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

[jkwilliams]

Just now, cinepro said:

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.

Agreed. What I find odd is that I'm being told that there is zero connection between Mormonism and the Lafferty case. I don't know if we (church members and other Mormons) are more prone to extremism or not. But to say that there is never any intersection between religious and political extremism among Mormon adherents is, well, ludicrous. Yet to note the obvious is to assign culpability to the LDS church collectively and individually, or something like that. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You are reading a lot more into what I said than is warranted.

Like when you referenced “Der Ewige Jude” and then accused me of comparing Black to Nazis (and even "doubling down" on it)?

In any event, I stand corrected and apologize.

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

"It doesn't arise in a vacuum" sure seems to be hinting rather strongly as causality.

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

And what is this nonsense about "culpability"?

It's an inquiry. 

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Is Thomas Jefferson guilty of fomenting extremism because the nutlogs on the right have twisted the Constitution into some kind of idolatry?

No.  Sounds like we agree more than we disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Like when you referenced “Der Ewige Jude” and then accused me of comparing Black to Nazis (and even "doubling down" on it)?

In any event, I stand corrected and apologize.

"It doesn't arise in a vacuum" sure seems to be hinting rather strongly as causality.

It's an inquiry. 

No.  Sounds like we agree more than we disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

I made a sarcastic remark about an antisemitic film, and I shouldn't have. I didn't think you would take it seriously. For that I apologize.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I made a sarcastic remark about an antisemitic film, and I shouldn't have.  I didn't think you would take it seriously. For that I apologize.

Thanks.

-Smac

[Calm]

9 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 many have left the Church at least in their own minds because they did not find enough support for their ideas.

Given how difficult it typically is to change people’s minds on the way they see the world, I am inclined to believe people get into the fringe movements because they go looking for something to match their current state of mind and then they nurture the extreme because it rewards what is in them somehow rather than typical people with typical levels of violence or insecurity in their souls come across the fringe ideas and their POV of the world and how they think is changed.

The Lafferty sons were prone to violence most likely because of the abuse they endured from their father.  Their father liked to claim he was basing his treatment on church teachings, but he knew well enough to hide his abuse of his family from those outside the family he could not control given the community’s view of him was very different than the reality.  When you have to hide who you are from your community, I think it less likely the source of who you are is that community (in the sense that you are following the actual fundamentals of that community).  It just doesn’t make sense to me.

I am not denying that there was violence in our history and justification for that violence or that gets downplayed or even ignored by many, especially awhile ago (to me that is a sign of the changing mores and morals in the Church community to less acceptance of violence, which is not a bad thing and is an understandable first step to becoming nonviolent).  I am saying extremism that is contrary to a community’s current world view shouldn’t be blamed on the community if they have truly distanced themselves through better teachings and culture.  A society that is now pacifist because they learned from the effects of violence in the past on their community should not be blamed for the members that won’t accept the new teachings and go digging in history to find justification for their own drive to violence (am using this hypothetical as a clear example of what I mean and am not saying Church culture is now pacifism ).

Edited May 12, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

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.

And a lot of them appeal to the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, etc as well.  Do you believe the American culture in general breeds violence?  Sincere question.  I know of some people who do.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

5 hours 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. 

At what point is a community allowed to disassociate from teachings/culture of its past that conflict with current teachings instead of being held held responsible for those who choose past teachings over current ones?

[ttribe]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

And a lot of them appeal to the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, etc as well.  Do you believe the American culture in general breeds violence?  Sincere question.  I know of some people who do.

I don't know. It's hard not to say that everything seems to breed violence these days. I feel myself walking a line with this element of the controversy. My sense is that Krakauer used that approach to sell books and that DLB is using to get eyeballs on his show. At the same time, I can't easily dismiss the reality of the words and actions of early Church leaders, nor can I dismiss the presence of the graphic penalties utilized in the Temple for a very long time.

[Rivers]

Against my better judgment, I watched the fourth episode.  The show is ridiculous.  I don’t see how anyone can take it seriously.  It’s got kind of a silly Dan Brown vibe going on.  I can sort of go along with it on that level.  

[jkwilliams]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

At what point is a community allowed to disassociate from teachings/culture of its past that conflict with current teachings instead of being held held responsible for those who choose past teachings over current ones?

Again, I’m not talking about responsibility. Unlike Mr. Black, I don’t think the church needs to be held accountable, whatever that means. What I object to is the blanket denial that Mormon (again broadly speaking) violence has any connection to its Mormon context. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I’m not talking about responsibility. Unlike Mr. Black, I don’t think the church needs to be held accountable, whatever that means. What I object to is the blanket denial that Mormon (again broadly speaking) violence has any connection to its Mormon context. 

So saying “yes, violent people sometimes use historical ideas and twist them to justify their own violence in our era and this happens in the Mormon community as well as many others” would be sufficient for you?

[jkwilliams]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

So saying “yes, violent people sometimes use historical ideas and twist them to justify their own violence in our era and this happens in the Mormon community as well as many others” would be sufficient for you?

Close enough, yes. 

I took a deep dive into the past this morning. Just Google “James Gedo” and/or “David Gedo.” These are the two Uruguayan brothers I’ve mentioned from my ward in Orem, Utah  

Sometime before I moved into the neighborhood in the early 90s, they were arrested for possession of a machine gun, which they were going to use to “rescue” President Benson. They were convinced he was being drugged and held captive to prevent him from speaking out against the New World Order. Apparently the feds dropped the charges in exchange for the brothers to relocate to Uruguay for 2 years, where they were when I moved in. Their mother was still living in the ward. 

The ward was a hotbed of right-wing extremism. Our neighbors on all three sides were heavily into Bircherism, etc. A couple of men on our street kept telling me that the Brethren had lost touch, and it was up to us to reform the church from within, like Jedediah Grant. Needless to say, testimony meetings were usually hijacked by antigovernment rants, usually couched in scriptural references. 

Then the Gedos moved back. Google “Gedo v. Orem” for a description of that memorable Sunday when the building filled with cops during Sunday School. That led to my delivering a letter banning them from church property, which in turn led them to threaten to kill me and my family. The mother referred to me and the bishop as “little Hitlers.”

At that time I home taught a right-wing family who signed me up for a half-dozen extremist magazines. It was fun having to cancel all of them. Not shockingly, David Gedo, the younger brother, ended up suing the wife of this family alleging paternity of one of their kids. 

I suppose 6 years living among this crowd colored my view of right-wing Mormonism. To me, there’s just a hair’s difference between them and the Laffertys. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Hamba Tuhan]

 

Exclusive: The real Brenda Lafferty is lost in ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ series, her sister says

Series is ‘absolute fiction,’ Sharon Wright Weeks says, while the real story is less about religion and more about ‘jealousy and revenge’

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Exclusive: The real Brenda Lafferty is lost in ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ series, her sister says

Series is ‘absolute fiction,’ Sharon Wright Weeks says, while the real story is less about religion and more about ‘jealousy and revenge’

 

My limited understanding is that the triggering event was Brenda’s support of Dianna Lafferty leaving her husband and taking their kids to Florida. Of course, that’s not all of it, as certainly religious belief was tied up in it. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Again, I’m not talking about responsibility. Unlike Mr. Black, I don’t think the church needs to be held accountable, whatever that means. What I object to is the blanket denial that Mormon (again broadly speaking) violence has any connection to its Mormon context. 

Seems like a simple and accurate concept.  The strident resistance to the concept by the true believers is amazing.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose 6 years living among this crowd colored my view of right-wing Mormonism. To me, there’s just a hair’s difference between them and the Laffertys. 

It would have mine.  

My personal exposure to those who twist the past to suit their own current desires is a former bishop who talked another ward member into having an affair by claiming she would be his plural wife in the next life.  I think the plural marriage angle was pure self justification and manipulation given the details she told me, but she was furious with him at that point and I was getting a biased description…still it fit very well with my own perception of him (he seemed shallow, not invested in/caring about anything much beyond his own comfort even as a bishop) though no one else appeared to feel the same way about him, so I could be quite wrong.

There was another family in the ward who lost a niece because her somewhat delusional husband convinced her to go into the forest with him and pray and not come out until they had their own First Vision.  She had more faith than he did and died while he popped out and tried to escape the government’s notice, but ended up in jail iirc as he was competent in most ways.  I didn’t know either, but he had issues since his youth, likely schizophrenic iirc.  She had problems as well, but can’t remember if they were mental or emotional.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would have mine.  

My personal exposure to those who twist the past to suit their own current desires is a former bishop who talked another ward member into having an affair by claiming she would be his plural wife in the next life.  I think the plural marriage angle was pure self justification and manipulation given the details she told me, but she was furious with him at that point and I was getting a biased description…still it fit very well with my own perception of him (he seemed shallow, not invested in/caring about anything much beyond his own comfort even as a bishop) though no one else appeared to feel the same way about him, so I could be quite wrong.

There was another family in the ward who lost a niece because her somewhat delusional husband convinced her to go into the forest with him and pray and not come out until they had their own First Vision.  She had more faith than he did and died while he popped out and tried to escape the government’s notice, but ended up in jail iirc as he was competent in most ways.  I didn’t know either, but he had issues since his youth, likely schizophrenic iirc.  She had problems as well, but can’t remember if they were mental or emotional.

For me, it’s impossible to separate the religious from the political in the interactions I had with the crazies in Orem. I don’t blame the church. I remember that as elders quorum president I begged some of these guys to return to allegiance to the church and its leaders and to let go of extreme beliefs that took them off the right path. Blaming the church for their craziness would have blaming myself. 

[smac97]

The sister of Brenda Lafferty has weighed in on the miniseries:

Quote

Exclusive: The real Brenda Lafferty is lost in ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ series, her sister says

Series is ‘absolute fiction,’ Sharon Wright Weeks says, while the real story is less about religion and more about ‘jealousy and revenge’

By Katie McKellar | May 11, 2022, 10:00pm MDT

"Less about religion and more about 'jealousy and revenge'" doesn't really fit Dustin Black's preferred narrative against the Church, though.

Quote

When Sharon Wright Weeks, the sister and aunt of Brenda and Erica Lafferty, found out last year along with everyone else that the limited TV series adapted from Jon Krakauer’s book “Under the Banner of Heaven” would be airing, she braced herself.

She knows the vicious cycle all too well. She and her family have lived it for decades. The morbid fascination with the “infamous” Lafferty murders lives on, overshadowing 24-year-old Brenda and 15-month-old Erica’s memories with blood and gore.

Weeks — now a vocal advocate against the death penalty in Utah — blames that obsession in large part on the heightened media attention that locks on capital punishment cases. Today, almost 40 years after Brenda’s and Erica’s lives were stolen, their family is yet again submerged in a media frenzy as each new episode of “Under the Banner of Heaven” airs.

The link about Weeks' advocacy against the death penalty is very much worth a read.  It's a difficult read, though.

Quote

“I knew it was coming. I felt a heavy feeling that my sister was going to be murdered all over again on Tuesday, April 28, at 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time,” Weeks told the Deseret News in an exclusive interview this week. “That’s what it felt like.”

Weeks understood the dramatized “Under the Banner of Heaven” series would ignite more curiosity and flood her with questions. She expected that. But what she didn’t expect was just how far the show would stray from reality. And how frustrated she’d be with the damage done to Brenda’s memory.

“This series, it’s absolute fiction,” Weeks said.

Interesting, then, that the article states that Black sought out her and her parents' input early on (see below).

Narrative over accuracy for Black, I guess.  It's a pretty human thing to do this.  

Quote

So Weeks wants to set the record straight. She wants the show’s viewers to differentiate fact from fiction. She wants them to know who Brenda truly was — and what the show gets wrong about her sister’s memory, her personality, and even her relationship with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“I’m frustrated,” Weeks said. “I’m frustrated with how it leads people. It doesn’t lead people to the truth or the reality of what happened.”

Brenda is ‘being used’

The series latches onto Krakauer’s book’s controversial take that “the roots of (Ron and Dan’s) crime lie deep in the history” of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Along the way, Weeks said the show sweeps Brenda up into that larger “agenda” against the church, even though she said Brenda “absolutely loved” her faith.

“It’s disappointing that she’s being used,” Weeks said. “It’s not hard to see that (writer Dustin Lance Black) does not look kindly on the religion.”

Dustin Lance Black is using the murder of Brenda Lafferty, who "'absolutely loved' her faith," to attack and degrade her faith.

Yep.

Quote

It’s no surprise that the TV series highlights Ron and Dan Lafferty’s fundamentalist religious and political beliefs. But, even though the Lafferty brothers were excommunicated for their extreme views before they committed their crimes, it paints the church in a similar broad brush — while ignoring what Weeks said is the real story behind Brenda and Erica’s murders.

While national headlines labeled the Lafferty murders as “religious killings,” Weeks said anyone who paid attention to the court cases — especially the 1996 retrial — would know prosecutors accused Ron Lafferty of using his religious views as a cover for what was really a “crime of passion.”

A "crime of passion" doesn't really fit Dustin Black's preferred narrative against the Church, though.

Quote

In court, Dan Lafferty said he was fulfilling the “revelation” Ron claimed to have received, calling for the “removal” of Brenda, Erica and two church leaders. Prosecutors said Ron Lafferty used the “revelation” as an excuse, and the killings were revenge for encouragement Brenda gave to Diana Lafferty, who divorced Ron in 1983.

That’s what the series misses while focusing on religious extremes, Weeks said: The real story about how “dangerous” human emotions of “jealousy and revenge” can be.

Brenda Lafferty encouraged Diana Lafferty to divorce Ron.

Ron murdered Brenda and her baby in revenge.

This is sordid, ugly stuff, but it doesn't really fit Dustin Black's preferred narrative against the Church.

Quote

“There are extreme people in every aspect of every situation,” Weeks said, religious or not. While Ron and Dan Lafferty were indeed “fanatical” about their small, splinter religious group called the School of the Prophets, Weeks said “religion was such a small part” of Ron and Dan Lafferty’s views, which she said were “way more extreme governmentally.”

 

“Religion had nothing to do with the reason Brenda and Erica were murdered,” Weeks said. “I guess you have to go through the court process and listen to the prosecutor tell the story about why it wasn’t a religious killing. Why Ron Lafferty was not incompetent. And how the crimes were determined to be a crime of passion, murders of revenge, and it had nothing to do with religion.”

Yet, “Under the Banner of Heaven” series writer Dustin Lance Black has “spun it” to suggest the church “creates violent people,” Weeks said.

Yep.

This is being published in the Deseret News.  I'll be curious to see how much, if any, further media coverage Weeks' comments will get. 

You would think the perspective of the murder victim's family would be newsworthy.  Unless that perspective detracts from Black's preferred narrative...

Quote

To draw a singular line from Brenda’s and Erica’s murder to some violent chapters of the church’s past makes for great storytelling, Weeks said. However, she said it washes away who Brenda really was and what really happened.

And religious history experts have said that approach is problematic because it ignores the church’s full history while focusing only on the extremes.

“My concern is, I think a lot of people will see (“Under the Banner of Heaven”) and see it as actual history when it has the contours of history, but there’s a lot of departures from actual history,” Barbara Jones Brown, former executive director of the Mormon History Association, told KSL-TV.

Good commentary, this.

Quote

Not to ‘diminish’ others’ experiences

Despite her misgivings with the series, Weeks wants to be clear she doesn’t harbor ill feelings toward Black, saying she understands he had every right to do what he wanted with his own project because Krakauer sold the rights.

She also said she doesn’t want to “diminish anybody’s suffering or experience” within the church, which is what Black is also highlighting with the TV series.

“It’s his truth,” she said. “And he wants that to be shown.”

Oi.

I've never been a fan of "his truth"-style rhetoric.  I appreciate her not "harbor{ing} ill feelings toward Black," both as a matter of Christian forgiveness and as a matter of Free Speech.  But it's pretty inconsistent for Weeks to declare the miniseries to be "absolute fiction" in one breath, and then also say it is "his {Black's} truth" in the next.

Quote

What ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ gets wrong about Brenda

One of the biggest issues Weeks has with the series takes place in Episode 3.

Weeks said she was particularly disappointed to see one of Brenda’s most sacred, intimate and private moments — her temple wedding — depicted in a “creepy” light, even though in reality Brenda “loved every bit of it.”

“It was a personal, beautiful experience that she absolutely cherished,” Weeks said. “She loved every bit of it. She didn’t think it was weird. She didn’t think it was creepy.”

Weeks, who along with Brenda was raised as a Latter-day Saint by “pragmatic” parents in Idaho who didn’t take their religion to extremes, said she’s not active in the church these days, but she knows how “sacred” the temple ceremony is, and she wanted to protect her sister’s memory from being “exploited” in that setting. Weeks said her mother raised her and her sister to be fully prepared for the ceremony, so they knew exactly what to expect.

“I feel like they betrayed Brenda, and that I wasn’t able to prevent that from happening,” Weeks said. “I had no idea they would show her in that setting.”

"Creepy" fits Dustin Black's preferred narrative against the Church, though.

Quote

Weeks is also frustrated Brenda seems to be depicted as a religious fanatic, when in reality she said she had a rather normal relationship with her faith. She said even the protagonist in the series — the fictional Latter-day Saint detective Jeb Pyre, played by Andrew Garfield — speaks like a zealot. She has similar gripes with how Brenda’s husband, Allen, is portrayed.

“She didn’t talk like that,” Weeks said. “When you watch the show, they say ‘Heavenly Father’ like 30 times in the first 10 minutes. And she just didn’t talk like that.”

I grew up in the Church in American Fork and Highland during the 80s.  In 1991 I graduated from American Fork High School and spent the next 18 monhts on active duty in the Army.  I never felt like I needed to adjust or moderate my everyday modes of conversation, terminology, phrasing, etc. to fit in with my fellow soldiers.  The only material distinction about how I talked is that I did not swear, and even then I was not alone.  I had a good friend, a soft-spoken and casually Catholic fellow from Spokane, who never uttered a harsh word or cussed.  And plenty of others only cussed in moderation.  

So I just can't get on board with Black's characterization of zealotry amongst the denizens of Utah County.  We weren't - aren't - that weird.

Quote

Weeks doesn’t have anything negative to say about Daisy Edgar-Jones, who portrays Brenda Lafferty in the miniseries. She applauds Edgar-Jones acting and calls her character “adorable,” “beautiful” and “cute.”

But, the character on the screen? “That’s not Brenda,” Weeks said. “I do not recognize her at all in any of the show.”

Brenda was “tall and athletic.” She was “gorgeous.” She was “stunning,” Weeks said. She described how her sister, a former beauty queen, would never leave the house without her hair done up in spectacular curls. Like many other girls in the ’70s and ’80s, Brenda would never be “caught dead” without skin-tight bell bottom jeans and always wore high heels to school, Weeks said.

Brenda’s confidence and strong-willed personality does at times shine through Edgar-Jones’ character, portraying a “woman before her time.” But Weeks said Brenda’s personality was louder, more fun and much less muted. Weeks said Brenda would curse, laugh loudly and would never hesitate to speak her mind.

“She could burp the alphabet,” Weeks said. “The whole alphabet.”

My daughter is a champion burper.

Quote

The show, however, does accurately depict Brenda’s ambitions with broadcast reporting, Weeks said. She did indeed graduate from Brigham Young University with a degree in journalism. She anchored for KBYU, and she had bigger ambitions.

“She wanted to be the next Diane Sawyer,” Weeks said.

But the scene where a BYU broadcast professor locks Brenda’s character in the studio and makes a suggestive pass at her, that’s total fiction, Weeks said.

“All women ... are approached sexually throughout their life. Brenda was no different. I know people left notes on her cars and her locker ... but a BYU professor never crossed the line with Brenda,” Weeks said. “She loved all of her colleagues. She loved her experience at BYU.”

If he had? Weeks said the real Brenda’s reaction would have been very different.

“She would have punched somebody,” Weeks said. “She wouldn’t have sat there and calmly talked to somebody if she felt threatened.”

However, that’s not to say some women haven’t had negative experiences at BYU or other institutions, Weeks adds. “But it didn’t happen to her. That did not happen to Brenda.”

BYU being a safe and decent place doesn't Dustin Black's preferred narrative against the Church.

Quote

Weeks said she did consult — very early on — for the series. Way back in 2011, after she first learned Krakauer sold the rights to the book, Weeks said Black came to her home in St. George to talk. She said she “shared everything” and “he promised he wouldn’t even begin to write Brenda until he felt he knew her.” After meeting with her, Weeks said Black also went to Idaho and spent several days meeting her parents.

This was when the show was initially envisioned as a feature film, Weeks said. Along the way, as the story was developed and stretched into a seven-episode series, Brenda’s essence seemed to have gotten lost.

“I wished it wouldn’t have come to fruition,” Weeks said of the show. “Because it’s painful, not just for me but for members of our family.”

This is even-keeled.  She acknowledges Black has the "right" to tell this story.  "I wished it wouldn’t have come to fruition" is a statement of personal preference, not censorship.  I respect that.

Quote

It still hurts to see people “capitalize” and make money off of dramatizing Brenda’s murder, Weeks said. So far in the series, she’s glad to see the violent act itself absent — though the bloody aftermath of the murders was the first scene in the show.

This is a little less accurate.  Yes, he's making money from the miniseries.  But I think the miniseries is, for him, driven by ideology and animus, not money.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2024 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Exclusive: The real Brenda Lafferty is lost in ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ series, her sister says

Series is ‘absolute fiction,’ Sharon Wright Weeks says, while the real story is less about religion and more about ‘jealousy and revenge’

 

It’s been interesting hearing my never-LDS son-in-law’s reaction to the series. He asked me a lot of questions about the temple (“What’s with the hats?”), as my daughter never went to the temple except for baptisms for the dead. I have been trying to toe a line between answering his questions honestly and respecting my wife’s feelings.

My daughter told him she thinks some of the dialogue is exaggerated, “but the basic vibe of living in Utah County is pretty accurate.” So, she thinks it’s more accurate than I do, for what that’s worth.

[Robert F. Smith]

“Why Brenda Lafferty’s sister says ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ is ‘absolute fiction’.” Utah Today (Deseret News), May 12, 2022, https://email.deseret.com/utah-today-2022-05-12?ecid=ACsprvtohvPHrPOvsHFT6xYV26YC48c1s6QbbNPLTBCxz35AeaJu8FtyqGcyAaOndqaQHfDNv-1-&_hsmi=212874564&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-86VwVpq_cBLfp-Wr-eW4a0K_0tyEeBnFxkt3pju3z-uvWzwDZbTACpQHmmkmUY6MrVGQALBCYy4X9935M8nn-RTG1_N-b-Kfb9TXmTxCEDxhfFAzw ,

Quote

Sharon Wright Weeks — Brenda Lafferty's sister and Erica Lafferty's aunt — wants “Under the Banner of Heaven” viewers to know who Brenda truly was.  

Here are some of the things Weeks said the series gets wrong: 

Why Ron Lafferty murdered Brenda and Erica. Weeks said anyone who paid attention to the court cases would know prosecutors accused Ron Lafferty of using his religious views as a cover for what was really a "crime of passion." 

Brenda's feelings toward her temple wedding. “It was a personal, beautiful experience that she absolutely cherished,” Weeks said. “She loved every bit of it. She didn’t think it was weird. She didn’t think it was creepy.” 

Brenda's personality. Weeks said Brenda’s personality was louder, more fun and much less muted. Weeks said Brenda would curse, laugh loudly and would never hesitate to speak her mind. 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

Against my better judgment, I watched the fourth episode.  The show is ridiculous.  I don’t see how anyone can take it seriously.  It’s got kind of a silly Dan Brown vibe going on.  I can sort of go along with it on that level.  

Is it like viewing a train wreck: can’t avert your eyes?

Edited May 12, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Deleted

Edited May 12, 2022 by Tacenda

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

She wrote this on the FB group for UTBOH. 

SNIP

Props to this woman.  Wow.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 12, 2022 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've never been a fan of "his truth"-style rhetoric.  I appreciate her not "harbor{ing} ill feelings toward Black," both as a matter of Christian forgiveness and as a matter of Free Speech.  But it's pretty inconsistent for Weeks to declare the miniseries to be "absolute fiction" in one breath, and then also say it is "his {Black's} truth" in the next.

I wish we could replace the word “truth” in the “my truth” or “your truth” or “his truth” style of rhetoric with the word experience or perception or understanding. It would express essentially the same thought but eliminate the nonsense that truth as a concept is malleable according to whoever is speaking it. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

Deleted at Tacenda's request.

Edited May 12, 2022 by bluebell