Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Christopher Hyerdahl, who plays the Lafferty's father, is creepy without having to say a word. What a waste.

And when he says it…what a magnificent voice for dark corners and conspiracies.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thinking I need to take the personality test, someone needs to make a topic, it would really blow our minds I bet. Have you heard of it? It would be fun if members on this board compared notes, and I'll bet it'll help us get each other, haha! 

This will give you an idea of my personality, before even taking the test, my mom told me a funny story of when a child I, my mom and the neighbor lady were walking on the sidewalk when the neighbor tripped and fell down. Well, my mom said I thought I'd made her fall! I felt bad about it and didn't have anything to do with it. 

So here's the test and I'm going to get to the bottom of it. https://www.truity.com/test/enneagram-personality-test 

You need a personality test to know whether You are (or whether Someone Else is) a Child of God?  You won't find that answer there.  Sorry! :huh: :unknw: 

;) :) 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
18 hours ago, webbles said:

Then, they (all the brothers) were introduced to the Prophet Onias (Bob Crossfield).  Bob joined the church when he was 21 and received his first prophecy roughly 10 years later.

Hey, remember ProphetShiloh on here, I don't know, maybe 4 years ago or so? He was from the Prophet Onias group.

Link to comment

I don't think anyone's posted this yet.  I believe Dan Peterson posted it today on his blog.  It's a review of an episode (the fourth, I believe) of the show by Jim Bennett that he originally posted on Facebook.  I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I was reading this.  I would have spit it onto the screen of my brand new computer.  We can't stop them from caricaturing us, but we can make fun of them mercilessly when they do.  :P :D :rofl:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2022/05/comedic-gold-under-the-banner-of-heaven.html

 

 

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think anyone's posted this yet.  I believe Dan Peterson posted it today on his blog.  It's a review of an episode (the fourth, I believe) of the show by Jim Bennett that he originally posted on Facebook.  I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I was reading this.  I would have spit it onto the screen of my brand new computer.  We can't stop them from caricaturing us, but we can make fun of them mercilessly when they do.  :P :D :rofl:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2022/05/comedic-gold-under-the-banner-of-heaven.html

 

Quote

the real Peacemaker pamphlet was written in 1842 by some guy named Udney Hay Jacob who wasn’t even a member of the Church at the time, and the real Joseph Smith denounced it as “nonsence [nonsense], folly, and trash.”

This explains a lot.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/udney-hay-jacob

Quote

24 Apr. 1781

1–10 Apr. 1860. 2 Carpenter, broom maker. 3 Born in Sheffield, Berkshire Co., Massachusetts. 4 Son of Richard Jacobs Jr. and Elizabeth Kellogg. 5 Married Elizabeth Hubbard, at Sheffield. 6 Moved to La Harpe, Hancock Co., Illinois, by 1840. 7 Purchased land in Hancock Co., 3 Nov. 1840. 8 Published An Extract, from a Manuscript Entitled The Peace Maker, 1842. 9 Baptized into Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ca. 1843. 10 Had his name removed from church records. 11Rebaptized, Nov. 1845. 12 Ordained a high priest, 11 Feb. 1846. 13 Moved to what became Council Bluffs, Pottawattamie Co., Iowa, June 1846. 14 Migrated to Salt Lake Valley, arriving 10 Sept. 1850. 15 Died at Salt Lake City. 16

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Udny.htm#title

Preface

Quote

IN the following extract, which is two chapters only, taken from a larger work, there are some allusions to matter contained in the larger work; which will not appear with the same clearness and force, as if the whole work was before the reader. This cannot be remedied in making an extract. 

It is written Mal. 4:5-6, Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. The author of this work professes to be the teacher here foretold. Some may object that John the Baptist was the character there alluded to. But if it was necessary that Christ should have a forerunner when he came to this world as a servant only; not to be ministered unto; but to minister, and to give his life for the ransom of the world; how much more requisite is it, that he should be thus honored, when he comes in his glory and majesty, to be king over all the nations of the earth. Moreover, please to take notice of the character spoken of. He shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children; and the heart of the children to their fathers; (nothing is here said of the mothers,) lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. This is matter of great importance in the eyes of God, in its proper time. No teacher since this prophecy was given, has made the least aproximation towards the accomplishment of this great work, which is to save a world from a dreadful curse. But did not Christ do any thing to effect this purpose? says an objector. Hear him; Suppose ye that I am come to give peace to the earth? I tell you nay; but rather division; the father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and daughter against the mother, etc. and a man's enemies shall be they of his own house. Math. 10:34-36. Luke, 12:51-56, ye hypocrites can discern the face of the sky, and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time. However the public can form a better judgment of the authors pretentions by reading this extract, than by his mere professions. And when the whole work shall be published, and its glorious object accomplished; then will the whole world know assuredly that he is indeed the teacher foretold by the Prophet Malachi, more than two thousand years ago. Then will the truth of the holy prophets be established; and the judgments of God, and his wisdom will be made manifest. 

The author of this work is not a Mormon, although it is printed by their press. It was the most convenient. But the public will soon find out what he is, by his work. 

Quote
Note Denounced by Joseph Smith in Times and seasons, Dec. 1, 1842: "There was a book printed at my office, a short time since, written by Udney H. Jacobs, on marriage, without my knowledge; and had I been apprised of it, I should not have printed it; not that I am opposed to any man enjoying his privileges; but I do not wish to have my name associated with the authors, in such an unmeaning rigmarole of nonsense, folly, and trash." Faun Brodie suggests that Joseph Smith used the tract to see the reaction that polygamy would have on the membership of the church, but gives no source for the assertion. Cf. Brodie, F. No man knows my history. Flake, C.J. Mormon bib., 4306.

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/4986/

So my guess is Black is assuming Fawn Brodie is correct, but either misunderstood or decided to make the connection for the audience by claiming Joseph Smith wrote it.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
Quote

From the Colton Storm catalogue: "Jacob's pamphlet was a crucial step in Joseph Smith's campaign to popularize plural marriages among the Mormons. Smith may have inspired the work although he later denounced it."

https://www.americanwest.amdigital.co.uk/Documents/Details/An-extract-from-a-manuscript-entitled-The-peace-maker--or--the-doctrines-of-the-millenium/Graff_2186
 

Don’t know who Colton Storm is, may look him up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Maker_(pamphlet)

Quote

"The Peace Maker" is a pamphlet written by author Udney Hay Jacob in 1842. The original two-chapter pamphlet was published in Nauvoo, Illinois, with Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, listed as the printer. The pamphlet advocated polygamy. While Smith quickly and publicly disavowed any connection to the work, historians continue to debate the possibility that some aspects of the pamphlet may have represented Smith's thought.

The history of the pamphlet is still shrouded in mystery. Jacob was not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when it was published. However, Jacob and his family had lived among the Latter Day Saints in Chautauqua County, New York, in the early 1830s and in the Latter Day Saint region of Illinois (Hancock County) throughout the period of settlement there. Additionally, Jacob was baptized into the church in 1843, the year after his pamphlet appeared.[1][unreliable source?]

Smith denounced the pamphlet in the December 1, 1842, issue of Times and Seasons, the official church newspaper, writing:

There was a book printed at my office, a short time since, written by Udney H. Jacobs, on marriage, without my knowledge; and had I been apprised of it, I should not have printed it; not that I am opposed to any man enjoying his privileges; but I do not wish to have my name associated with the authors, in such an unmeaning rigmarole of nonsence [nonsense], folly, and trash. JOSEPH SMITH.[2]

However, other sources raise the possibility that this statement may have been misleading. In particular, John D. Lee's 1877 "Confessions" states, speaking about the 1842-43 period:

During the winter Joseph, the Prophet, set a man by the name of Sidney Hay Jacobs to select from the Old Bible scriptures as pertained to polygamy, or celestial marriage, to write it in pamphlet form, and to advocate that doctrine. This he did as a feeler among the people, to pave the way for celestial marriage.[3]

This two chapter pamphlet deals in substantial part with Biblical marriage laws. The text offers several defenses of polygamy that were later used extensively by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the Latter Day Saint sect which later migrated to Utah and defended the practice, arguing that polygamy produces greater marital unity than monogamy. The pamphlet also argues vigorously that male authority over females should be absolute and is of divine origin. The text has been influential in the development of 20th- and 21st-century Latter Day Saint polygamous movements.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 5/13/2022 at 4:09 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

You need a personality test to know whether You are (or whether Someone Else is) a Child of God?  You won't find that answer there.  Sorry! :huh: :unknw: 

;) :) 

Personality test for helping me "get" people and my self. :) I took the test and I'm a 9. And funnily it said I'm a peacemaker. Guess who else said I was a peacemaker, my patriarchal blessing, ha!

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Calm said:

This explains a lot.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/udney-hay-jacob

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Udny.htm#title

Preface

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/NCMP1820-1846/id/4986/

So my guess is Black is assuming Fawn Brodie is correct, but either misunderstood or decided to make the connection for the audience by claiming Joseph Smith wrote it.

Dan Lafferty believed that The Peacemaker was written by Joseph Smith.  So, if the show is trying to show what Dan knew, that would be correct.  I've mentioned the book several times.  It was an important book to him.

Link to comment
On 5/12/2022 at 9:32 PM, Tacenda said:

Do you mind my sharing this? Also, you are always forthright, what do you think of the book "The Peacemaker"? Just finished watching the 4th episode. 

I decided to read The Peacemaker.  I only read the excerpts that were printed and that you can read at http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Udny.htm.  I don't know if the entire pamphlet is available somewhere.

It consists of two chapters, 18 and 19.  The first one is the longer of the two (23 pages vs 10 pages).  It talks about the law of divorce and how men should only be under the "law of Christ" and not under the "law of women".  Basically, men should be the head of the household and if they let their wives rule over them, then their minds become effeminate and their children become idiots.  And the way to fix this is by bringing the true law of divorce back.  The true law of divorce is what Christ taught in the New Testament - Math. 5:32.

Quote

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

He talks about how a married woman can not commit fornication because it is a sin of unmarried people.  But then explains that it isn't a physical fornication, but a mental fornication.  When the woman no longer submits to her husband, she has committed fornication and so can be put away for divorce.  But women can't initiate the divorce because (as he says) "How can property put away its owner?"

Once the true divorce law is established, then men will be the head of the household because women will always be meek and submissive to their husbands (otherwise they would be divorced).  And men will no longer have an effeminate mind and the children will be wise.  He does mention, though, that if a man is abusive to his wife, then he should be condemned.  But you can logically extend what he wrote to say that the only reason a man is abusive to his wife is because his mind is effeminate so it really is the wife's fault in the first place.

Also, a woman who is no longer submissive to her husband can go under oath and admit she has committed fornication against her husband.  By doing so, she can compel her husband to give her a divorce so she can then marry who she really wants to.  I'm not exactly sure how this is different from initiating a divorce (since a woman can't do that), but he talks about how this ensures that women are happily married.  He does say that there are checks on this because of "light versatility of the mind of the woman".  The woman has no right to any of her children (because they aren't hers, they are her husbands) and she also doesn't get any dowry.

The second chapter talks about polygamy.  It uses several verses from the Law of Moses to point out how it allows polygamy.  An example is the one where a man who beds a maid must marry her.  The pamphlet points out that it doesn't matter if the man was already married. 

And apparently, polygamy keeps women happy because then they focus their attention to their husband and not to other men so they'll never commit fornication.  I couldn't quite figure out how that was supposed to work but he said so.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, webbles said:

Dan Lafferty believed that The Peacemaker was written by Joseph Smith.  So, if the show is trying to show what Dan knew, that would be correct.  I've mentioned the book several times.  It was an important book to him.

Admittedly, Dan may not be the smartest person in the world, but presumably he could read the author line. Bro. Jacob does paint it as with approval. Incidentally, Udney Jacob's name was also stricken from the records of the Church fairly early on. He does get rebaptized not long later and dies in Utah a member.

 

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Udny.htm

Screenshot 2022-05-15 at 13-04-52 Smith History Vault Udney Jacob's 1842 Peace Maker.png

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Admittedly, Dan may not be the smartest person in the world, but presumably he could read the author line. Bro. Jacob does paint it as with approval. Incidentally, Udney Jacob's name was also stricken from the records of the Church fairly early on. He does get rebaptized not long later and dies in Utah a member.

 

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Udny.htm

 

Jacob wasn't a member when he wrote the pamphlet. He was living in the area. He was baptized the next year.

The idea that Joseph Smith was behind the pamphlet (either as a ghost writer or as a approver) is fairly old. It was first mentioned shortly after the martyrdom. The knowledge that Jacob even existed became lost and so people started to assume it was a pseudonym for Joseph. I can see Joseph being behind chapter 19 as it is closer to what he taught but chapter 18 is a stretch.

Link to comment
On 5/13/2022 at 4:18 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Hey, remember ProphetShiloh on here, I don't know, maybe 4 years ago or so? He was from the Prophet Onias group.

 

On 5/13/2022 at 6:33 PM, Calm said:

Wow!  Someone with a worse time sense than I have. 
 

6 months ago. :P 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/34150-prophetshiloh/

He had gotten kicked out for claiming to be the heir to the throne of Crossfield?  

I don't blame Miserere Nobis.  Lately, the months feel like years! :blink: :shok: :mega_shok: 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, webbles said:

Jacob wasn't a member when he wrote the pamphlet. He was living in the area. He was baptized the next year.

The idea that Joseph Smith was behind the pamphlet (either as a ghost writer or as a approver) is fairly old. It was first mentioned shortly after the martyrdom. The knowledge that Jacob even existed became lost and so people started to assume it was a pseudonym for Joseph. I can see Joseph being behind chapter 19 as it is closer to what he taught but chapter 18 is a stretch.

The fair article references a letter that Udney Jacob's wrote to the President of the US at the time.  It shows that he was not only not a member, but that he was very anti-Mormon.  Politically, he seems to be wanting to assist the President of the US in his campaign against Joseph Smith's presidential campaign.  He petitioned the president to print his pamphlet in an attempt to put an end to Joseph Smith and the Mormons.   The president declined, so he had it printed by Smith's printing press.   

All of that seems so strange to me and leaves me confused about Jacobs and the pamphlet.  Why would this pamphlet bring down Joseph Smith if it was written by a non-member and printed by Joseph's political opponent?  Was Jacobs trying to promote the ideas in the pamphlet and claim ownership - did he believe in them, or was it originally created by him as bogus propaganda against the Mormons that we wanted to attribute to Joseph somehow?  Did he continue to promote and distribute the pamphlet after he was baptized?

Also, are there any other fundamentalist groups which believe in the pamphlet today?   

Here is the letter to the President:

Quote

I hold in my hands a manuscript, which if it was published seasonably, and sufficiently circulated, would I humbly conceive be the certain means of insuring your Election. Of this I have no doubt. I am thorily acquainted with the religious principals and minds, of every sect, and denomination of men in this land. And I now offer to place this almighty power for the time being at your disposal: merely, by a publication of the book alluded to.... I remember you in the Citty of Hudson when a Lawyer there. And I now reside in Hancock Co. Illinois, in the vicinity of the Mormons who have by their delegates visited you this winter past. These Mormons know but very little of me; but Sir, I know them—and I know them to be a deluded and dangerous set of fanatics, dangerous I say, as far as their influence goes. [Joseph] Smith has returned home [from Washington, D.C.], and I am informed is determined to throw his weight with all his deluded followers into the scale against you. They are at this time in the United States a large body rapidly increasing. J. Smith and Rigdon hold their [the Saints'] consciences. Now Sir, a system of religious, as well as political truth. Supported by irresistible and admitted Testimony, calculated to cut it's own way to the very center of any rational mind; be their oppinions what they may; and compelling them to believe verily, that by their coming votes their own destiny, not only for time but for an endless Eternity is absolutely involved, would produce a tremendious effect. This my dear Sir can be done, even by your humble Servant. Observe, I do not pretend to say that every vote in the Union shall be thus influenced. But, I say this. That by the means which I hold in my power [my manuscript] if assisted reasonably by your aid. It [the book] shall throw such a weight into the right scale as shall bring the other infallibly to kick the beam [tip the scales].

The ego is astounding - "And I now offer to place this almighty power for the time being at your disposal..." 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
5 hours ago, webbles said:

Dan Lafferty believed that The Peacemaker was written by Joseph Smith. 

I hadn’t realized that.  Thanks. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Also, are there any other fundamentalist groups which believe in the pamphlet today?   

The School of the Prophets (yes, the one with Prophet Onias, Prophet Shilo, and the Lafferty boys) has it available online (https://www.2bc.info/pdf/PeaceMaker.pdf) as well as a copy with chapter and verses (http://2bc.info/pdf/Peace Maker Part and Verse.pdf).  At the end of both of them, it says:

Quote

This is the end of the 1842 Peace Maker Pamphlet. This pamphlet is interesting, and of historical value; however, we at United Order Publications do not claim that the teachings and doctrines in it are fully correct, and we especially do not recommend living polygamy without leadership that receives revelation from Christ. If you have any comments or information on related writings, you are encouraged to send them to us.

I can't find evidence of other fundamentalist groups but I think they probably used to.  There was apparently a pamphlet that appeared in the 50s/60s that was called "Little Known Discourse By Joseph Smith".  I haven't found a copy of the pamphlet but per https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1327&context=byusq, it contains the white horse prophecy and chapter 18 of the Peace Maker.  So it is definitely possible that during the time period of the Laffertys, fundamentalists accepted it as valid since the title was "Little Known Discourse By Joseph Smith".

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think anyone's posted this yet.  I believe Dan Peterson posted it today on his blog.  It's a review of an episode (the fourth, I believe) of the show by Jim Bennett that he originally posted on Facebook.  I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I was reading this.  I would have spit it onto the screen of my brand new computer.  We can't stop them from caricaturing us, but we can make fun of them mercilessly when they do.  :P :D :rofl:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2022/05/comedic-gold-under-the-banner-of-heaven.html

 

 

 

After episode 4 I think the whole show is really poorly done.  And I agree with Jim's review of episode 4.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Dustin Lance Black continues to not impress: Dustin Lance Black Is Ready For Backlash, 'Death Threats' From The Mormon Church Thanks To Under The Banner Of Heaven

"Death threats."  That's a pretty serious thing to put in a headline.  Grabs your attention, amiright?  Well...

Quote

Dustin Lance Black is perhaps best known for writing 2008’s Milk, a film dealing with the history of the fight for gay rights in the United States, for which he also won an Academy Award. Needless to say, he’s no stranger to telling stories that challenge people, specifically their traditional values. When we asked if he expected pushback from the Mormon Church for Under the Banner of Heaven, he didn’t mince words, even going to far as to welcome the expected “death threats”:

Quote

Whenever you challenge a convention, a status quo, things that people find comfort in, and safety, when you challenge them, you're going to get pushback. You're going to get the death threats. You're going to get the criticism on social media.

"You'r going to get the death threats."

Black being ever the self-promoter, it seems reasonable to surmise if that if he had received actual "the death threats," he would be loudly proclaiming as much as a way to bolster the "our faith breeds dangerous men" narrative he's peddling, and to get added publicity for the miniseries. 

As it is, however, all he can do is preemptively accuse the Church of fomenting death threats against him ("we asked if he expected pushback from the Mormon Church...").

What a peach this guy is.  

And not content with leveling this accusation once, he comes back around to it in the very next sentence (albeit obliquely) :

Quote
Quote

And in this case, you know, having grown up in this church, I'm well aware that the Mormon Church does not look kindly upon anyone discussing the church's history and certainly not, quote-unquote, ‘outsiders.’ And they will challenge this in the same way they tried challenging the book. But I'm here for that conversation.

Having set the context as pertaining to "death threats," he declares that "the Mormon Church does not look kindly upon anyone discussing the Church's history...").

And he concludes with a bit of self-congratulatory bravado: "But I'm here for that conversation."

Right.  He's bravely standing up to the Church and its death threats against him.  The absence of any actual death threats is sort of a niggling detail...

Quote

When Dustin Lance Black says he’s here for the conversation, he’s not kidding. The show had a premiere in Salt Lake City, Utah on April 25, and Black said he brought it there with the purpose of starting a dialogue with the church. As he mentioned in the quote, he grew up in the Mormon Church himself, so similar to the way he told the story of Harvey Milk as a gay man, he’s telling the story of Brenda Lafferty as someone who knows what it’s like to come of age as LDS.

Dustin Lance Black seems rather adamant about telling the most honest and authentic story possible, despite the feathers it ruffles. He fears that the current state of American politics is leaning in the direction of a Theocracy, and feels that these types of stories are important to challenge our way of thinking. As he explained:

Quote

I want to ask and I think it's what the show asks, which is if you are going to be a fundamentalist Christian, then you must be telling me you are okay praying to a misogynist God. And so I think it's time the Mormon Church, that claims to be an ever changing church. That I think far too late decided to stop being racist in one revelation in 1978. I hope they start to see the wisdom and having another revelation that says, ‘hey, we believe in a God that understands that human beings are equally capable and valuable, no matter if what their gender is.’

 

Oi.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
Quote

the Mormon Church does not look kindly upon anyone discussing the church's history

Ignoring of course how much the Church has invested providing its history to be discussed through the Church History Department and the Joseph Smith Papers Project as well as the Saints volumes. 
 

Quote

he’s telling the story of Brenda Lafferty as someone who knows what it’s like to come of age as LDS.

Dustin Lance Black seems rather adamant about telling the most honest and authentic story possible, despite the feathers it ruffles.

Including Brenda Lafferty’s sister’s apparently, who says Brenda is not much like the so-called authentic portrayal.  She loved her temple experience for one thing. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 5/15/2022 at 12:15 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think anyone's posted this yet.  I believe Dan Peterson posted it today on his blog.  It's a review of an episode (the fourth, I believe) of the show by Jim Bennett that he originally posted on Facebook.  I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I was reading this.  I would have spit it onto the screen of my brand new computer.  We can't stop them from caricaturing us, but we can make fun of them mercilessly when they do.  :P :D :rofl:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2022/05/comedic-gold-under-the-banner-of-heaven.html

It pleases me that I'm not the only one bothered by stuff like this:

"Fictional UK demands that he has the right to a phone call, which just occurs to him for the first time after being tortured for two days with Tabernacle Choir music. [...] Anyway, we finally meet the guy that Fictional UK called during his MoTab respite – his lawyer. Oh, wait. Sorry. That would have made too much sense. No, the Fake UK brother didn’t call a lawyer. He called – wait for it – his stake president."

Seriously, at this point in the show we are well over three hours into the series' runtime, and there are three brothers who have been in holding by the police for multiple days now and none of these anti-government, anarcho-libertarians has yet to lawyer up? Really???

Look, I get that this is a conceit which takes place in a bunch of cop shows, and I'm willing to put up with it...to a point. From a storytelling perspective, it is better to have these types of conversations take place between the actual characters, I get that, but at a certain point it just becomes too much to ignore and begins to take away from the story.

Chalk this one up as yet another thing that pulls me out of the story and reminds me how much better your average episode of Law & Order is compared to this show.

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dustin Lance Black continues to not impress: Dustin Lance Black Is Ready For Backlash, 'Death Threats' From The Mormon Church Thanks To Under The Banner Of Heaven

"Death threats."  That's a pretty serious thing to put in a headline.  Grabs your attention, amiright?  Well...

"You'r going to get the death threats."

Black being ever the self-promoter, it seems reasonable to surmise if that if he had received actual "the death threats," he would be loudly proclaiming as much as a way to bolster the "our faith breeds dangerous men" narrative he's peddling, and to get added publicity for the miniseries. 

As it is, however, all he can do is preemptively accuse the Church of fomenting death threats against him ("we asked if he expected pushback from the Mormon Church...").

What a peach this guy is. 

He's just trying to gin up controversy to help drive attention.

I'm pleased that the church appears to be doing what most pretty much everyone else appears to be be doing with this show: ignoring it.

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It pleases me that I'm not the only one bothered by stuff like this:

"Fictional UK demands that he has the right to a phone call, which just occurs to him for the first time after being tortured for two days with Tabernacle Choir music. [...] Anyway, we finally meet the guy that Fictional UK called during his MoTab respite – his lawyer. Oh, wait. Sorry. That would have made too much sense. No, the Fake UK brother didn’t call a lawyer. He called – wait for it – his stake president."

Seriously, at this point in the show we are well over three hours into the series' runtime, and there are three brothers who have been in holding by the police for multiple days now and none of these anti-government, anarcho-libertarians has yet to lawyer up? Really???

Look, I get that this is a conceit which takes place in a bunch of cop shows, and I'm willing to put up with it...to a point. From a storytelling perspective, it is better to have these types of conversations take place between the actual characters, I get that, but at a certain point it just becomes too much to ignore and begins to take away from the story.

Chalk this one up as yet another thing that pulls me out of the story and reminds me how much better your average episode of Law & Order is compared to this show.

 

Meh, I’ve known that guy since he was Little Jimmy Bennett. 

But, yes, his response is spot on. It really did suck that badly. 

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment

I should become a writer for a newspaper, I'd name my article

"Under the Banner of Hate"

How bigotry became endorsed by mainstream outlets to indite an entire religion for one isolated incident involving two individuals who's actions that the institution not mere doesn't teach but would put down and reported if they ever espoused it to any normal authority or person in that church. It is no small amount irony I suppose they are only allowed to be bigoted towards a conservative religion that isn't nearly as dangerous as they claim, as they must be pretending they are dangerous, when they would never do this to Islam because we all know they have a real fear of dangerous Islamic Individuals and only then do they recognize the immorality when they think about creating anti-Islamic entertainment. Being that entire premise of the show is that Mormonism breeds dangerous men, their prime examples are actually Ex-Mormons who murdered an active Mormon woman and her child. Perhaps I'm not as smart to understand this, but if one were to blame the institutions for the acts of a some of its members, then shouldn't an Ex-Mormon killer mean that Ex-mormon institutions are what breeds dangerous people, and that its Ex-Mormon men that are a threat to Mormon, particularly women? Or would that be an over generalization and demonization of an entire group of people for the acts of a few, and only once its is framed like that would they acknowledge it would be wrong and bigoted...

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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