsey and find her very accurate. So there you have it. I think she knows LDS history as well as you or me.

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Is she a neophyte?  How so?  She seems fairly bright and well researched. But let's dipsarge her because she is ideologically aligned with Dustin Black.  And while we are talking about ideologically being aligned maybe you should look in the mirror a bit. 

 

I understand the objection to the inference that Mormons are prone to violence. But I do find it odd that people believe our historical teachings about violence (blood atonement, penalties, and oaths of vengeance, for example) and actual violence (Missouri War and MMM, for example) have had zero impact on our culture and history. 

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Scott's post quoted someone with an agenda that backed up his bias.  No surprise there.

I lived in Salam when Brenda was murdered. I was attending BYU. I was 25 and had a young family.  I lived across the street from one the the SP members who ex'd the Lafferty's and was no their hit list.  So?

So did I. 

I served a mission as well. Grew up in Sandy Utah. Lived in Salame till I moved east where my wife is from.

I have followed Lindsey and find her very accurate. So there you have it. I think she knows LDS history as well as you or me.

Then either she did a lousy job "consulting" for the miniseries, or else her role as consultant was perfunctory and meaningless.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then either she did a lousy job "consulting" for the miniseries, or else her role as consultant was perfunctory and meaningless.

Thanks,

-Smac

Either or.  In your ideological opinion....

Edited May 9, 2022 by Teancum

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I understand the objection to the inference that Mormons are prone to violence. But I do find it odd that people believe our historical teachings about violence (blood atonement, penalties, and oaths of vengeance, for example) and actual violence (Missouri War and MMM, for example) have had zero impact on our culture and history. 

An impact sufficient to justy the throughline "Our faith breeds dangerous men"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

An impact sufficient to justy the throughline "Our faith breeds dangerous men"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Apparently you didn’t read my post. I don’t believe Mormonism breeds violence. 

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I understand the objection to the inference that Mormons are prone to violence. But I do find it odd that people believe our historical teachings about violence (blood atonement, penalties, and oaths of vengeance, for example) and actual violence (Missouri War and MMM, for example) have had zero impact on our culture and history. 

We don't have to ignore the violence and rhetorical violence of the past. What we can do is put it in context. And in that context is is quite dishonest to paint our faith as particularly prone to violence when its influence towards the opposite is the historical fact. Not saying you do, of course.

Quote

Historian David T. Courtwright wrote: “Some regions, such as the South and the frontier and the urban ghettos, have experienced very high levels of violence and disorder, while others, such as rural New England or Latter-day Saint Utah, have been far more tranquil places.” https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/death-to-seducers-examples-of-latter-day-saint-led-extralegal-justice-in-historical-context/

The full article is a highly recommended read.

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Nofear

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Nofear said:

We don't have to ignore the violence and rhetorical violence of the past. What we can do is put it in context. And in that context is is quite dishonest to paint our faith as particularly prone to violence when its influence towards the opposite is the historical fact.

 

 

 

 

I believe I have now said that twice. 

[Nofear]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I believe I have now said that twice. 

Sorry. Didn't edit my post quick enough.

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Either or.  In your ideological opinion....

Weren't you aware of SMac's extensive experience and background with tv show and movie production? Get with the program!

Edited May 10, 2022 by ttribe

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quoted:  “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.”

And given the huge focus on Pyre’s life and his faith crisis, I am seeing Brenda being used as more of a plot point for his struggle.  It is Pyre’s story of his processing Brenda’s story…and even then so far more his processing Allen’s story about his relationship with Brenda rather than Brenda herself besides the little clip of her in Idaho and even that was used explaining why Allen and the other Laffertys reacted to her the way they did.
 

 It feels like to me Brenda is being used to tell everyone’s story but her own…but I am about halfway through the second episode…my stress levels went up too high to watch it (stress triggers my vertigo…practically everything takes second place to pacifying my Meniere’s these days).

[california boy]

Interesting in reading the outrage from some members over the historical inaccuracies presented in the series.  I would like to see the same outrage when looking at some of the productions produced by the Church.  Never saw any production that had Joseph Smith translating the BoM by looking in a hat for example.  That seems like a MAJOR inaccuracy on a very fundamental reporting of historical events.  Or how the "translation" of the Book of Abraham?  Or Joseph only being married to Emma.  Has anyone ever seen a production where all the other wives of Joseph Smith were included?

Any members outraged about that?  Crickets?

Almost all television series are a bit loose with the facts, including the ones the Church has put out. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

I really think I could get past all the misrepresentations though if the writing, pacing, character development, etc. were much stronger.

That is part of my problem. With all that is available these days, I just don’t watch stuff that isn’t at a certain level of production quality.  Second, it is claiming to be based on true crime, so I am expecting it makes me more informed and not searching to find out if something is contrary to what actually happened.  The treatment of Allen is messing with my head…I am finding it difficult to get past resenting it in his behalf.  Wish I knew if it bugged him or not;  he made some horrible mistakes that caused problems in his wife’s life and contributed to her death and their child’s death…but to me that makes it even more important to show him accurately, to hold him accountable if necessary in as realistic of a view as possible. This fantasy prevents any actual judgment and engagement with the real contributors and victims (often the same people, as it is in Allen’s case, his other brothers, the mother at minimum).

Edited May 10, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

She does have control over how she is presenting it though, I would think.

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

But the temple portryal was pretty accurate and I as amazed at how well they got the garden room of the SLC temple right.

You're amazed that they got a temple interior correct when there are church published photos of it on the internet?

Here's one from 1993 

Here's another one from 2019

 

[sunstoned]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

Interesting in reading the outrage from some members over the historical inaccuracies presented in the series.  I would like to see the same outrage when looking at some of the productions produced by the Church.  Never saw any production that had Joseph Smith translating the BoM by looking in a hat for example.  That seems like a MAJOR inaccuracy on a very fundamental reporting of historical events.  Or how the "translation" of the Book of Abraham?  Or Joseph only being married to Emma.  Has anyone ever seen a production where all the other wives of Joseph Smith were included?

Any members outraged about that?  Crickets?

Almost all television series are a bit loose with the facts, including the ones the Church has put out. 

^THIS^  Take my upvote.  

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting in reading the outrage from some members over the historical inaccuracies presented in the series.  I would like to see the same outrage when looking at some of the productions produced by the Church.  Never saw any production that had Joseph Smith translating the BoM by looking in a hat for example.  That seems like a MAJOR inaccuracy on a very fundamental reporting of historical events.  Or how the "translation" of the Book of Abraham?  Or Joseph only being married to Emma.  Has anyone ever seen a production where all the other wives of Joseph Smith were included?

Any members outraged about that?  Crickets?

Almost all television series are a bit loose with the facts, including the ones the Church has put out. 

I don't think I've seen any LDS complain about the actual historical recreations being inaccurate. The complaints I've seen are more about the culture and experience of early 1980s Utah.

Granted, I (thankfully) grew up outside of Utah in the early 1980s, so I can't speak from personal experience. And I've only watched the first episode. But it seemed like some really odd Twilight Zone episode more than a story placed in any real-world setting.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more comparison to the Netflix Mark Hofmann documentary. It's obviously a different format (a documentary with dramatizations), but I don't recall a single complaint from any LDS, and the dramatizations depict almost the same time and place. The sets and scenarios all felt like totally authentic mid-1980s Utah as I would imagine it, and people from that place and era seemed to agree. And it dealt with similarly difficult history and issues, but it was almost universally lauded by TBM and exMo alike for its presentation.

Heck, I even get weird nostalgia flashbacks from "Stranger Things." I would expect a well produced show to be giving people who were living in Utah in the 1980s similar flashbacks, instead of leaving them scratching their heads about why people are talking so funny and acting so weirdly about their crazy-violent church.

Edited May 10, 2022 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That is part of my problem. With all that is available these days, I just don’t watch stuff that isn’t at a certain level of production quality.  Second, it is claiming to be based on true crime, so I am expecting it makes me more informed and not searching to find out if something is contrary to what actually happened.  The treatment of Allen is messing with my head…I am finding it difficult to get past resenting it in his behalf.  Wish I knew if it bugged him or not;  he made some horrible mistakes that caused problems in his wife’s life and contributed to her death and their child’s death…but to me that makes it even more important to show him accurately, to hold him accountable if necessary in as realistic of a view as possible. This fantasy prevents any actual judgment and engagement with the real contributors and victims (often the same people, as it is in Allen’s case, his other brothers, the mother at minimum).

I watched the new mini series called, "Candy" with Jessica Biel. It's another crime drama on Hulu that is a true story, not sure how factual, and has some religious ties. I tried not to read too much about it online. I wonder how it's all affecting those that it happened to that are watching it and how close it is to the truth in their minds. 

[cinepro]

14 hours 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)

FYI, I tried to send you the article in your private messages but it gave me an error and said you can't receive messages.

Maybe it can be read without a subscription?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-those-dangerous-mormons-under-banner-heaven-dustin-lance-black-latter-day-saints-11651783480?link=TD_fnlondon_home.27995a643976ebba&utm_source=fnlondon_home.27995a643976ebba&utm_campaign=circular&utm_medium=WSJ

Edited May 10, 2022 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

FYI, I tried to send you the article in your private messages but it gave me an error and said you can't receive messages.

Maybe it can be read without a subscription?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-those-dangerous-mormons-under-banner-heaven-dustin-lance-black-latter-day-saints-11651783480?link=TD_fnlondon_home.27995a643976ebba&utm_source=fnlondon_home.27995a643976ebba&utm_campaign=circular&utm_medium=WSJ

Thanks for your thoughtfulness. 
 

I don’t tend my PM box, so I’m afraid it’s constantly maxed out. I’ll free up some space if you want to try again. I really would like to read it. 
 

Added later:  Somebody must have left the paywall unlocked, because I was able to read it in its entirety from your link. Thanks. 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

On 4/25/2022 at 11:50 AM, smac97 said:

.....................Imagine this being said of Muslims.  Or Jews.................

Boy, Dustin Lance Black really did his homework......................

Imagine if someone did this to the gay community by assuming that what is true of the parts (John Wayne Gacy) is also true of the whole (the gay community in general).

......................Imagine Dustin Black saying this about Muslims, Hindus, or Jews........................

When this sort of thing takes place in the Jewish community, the Jew who writes such salacious nonsense is termed "a self-hating Jew."  When, however, it is a non-Jew making ridiculous claims about Jews drinking the blood of Gentiles, it becomes standard blood-libel, and the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) springs into action.  But the Mormons are an easy target, and Hollyweird always needs something newly horrific to keep its customers elated and titillated.

Matt 5:11-12, "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting in reading the outrage from some members over the historical inaccuracies presented in the series.  I would like to see the same outrage when looking at some of the productions produced by the Church.  Never saw any production that had Joseph Smith translating the BoM by looking in a hat for example.  That seems like a MAJOR inaccuracy on a very fundamental reporting of historical events.  Or how the "translation" of the Book of Abraham?  Or Joseph only being married to Emma.  Has anyone ever seen a production where all the other wives of Joseph Smith were included?

Any members outraged about that?  Crickets?

Almost all television series are a bit loose with the facts, including the ones the Church has put out. 

Generally speaking, where the more contemporary Church's productions have faced criticism is because of omission of things certain individuals thought were important which the Church deemed as not necessarily spiritually uplifting. Such items do exist. The history of the Church is by no means an example of spiritual perfection (and yes, its phase of not dealing with history appropriately is included in that). Yet, by and large, the "faults" of recent productions are omissions (and even that has gotten flak). Even your examples are sins of omission. Under the Banner of Heaven's faults are not omission or even inclusion, but outright misrepresentation.

The Hoffman series was by no means an attempt to be flattering to the Church. Yet, at the same time it wasn't rife with overtly false portrayals. As such, I didn't mind it.

 

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

She does have control over how she is presenting it though, I would think.

Sure, but she would have only been presenting things to the actual creatives (e.g., writers, directors, costume designers, etc.) not to us, the viewers.