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

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

How is that different than the Church portraying it's history to the world and it's members in a way that the members back then wouldn't recognize?  Do you think Emma would be surprised at how the Church throughout its history portrayed how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon?  Do you think she would be saying, hey wait a minute, where did this narrative come from? That is nothing like how he translated the Book of Mormon.

Edit:  I should have read a little further.  I see that HJW asked the same question.

Well, historical inaccuracies like that also bug me.

But if we're saying that UTBOH is on par with ham-fisted Church propaganda videos in its accuracy, tone, and intent (not to mention the quality of the acting and writing), I guess...I agree?

Edited May 10, 2022 by cinepro

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

I think this was a good critique of the show: https://religionandpolitics.org/2022/05/10/violence-in-mormon-ways-a-review-of-under-the-banner-of-heaven/

 

I agree with that article too. I think the problem is that defenders of the show equate its message and the meaning they get from it (and frankly, what they desperately want it to mean) with the value of the show in general.

But when I say the dialogue is terrible, the acting and direction are overdrawn, and from what I can tell, the depictions of 1984 American Fork Mormon culture stilted and off-key, I'm not saying that what happened wasn't a tragedy, and the problems of zealotry and violence in the Church shouldn't be discussed.

I'm just saying it isn't a very good show.

This reminds me of when Star Wars Episode 1 came out in 1999, and the shock Star Wars fans experienced. We wanted to like it so much. It was supposed to be the greatest movie ever. But I saw it three times in theaters before I finally admitted it was terrible. I haven't been able to sit through it since.

Likewise, I expect this show will be discussed and referenced for many years to come in some quarters. But it won't be being re-watched.

Edited May 10, 2022 by cinepro

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I agree with that article too. I think the problem is that defenders of the show equate its message and the meaning they get from it with the value of the show in general.

But when I say the dialogue is terrible, the acting and direction are overdrawn, and from what I can tell, the depictions of 1984 American Fork Mormon culture of stilted and off-key, I'm not saying that what happened wasn't a tragedy, and the problems of zealotry and violence in the Church shouldn't be discussed.

I'm just saying it isn't a very good show.

Precisely. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I agree with that article too. I think the problem is that defenders of the show equate its message and the meaning they get from it with the value of the show in general.

But when I say the dialogue is terrible, the acting and direction are overdrawn, and from what I can tell, the depictions of 1984 American Fork Mormon culture of stilted and off-key, I'm not saying that what happened wasn't a tragedy, and the problems of zealotry and violence in the Church shouldn't be discussed.

I'm just saying it isn't a very good show.

I don't disagree with you there.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Thanks for posting that. I find myself in agreement with Dr. Petrey, whose analysis is solid, as usual. 

It was a good review.  This was a great point:

Quote

 

What would it mean to think about those who abuse in Mormon ways? Conservative and fundamentalist Mormon violence is not the same as the violence and coverup of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. But the fact is that Mormonism does have a persistence of right-wing extremists who operate both within the mainstream church and among its fundamentalist offshoots. The Laffertys were not only religious extremists, but they were also involved in far-right politics, including opposing federal authority and taxes. This isn’t just an accident in modern Mormonism. Ezra Taft Benson was a senior leader who rose to the office of president of the church in the second half of the 20th century. Benson was drawn to the John Birch Society and other extremist ideologies, and his teachings continue to contribute to the radicalization of many Latter-day Saints.

So, it isn’t just fundamentalist polygamous Mormons who embrace these ideas. This brand of Mormonism inspired an online collective of Mormon separatists and fascists known as #DezNat (short for Deseret Nationalism) in recent years. It also inspired the Bundy family who led an armed stand-off against the federal government in 2014 and an armed takeover of federal property in 2016, which led to the death of one of their men. The Bundys are members of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in good standing.

 

It seems really odd to me that the true believers here deny seem strident in pretending these problematic ideas don't drive some Latter-day Saints to extremes. Look at the political side of things.  LDS people often are on the right wing fringes.  Look at science and the Rodney Meldrum types. They may not be violent but their beliefs are certainly fringe in many areas and border on racist ideas quite often.

[jkwilliams]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It was a good review.  This was a great point:

It seems really odd to me that the true believers here deny seem strident in pretending these problematic ideas don't drive some Latter-day Saints to extremes. Look at the political side of things.  LDS people often are on the right wing fringes.  Look at science and the Rodney Meldrum types. They may not be violent but their beliefs are certainly fringe in many areas and border on racist ideas quite often.

One need only visit LDS Freedom Forum to get a taste of this creepy mix of Mormon theology and extremism. A lot of those folks are openly supportive of violence. 

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

One need only visit LDS Freedom Forum to get a taste of this creepy mix of Mormon theology and extremism. A lot of those folks are openly supportive of violence. 

Deznat 🤔

[Amulek]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It seems really odd to me that the true believers here deny seem strident in pretending these problematic ideas don't drive some Latter-day Saints to extremes. Look at the political side of things.  LDS people often are on the right wing fringes.

I tend to think of it in terms of populations. Within any sufficiently large population you are going to see a wide range of different beliefs, political views, personality types, etc.

It doesn't surprise me that there might be a certain number of right wing extremists within Mormonism (or Protestantism, or any other -ism for that matter). The question that matters, however, is whether or not Mormonism creates, promotes, or in some other way naturally leads to these results.

And that seems like an easy enough question to answer. If Mormonism qua Mormonism really is the driving factor here, certainly it ought to be easy to point out this same phenomenon happening in other places where Mormonism exists: say, in Brazil, for example.

My understanding is that there are tons of Mormons in South America, and they aren't especially "right wing fringe" types; quite the opposite in fact, with most being very pro Labor.

So if Mormonism isn't doing this in South America, or Japan, or Tonga, or France, or wherever else, then maybe the problem isn't really Mormonism after all. Maybe critics are just using these outliers as an excuse to justify hanging an albatross around the neck of Mormonism.

 

[jkwilliams]

42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Deznat 🤔

Those Uruguayan brothers who threatened to kill me and my family were right-wing extremists as well as religious nutcases. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

One need only visit LDS Freedom Forum to get a taste of this creepy mix of Mormon theology and extremism. A lot of those folks are openly supportive of violence. 

QFT

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It seems really odd to me that the true believers here deny seem strident in pretending these problematic ideas don't drive some Latter-day Saints to extremes. Look at the political side of things.  LDS people often are on the right wing fringes.  Look at science and the Rodney Meldrum types. They may not be violent but their beliefs are certainly fringe in many areas and border on racist ideas quite often.

I acknowledge that some LDS extremists take these problematic ideas and run with them, but I don't think the problematic ideas are the cause of their extremism.  LDS people are sometimes (I wouldn't say often) on the right wing fringes, but there are more non-Latter-day Saint right wing extremists in the country than Latter-day Saint right wing extremists. 

If our past teachings were the genesis of these fringe ideologies and groups, that wouldn't be the case.

Edited May 11, 2022 by bluebell

[smac97]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

One need only visit LDS Freedom Forum to get a taste of this creepy mix of Mormon theology and extremism. A lot of those folks are openly supportive of violence. 

And they are going against the counsel of the leaders of the Church.  I think that matters.  A lot.

Consider, for example, these 2020 remarks by Pres. Oaks:

Quote

President Howard W. Hunter taught: “The world in which we live would benefit greatly if men and women everywhere would exercise the pure love of Christ, which is kind, meek, and lowly. It is without envy or pride. … It seeks nothing in return. … It has no place for bigotry, hatred, or violence. … It encourages diverse people to live together in Christian love regardless of religious belief, race, nationality, financial standing, education, or culture.”

And President Russell M. Nelson has urged us to “expand our circle of love to embrace the whole human family.”

An essential part of loving our enemies is to render unto Caesar by keeping the laws of our various countries. Though Jesus’s teachings were revolutionary, He did not teach revolution or lawbreaking. He taught a better way. Modern revelation teaches the same:

“Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

“Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:21–22).

And our article of faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith after the early Saints had suffered severe persecution from Missouri officials, declares, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12).

This does not mean that we agree with all that is done with the force of law. It means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome. In a democratic society we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, ttribe said:

QFT

"Quantum Field Theory"?

"Qualcomm Flarion Technologies"?

"Qualified Funeral Trust"?

"Quoted For Truth"?

"Quit Freaking Talking"?

"Quite Freaking True"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And they are going against the counsel of the leaders of the Church.  I think that matters.  A lot.

Consider, for example, these 2020 remarks by Pres. Oaks:

Thanks,

-Smac

Many (most?) of them believe the current leaders are fallen. They spend a great deal of time stating that the 'spirit' told them the leaders are wrong on one issue or another and then quoting Joseph Smith as much as possible to justify their positions.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I tend to think of it in terms of populations. Within any sufficiently large population you are going to see a wide range of different beliefs, political views, personality types, etc.

It doesn't surprise me that there might be a certain number of right wing extremists within Mormonism (or Protestantism, or any other -ism for that matter). The question that matters, however, is whether or not Mormonism creates, promotes, or in some other way naturally leads to these results.

And that seems like an easy enough question to answer. If Mormonism qua Mormonism really is the driving factor here, certainly it ought to be easy to point out this same phenomenon happening in other places where Mormonism exists: say, in Brazil, for example.

My understanding is that there are tons of Mormons in South America, and they aren't especially "right wing fringe" types; quite the opposite in fact, with most being very pro Labor.

So if Mormonism isn't doing this in South America, or Japan, or Tonga, or France, or wherever else, then maybe the problem isn't really Mormonism after all. Maybe critics are just using these outliers as an excuse to justify hanging an albatross around the neck of Mormonism.

Further, if Mormonism qua Mormonism really is the driving factor here, I think the proponents of that idea would be able to quantify and substantiate it.  These same folks constantly declare the Church to be intolerably "authoritarian," so you would think that they could produce authoritative statements from leaders of the Church.

Instead, what do we get?  We have Pres. Oaks saying stuff like what I just quoted above.  And that is nothing new.  See, e.g., Pres. Oaks' remarks in April 2021:

Quote

First is the principle that the source of government power is the people. In a time when sovereign power was universally assumed to come from the divine right of kings or from military power, attributing sovereign power to the people was revolutionary. Philosophers had advocated this, but the United States Constitution was the first to apply it. Sovereign power in the people does not mean that mobs or other groups of people can intervene to intimidate or force government action. The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives.
...
Fifth and finally, I see divine inspiration in the vital purpose of the entire Constitution. We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder. In this way, all persons are to be equal before the law. These principles block the autocratic ambitions that have corrupted democracy in some countries. They also mean that none of the three branches of government should be dominant over the others or prevent the others from performing their proper constitutional functions to check one another.
...
What else are faithful Latter-day Saints to do? We must pray for the Lord to guide and bless all nations and their leaders. This is part of our article of faith. Being subject to presidents or rulers of course poses no obstacle to our opposing individual laws or policies. It does require that we exercise our influence civilly and peacefully within the framework of our constitutions and applicable laws. On contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.

(Emphases added.)

And this article from 1992:

Quote

During the church’s annual conference in October, Apostle Boyd K. Packer cautioned members not to be deceived by people who ″tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world ... They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults.″

The Tribune said the church is targeting members who are obsessed with the early speeches of Mormon Church President Ezra Taft Benson and who believe the ailing, 93-year-old leader has been silenced because his opinions no longer are politically popular.

Benson, a U.S. secretary of agriculture under President Eisenhower, was closely associated with the ultraconservative John Birch Society, and he tried for 20 years to get the society the church’s blessing.

″We support President Benson 100 percent,″ said Elaine Harmston, who said she was excommunicated from her Manti ward last month with her husband, Jim. ″He has warned us thoroughly. But there are some brethren who speak 180 degrees against him.″

In a recent speech, Elder Malcolm Jeppson, a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy and overseer of the Utah-South region of the church, urged Mormons not to ″take out of context words and statements made by church presidents that were given at a different time and circumstance than the present.″

During a meeting of church leaders from central and southern Utah earlier this month, Jeppson outlined a profile of dissidents. Presidents of church districts (which are called stakes) have used that profile to compile a list of warning signs.

Among activities on the list are home schooling of children, membership in the John Birch Society, holding religious study groups or seminars outside the church, performing church rituals outside the temple, reading doomsday books and quoting an exact day of the coming of Jesus Christ.

And this article from 2016:

Quote

A Mormon leader is warning followers not to practice “gospel extremism” such as expensive preparations for catastrophic scenarios.

Quentin L. Cook, a member of a top leadership council called the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said Saturday during a church conference that extremism includes people advocating for changes to the faith’s health guidelines that include prohibition on drinking coffee or alcohol.

He also singled out people who make “expensive preparation for end of days scenarios,” in an apparent reference to preppers.

“If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark,” Cook said.

And these December 2021 changes to the Handbook:

Quote

Memo to Latter-day Saint social media commenters: Your church has added strong wording to its General Handbook, condemning “threatening, bullying, degrading, violent, or otherwise abusive language or images online.”

No groups or individuals are specifically named, but there is no exception for those claiming to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including users associated with @DezNat (or Deseret Nation), who frequently employ harsh rhetoric and drawings of knives and guns to attack church critics or Latter-day Saint progressives.

If online threats “of illegal acts occur,” the new section says, “law enforcement should be contacted immediately.”

Further, members should avoid “all statements of prejudice toward others,” the new wording states. It links to the handbook’s section on prejudice, which says, “This includes prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, tribe, gender, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religious belief or nonbelief, and sexual orientation.”

Latter-day Saints should share uplifting content, the updated handbook says, and “strive to be Christlike to others at all times, including online, and reflect a sincere respect for all of God’s children.”

Adam Ebberts, who has used and defended the #DezNat hashtag, acknowledged Wednesday on Twitter that the handbook language “is probably a #DezNat inspired policy.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And they are going against the counsel of the leaders of the Church.  I think that matters.  A lot.

Consider, for example, these 2020 remarks by Pres. Oaks:

Thanks,

-Smac

It would matter a lot if anyone were claiming that the church’s current teachings encourage violence. I don’t think even Dustin Black is claiming that. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Further, if Mormonism qua Mormonism really is the driving factor here, I think the proponents of that idea would be able to quantify and substantiate it.  These same folks constantly declare the Church to be intolerably "authoritarian," so you would think that they could produce authoritative statements from leaders of the Church.

Instead, what do we get?  We have Pres. Oaks saying stuff like what I just quoted above.  And that is nothing new.  See, e.g., Pres. Oaks' remarks in April 2021:

(Emphases added.)

And this article from 1992:

And this article from 2016:

And these December 2021 changes to the Handbook:

Thanks,

-Smac

For the record, I don’t believe “Mormonism qua Mormonism really is the driving factor here.” Are some historical teachings and cultural aspects of Mormonism (as a broad movement) factors in the development of extremism? I agree with Brother Petrey on that score. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Many (most?) of them believe the current leaders are fallen.

I think that's an essential component of the narrative they are telling themselves.

Meanwhile, Jon Krakauer and Dustin Lance Black are peddling a narrative that the Church "breeds dangerous men."  Kinda hard to square that with the consistent and ongoing counsel from the Church condemning extremism, violence, prejudice, threats, bullying, etc.  

15 minutes ago, ttribe said:

They spend a great deal of time stating that the 'spirit' told them the leaders are wrong on one issue or another and then quoting Joseph Smith as much as possible to justify their positions.

There is a concept in the law called "ultra vires."  Latin for "outside/beyond the powers."  More:

Quote

Ultra vires ('beyond the powers') is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act which requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires ('within the powers'). Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid", and those that are ultra vires termed "invalid".

Legal issues relating to ultra vires can arise in a variety of contexts:

• Companies and other legal persons sometimes have limited legal capacity to act, and attempts to engage in activities beyond their legal capacities may be ultra vires.^[3] Most countries have restricted the doctrine of ultra vires in relation to companies by statute.
• Similarly, statutory and governmental bodies may have limits upon the acts and activities which they legally engage in.^[4]
• Subordinate legislation which is purported passed without the proper legal authority may be invalid as beyond the powers of the authority which issued it.

The folks you describe are behaving "ultra vires."  Part and parcel of being a faithful Latter-day Saint is sustaining and following the leaders of the Church.  My rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Joseph Fielding Smith, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.  

So if I find the statement to be "beyond" what it is the Standard Works, then I generally either reject it or label it in my mind as a person opinion of the speaker (and hence I am not bound by it).  If I find the statement to contradict the Standard Works, then I reject it altogether.  

As to the counsel given to us by the Brethren pertaining to extremism, violence, etc., I find such counsel to be both squarely within the parameters of the Restored Gospel and also well-reasoned and prudent, such that I am bound to follow it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It would matter a lot if anyone were claiming that the church’s current teachings encourage violence. I don’t think even Dustin Black is claiming that. 

Umm...

Quote

"Our faith breeds dangerous men" is the throughline of FX's new detective mystery series Under the Banner of Heaven, a reminder that all the horrendous crimes and acts of inhumanity that we see throughout this series come back to one thing: religion.

And here:

Quote

But for Allen Lafferty — sitting in an interrogation room, only a few hours after his wife and 15-month-old daughter were murdered — that position doesn’t apply to the LDS Church. Not anymore, and maybe not ever.  “If you really still believe our God is love,” he tells the detective, a fellow Mormon, “then you really don’t know who you are, brother. This faith, our faith, breeds dangerous men.”

Little else needs to be said to appreciate the trenchant message in “Under the Banner of Heaven,” as adapted by Dustin Lance Black

Here:

Quote

Brenda's husband, Allen Lafferty (Billy Howle), challenges Pyre's beliefs, telling him in the premiere, "This faith, our faith, breeds dangerous men."

"The journey that Jeb goes on is a journey of expansion, coming from a very narrow worldview into a psyche, cracking open and realizing that he's been living in a form of ignorance and brainwashing for all of his life," says Garfield, 38. "He was born into this religion, basically."

Here:

Quote

"Our faith breeds dangerous men," Jeb is told. And that loaded statement electrifies every scene in this series that uses the past to ask pertinent and unsettling questions about the rise of fundamentalism in a modern world where women need to be subjugated to their masters and "blood-atoned" for the sin of disobedience.

Here:

Quote

Oscar-winning writer Dustin Lance Black is hoping to bring a sense of accountability to the Mormon church with his new limited series 'Under the Banner of Heaven'.

The screen adaptation of the true-crime bestseller by Jon Krakauer sees Andrew Garfield, fresh off his second Oscar nomination for 'Tick, Tick…Boom!', as Detective Jeb Pyre investigating the Salt Lake City murder of Brenda Wright Lafferty (Daisy Edgar-Jones) and her baby. Dustin, a former member of the Mormon church, though the show uncovers buried truths about the origins of the religion and the violent consequences of unyielding faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I acknowledge that some LDS extremists take these problematic ideas and run with them, but I don't think the problematic ideas are the cause of their extremism.  LDS people are sometimes (I wouldn't say often) on the right wing fringes, but there are more non-Latter-day Saint right wing extremists in the country than Latter-day Saint right wing extremists. 

If our past teachings were the genesis of these fringe ideologies and groups, that wouldn't be the case.

👍

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Umm...

And here:

Here:

Here:

Here:

Thanks,

-Smac

He seems to be talking about broader Mormonism, and fundamentalist Mormonism in particular. Meh, not worth arguing about. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

For the record, I don’t believe “Mormonism qua Mormonism really is the driving factor here.” Are some historical teachings and cultural aspects of Mormonism (as a broad movement) factors in the development of extremism? I agree with Brother Petrey on that score. 

That seems pretty attenuated.  

I appreciate the disclaimer re: "driving factor," but my sense is that you are still imposing a causal relationship between "historical teachings and cultural aspects of Mormonism," and on that basis are asserting some measure of culpability against the Church for extremists.  This despite the clear and unequivocal teachings of the Brethren for many, many years that condemn extremism, violence, prejudice, etc., and which exhort members to honor and sustain the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

He seems to be talking about broader Mormonism, and fundamentalist Mormonism in particular. Meh, not worth arguing about. 

Dustin Lance Black:

Quote

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That seems pretty attenuated.  

I appreciate the disclaimer re: "driving factor," but my sense is that you are still imposing a causal relationship between "historical teachings and cultural aspects of Mormonism," and on that basis are asserting some measure of culpability against the Church for extremists.  This despite the clear and unequivocal teachings of the Brethren for many, many years that condemn extremism, violence, prejudice, etc., and which exhort members to honor and sustain the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are reading a lot more into what I said than is warranted. I am not imposing a causal relationship, merely stating the obvious: Mormon extremism occurs in a Mormon context. It doesn't arise in a vacuum. 

And what is this nonsense about "culpability"? Is Thomas Jefferson guilty of fomenting extremism because the nutlogs on the right have twisted the Constitution into some kind of idolatry?

Edited May 11, 2022 by jkwilliams

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

And that seems like an easy enough question to answer. If Mormonism qua Mormonism really is the driving factor here, certainly it ought to be easy to point out this same phenomenon happening in other places where Mormonism exists: say, in Brazil, for example.

I have to admit I really feel out of the loop on a lot of this, since I don't live in Utah and I (apparently) don't ever roam the same corners of the internet as "Deznat". It seems to be another one of those things where extremism in the Church is ever-present and prevalent to some people, but it just leaves me scratching my head.

Take the Jan 6 insurrection/riot. Some critics have pointed to there being some LDS people in the crowd as being evidence of the Church "breeding" this kind of extremist violence. Certainly, cosplay Moroni guy doesn't help the optics. But from the estimated 2,000 - 2,500 rioters, and the 800 who have been charged, how many were LDS? I have no idea. 20? 50? 100?

Then consider how many adult men are in the LDS Church in the United States. There are 12,000 wards, so estimate how many active, adult men are in an average ward. I would guess 40, but insert your own number here. So with my estimate, there would be about 480,000 active adult LDS men in the US, and 100(?) participated in the capitol riot. How many are associated with "DezNat"? I have no idea, but is it more than 100? 1,000?

The point being, if it's the Church's purpose to create extremism and violence (or we're going to argue that extremism is simply a bi-product that is concerning enough to warrant a Hulu miniseries), this would have to be chalked up as one of the things at which the Church is massively and totally failing.

I mean, if my experience in EQ was any indication, the Church could barely muster enough energy in its men to home teach a couple times a year, or even come to Church regularly. Over-zealousness was not something that seemed to be a big problem.

Edited May 11, 2022 by cinepro