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

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

No, it's a limited series, but it is generally appropriate to still refer to the final episode in a miniseries as the season finale. ...

 

Please ... I beg you!  Don't torture us with the thought that we might actually have to endure yet ANOTHER entire season of this dreck and call it what it actually IS: Mercifully, thankfully (and not a nanosecond too soon!) it is the SERIES finale!!!

[Tacenda]

This is an interview with Dan Lafferty 16 years after the murders. We all need to worry when someone uses revelation to do evil. https://radiofreemormon.org/2022/05/radio-free-mormon-244-the-dan-lafferty-interview/

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is an interview with Dan Lafferty 16 years after the murders. We all need to worry when someone uses revelation to do evil. https://radiofreemormon.org/2022/05/radio-free-mormon-244-the-dan-lafferty-interview/

As opposed to when they don’t use revelation to do evil we needn’t worry?

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is an interview with Dan Lafferty 16 years after the murders. We all need to worry when someone uses revelation to do evil. https://radiofreemormon.org/2022/05/radio-free-mormon-244-the-dan-lafferty-interview/

A psychiatrist back during Dan's trial read his journals and other writings and diagnosed him with a narcissistic personality who justified himself using religion. We, as a society, haven't yet found a way to help or stop narcissistic people who decide to do evil. They will justify their actions under any mechanism, whether that is religion, sports, politics, family, science, etc.

During Ron's second trial in 1996, the biggest argument was whether Ron was mentally insane. His defense argued that he is because he believes he can receive revelations. If the defense has won, that would basically mean most US citizens are insane since many believe in some communication with God.  The arguments in that trial are interesting for both sides, but in the end, Ron was deemed mentally competent.

[Rivers]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

A psychiatrist back during Dan's trial read his journals and other writings and diagnosed him with a narcissistic personality who justified himself using religion. We, as a society, haven't yet found a way to help or stop narcissistic people who decide to do evil. They will justify their actions under any mechanism, whether that is religion, sports, politics, family, science, etc.

During Ron's second trial in 1996, the biggest argument was whether Ron was mentally insane. His defense argued that he is because he believes he can receive revelations. If the defense has won, that would basically mean most US citizens are insane since many believe in some communication with God.  The arguments in that trial are interesting for both sides, but in the end, Ron was deemed mentally competent.

We need to do away with the insanity plea.  We need to rid ourselves of these people for the same reason we put down violent animals.  

Edited May 29, 2022 by Rivers

[Chum]

39 minutes ago, Rivers said:

We need to do away with the insanity plea.  We need to rid ourselves of these people for the same reason we put down violent animals.  

I can't find the Spirit of Christ anywhere in this.  <- This seems less productive in context. Trying again.

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Chum

[Chum]

55 minutes ago, Rivers said:

We need to do away with the insanity plea.

Absolutely not. 

One reason is it can be the only way to get people into long term, in-patient mental health services. That option generally doesn't exist (as in at-all, period) for most people who need it. Their only path - being sentenced to a state-run facility.

I know this after being married to someone with criminal charges directly related to their mental illness.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Chum

[Bernard Gui]

Elder Bednar Q&A at his address to the National Press Club.

Quote

In 2003, the Church denounced the book, “Under the Banner of Heaven,” by Jon Krakauer. Now the book has been adapted for TV and is streaming on Hulu. What does the Church think of the Hulu adaptation? And more generally, how do you feel about the depictions of the faith in media and culture?

“I will pose a rhetorical question first. Given all the stuff that I just described [participation by members in leadership, worship, training, ministering and serving], who has time to watch programs?” 

Elder Bednar went on to explain that since its earliest days, the Church has been mischaracterized. “Christ was mischaracterized. We have been mischaracterized since 1830, when the Church was reestablished. That’s always been the case.  … But we don’t spend all of our time trying to respond to it. We have a mission to fulfill, and we’ll move forward to accomplish it.”

On the Church’s website, it says that the Church has responsibility to publicly and clearly articulate its official teaching. In turn, reporters can help inform the public by accurately reporting. … Where are journalist getting it wrong?

“You always lose something in the generality of a stereotype. ‘Latter-day Saints are like this or they all do this.’ I think there needs to be a little more precision. There needs to be a little more listening and asking. We wouldn’t ever ask for the right to be able to review it. But I think they could do a little more than just take somebody else’s secondhand view and push it along. There’s a little homework that ought to be done to find out what’s really taking place.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2022-05-28/elder-bednar-answers-questions-from-media-following-remarks-at-the-national-press-club-255744

Edited May 31, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so forgive me if, already, this has been posted, but it is an absolutely devastating critique of the show that, I think, many Latter-day Saints will be interested in.  One of the points made by the review's principal author (who brought a number of takes on it together) is, "Yes, if you’ve got Jana Riess [of Religion News Service], Peggy Fletcher Stack [of The Salt Lake Tribune], and Hal Boyd [of The Deseret News] seeing eye to eye on anything, you know you’re onto something!"  Hat-tip to @Daniel Peterson at Patheos for pointing me to it.   https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/news-media/ten-ways-under-the-banner-of-heaven-defames-the-church-of-jesus-christ/ 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so forgive me if, already, this has been posted, but it is an absolutely devastating critique of the show that, I think, many Latter-day Saints will be interested in.  One of the points made by the review's principal author (who brought a number of takes on it together) is, "Yes, if you’ve got Jana Riess [of Religion News Service], Peggy Fletcher Stack [of The Salt Lake Tribune], and Hal Boyd [of The Deseret News] seeing eye to eye on anything, you know you’re onto something!"  Hat-tip to @Daniel Peterson at Patheos for pointing me to it.   https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/news-media/ten-ways-under-the-banner-of-heaven-defames-the-church-of-jesus-christ/ 

Quite thorough article in its arguments. 

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quite thorough article in its arguments. 

Yes, it is that.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so forgive me if, already, this has been posted, but it is an absolutely devastating critique of the show that, I think, many Latter-day Saints will be interested in.  One of the points made by the review's principal author (who brought a number of takes on it together) is, "Yes, if you’ve got Jana Riess [of Religion News Service], Peggy Fletcher Stack [of The Salt Lake Tribune], and Hal Boyd [of The Deseret News] seeing eye to eye on anything, you know you’re onto something!"  Hat-tip to @Daniel Peterson at Patheos for pointing me to it.   https://publicsquaremag.org/media-education/news-media/ten-ways-under-the-banner-of-heaven-defames-the-church-of-jesus-christ/ 

They link to Deseret News timeline (https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/4/29/23043175/under-the-banner-of-heaven-series-hulu-lafferty-brothers-ron-dan-murders-what-happened-timeline) which, unfortunately, happens to be wrong.  Polygamy was a minor thing in Dan's excommunication.  It was mostly about his extreme political beliefs (see https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=23995894 where the stake president over the excommunication is quoted).  And the excommunication happened after his jail time which was in 1983, the same year that Ron was excommunicated (see Ron's statements in https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=29121440).

It also says that they were arrested on Aug 17, 1984, but they were actually arrested on Aug 7, 1984 (https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=23995801).  The two accomplices, Knapp and Carnes, were arrested on July 30, 1984 in a morning raid in Wyoming (https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=23995498).

[Kenngo1969]

Here is another counterpoint to "Under the Banner of Heaven" (though that film is mentioned only briefly and in passing).  There is a stark contrast, though, between "Banner" and the film the writer discusses:

https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2022/6/2/23139737/the-other-side-of-heaven-under-the-banner-of-heaven-film-television-lds-mitch-davis-director

[Peacefully]

I just finished the series. I thought the ending was well done. Overall, there were missteps, but not knowing anything about the story, I watched it like a whodunnit, and enjoyed it as much as other whodunnits I’ve watched. It was even more interesting to me with the bits of Mormon culture, good and bad, thrown in. I do think that Andrew Garfield’s acting made it work. 

[Pyreaux]

[Amulek]

Watched the final episode last night. It was...not amazing.

I'm pretty sure this has come up in previous conversation in discussing the show, and I know I have seen a couple of critics hit on it as well, but ostensibly one of the main themes of the series was supposed to be about misogyny and how women are silenced in the church. Which is ironic seeing as how the show basically silences Brenda again by failing to make her be the center / hero of the story and, instead, using her death primarily as a tool to serve a man's quest to tell a story about another, fictitious man's personal faith crisis.

Also, does anyone who has acquainted themselves with the murders remember what Brenda was wearing on the day she was killed? The show depicted her in a bathing suit - though maybe it could have been one of those Jane Fonda, spandex workout kind of things - and it just felt really out of place. I'm not sure why the show runners decided to have her show so much cleavage for this last episode. Do they really think the audience needs to be reminded that she was a young, attractive woman in order to be horrified at her murder?

I really disliked the ending as well. For those of you who plan on sitting through the 7.5 hours of dreck to find out for yourselves, here is your spoiler warning to stop reading now...

Okay, you're still reading, so here it goes:

Spiderman, now fully armed with the kind of knowledge that can only be gleaned from the second-hand musings about Church history of an an embittered ex-Mormon and a one-night skim through an anti-Mormon book from the sixties, now recognizes that the Church is a complete fraud - not to mention the fact that it's also super toxic to women and probably a little bit genocidal to boot.

As such, there is only one way this story can end - especially for a man whose life is surrounded by women (particularly his daughters who he recognized are in peril): go-along-to-get-along.

Yup. That's pretty much how it ends. I'm guessing some people liked it, and I could certainly try to make stuff up to justify the ending, but I just honestly felt it was more than a little bit underwhelming. Sorry.

 

[Harry T. Clark]

I thought the series obviously didn't portray us as we are.  We aren't like the fundamentalist Laffertys and Utah wasn't like that back in the 80's.  The exaggerated portrayal was to make a point that fundamentalist mormon religion could lead to what the Laffertys did and that .... dun da dunnnn ... it could happen today. 

However, any group has its sociopaths and psychopaths.  There are crazies in any society and it is assured that those crazies will be part of any society as it gets bigger.  Everyone has ancestors that are great people and criminals.  It is just part of reality.

[Chum]

20 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I thought the series obviously didn't portray us as we are.  We aren't like the fundamentalist Laffertys and Utah wasn't like that back in the 80's.

The 1980's Utah theme was the part I wasn't sure about. Never been to Utah and was baptized in 1993.

The casual stuff is chronically off. Like LDS'ng everything instead of saying 'Church members'. The whole portrayal is so cockeyed, I imagine people who've never been exposed to the Church will become skeptical.

edit: I can offer this. If the show had first been described to me and I was asked to guess one actor who'd be in it, I'd of said The Swede from Hell On Wheels.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Chum

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

Also, does anyone who has acquainted themselves with the murders remember what Brenda was wearing on the day she was killed? The show depicted her in a bathing suit - though maybe it could have been one of those Jane Fonda, spandex workout kind of things - and it just felt really out of place.

I haven't seen anything in the newspapers or the book that talk about what she was wearing.  But there were pictures that were submitted as evidence and shown to the jury.  If there is a way to view evidence from a 1985 case, then that would be how we can find out.  I understand that the pictures are pretty horrific though.

[Kenngo1969]

16 minutes ago, webbles said:

I haven't seen anything in the newspapers or the book that talk about what she was wearing.  But there were pictures that were submitted as evidence and shown to the jury.  If there is a way to view evidence from a 1985 case, then that would be how we can find out.  I understand that the pictures are pretty horrific though.

Hey, when you're convinced God tells you to do something, do it right! 

[webbles]

I understand the show seemed to connect the Laffertys with the FLDS or the Short Creek group but per the book and newspapers, they never did.  They connected with three groups, the School of the Prophets (run by Prophet Onias), John W Bryant's group in Oregon, and Alex Joseph's group in Big Water UT.

I find it interesting that all three groups weren't really fundamentalist compared to FLDS, United Apostolic Brethren, and others.

Alex Joseph first started with Rulon Allred but became disillusioned with him as Joseph saw Allred as being too oppressive.  After moving to Big Water UT, he practiced polygamy where the women decided of their own accord who they married.  It is different from the historical polygamy in the church as well as the other fundamentalist groups.

John Bryant also started with Rulon Allred but he moved to a more sexual free society.  Homosexuality and heterosexuality were both accepted as well as drugs and alcohol.  You could enter in marriage with just an agreement and leave just as easily.  Dan's third wife was from this group and she didn't care for his ideas (probably based on The Peace Maker) and left him after only a week or two.

The School of the Prophets would probably be the most "normal" fundamentalist group that they were apart of.  But Onias focused much more on receiving revelations and telling everyone about it.  Onias initially is from Canada and had joined with the Blackmore group in Bountiful.  This group did became a part of the FLDS but Onias was kicked out of their group because he disagreed on how polygamy should be run.  He believed that the woman must initiate the relationship and that it was sinful for a man to ask the woman to marry him.  Onias even reprimanded Ron for entering a marriage incorrectly.  (Onias does go really far in his beliefs about Blacks and the priesthood, the Prophet Shiloh informed us).

It feels almost like the Laffertys created their own fundamentalist group based on Dan's anti-government belief, end of times belief, and the Peace Maker.  The 5 younger brothers (Ron wasn't included at this time) started having discussions around 1981 (after their parents had left on their mission).  These discussions helped solidify Dan's beliefs and convert his brothers.  Then in the end of 1982, Ron was asked by his wife, Diana, to intervene because her sister-in-laws were not happy.  Ron was in a depressed state because of financial affairs (see 1982 recession) and being told that it was all the governments fault and that the millennium is going to happen soon probably helped convert him.  Then, in 1983, both of them become excommunicated and start to see the church in an apostasy.  When they meet the Prophet Onias, he had just received a prophecy to send a pamphlet to all of the wards and stakes that denounces them.  This perfectly fits into the Laffertys' belief of the church being in apostasy.

[webbles]

I found this interview with Dustin Black to be interesting - https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/under-banner-heaven-finale-lds-andrew-garfield-lafferty.html.  It sounds like it was done right before the last episode.

Some interesting quotes to me:

Quote

Can you ask questions and remain in good standing in the church? And the answer is probably not if the questions start probing too deeply into the history and into the heart of the faith.

I know that there are members who did leave the church because of asking questions, but there are definitely members who are still believers even after "probing too deeply into the history".

Quote

To completely disavow one’s faith in the Salt Lake Valley is not just about no longer going to church on Sundays. You risk your place in the community. You risk your eternal family, which means that perhaps your spouse will divorce you—and divorce is allowed in the Mormon faith. So you lose family, you lose community, which means you probably lose your job. You’re risking a lot when you start asking questions.

I find this interesting because this is exactly what happened to Ron.  Ron began to "probe too deeply into the history" and so he lost his place in the community, he lost his family, and he lost is job (Ron actually does say all of this in interviews in Reno after he is arrested).  So maybe we should tell people to not probe too deeply or else we'll have another Ron Lafferty?

Quote

But the dialogue that they have in the series in those interrogation room scenes is invention. It’s inspired by all of the research, it’s inspired by the conversations I had, but I’ve tried to be incredibly candid about the fact that it is not “based on,” it’s “inspired by.”

I'm glad to hear that this is "inspired by" and not "based on", though I do think some of the inspiration is incorrect.  I'm not sure, though, if the show actually indicates that it is only inspiration and not based on.

Quote

In my experience getting to know the real Dan Lafferty in prison, the visits that I’ve made and the letters we’ve exchanged and the calls, he has that cheerfulness that is intoxicating. And you understand immediately why people want to follow him. He’s incredibly charismatic. The brightest eyes you may ever see, very smart, but wicked smart, meaning he can clearly rationalize anything.

After reading the newspaper articles from the 1985 trials and then comparing them to the 1996 trial and then comparing that to what Dan has said more recently, I've come to the opinion that Dan is inventing himself each time.  He has been discovering new rationals for what happened and then discards the old ones.  I'm not sure if any of what he says now is actually of much use in discovering why he performed the murders.  But he is extremely charismatic.  He apparently convinced a family to commit suicide while he was in jail (https://www.freep.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/29/moms-obsession-killer-led-death-entire-family/22534407/).

Quote

But for the most part, I think they’re wrong and I know they’re wrong. Anyone who thinks that this is pure fiction needs to do their research better, frankly. In terms of authenticity, I think if you got to know these people in this time, you would find it quite authentic. I’ve heard a little bit about people saying, “Oh, they say ‘Heavenly Father’ too much.” And I say, “Well, maybe your Mormon family didn’t, but let me send you some of the letters they were writing back and forth. Let me send you some of the audio recordings.” This was a very “Heavenly Father” kind of family. If this doesn’t seem familiar to you, good. I’m happy for you.

I don't think anyone thinks the show is pure fiction, only that portions of it are.  And the size of the portions depends on the person.  But I do have an issue with the "Heavenly Father" thing because it sounds like it wasn't just the Laffertys saying it.  And Brenda's sister has come out and said she doesn't recognize her sister in the show, so I definitely think there might be some authenticity issues.

Quote

[Young’s involvement in Smith’s death] is not brought up as fact, it’s brought up as a question in the show on purpose. I tried to be very clear, this is a moment where people who’ve been taught not to ask questions are asking questions and going, “What we’ve been sold does not make sense.” He had been in this position before, understood that he would not receive a just trial and that he would be killed. So why would he do it again? Love Joseph or hate Joseph, he was no fool. He was very smart and strategic. So these are characters asking questions about an assassination that is pinned on his own wife. And I don’t buy it. If there’s doubt, it’s because I use common sense and Brigham Young said something that made no sense to me a long time ago.

Does anyone have an idea on what Brigham said that Black thinks is enough for common sense to connect Brigham with Joseph's murder?  I think Black might have thought too deeply here to the point that he lost facts.

Quote

Unfortunately, I guess, for the LDS church historians, there were witnesses and people who wrote down their accounts, and we now know better what happened.

This is in relation to the Mountain Meadow Massacre.  I find this statement strange since one of the best historical accounts of the episode are by LDS historians.  And we do now know better what happened.  And it feels like Black didn't keep up with the latest findings.

Quote

I grew up Mormon. I experienced what it felt like to start asking questions and to be slapped on the hand for doing that. Many of the questions I had were about the way my mother was being treated and the other women in society were being treated, particularly when it came to violence, which we experienced in our home. And if you know that there is a problem in your community and your country, a place that needs light to be shown in so that we can fix it, I do believe I have a responsibility to do that.

I get this desire to fix bad things.  It is an excellent desire and we should all strive to shine light on the bad things that are happening.  But to take one experience and extrapolate it to most other Mormons is a little too much.  I experienced what it felt like to start asking questions and not being slapped on the hand for doing that.  My mother was treated wonderfully by my father as well as all of my sisters.

Is there abuse?  Yes.  But it isn't structurally taught in the church.  In fact, Diana's story shows that the church is against abuse.  The stake president, bishop, and bishop's wife were all supportive of Diana.  They didn't tell her to stay and just be an "obedient wife".  She had ward friends who would take her in during difficult times and give her money.  The stake president even paid for their flight back to Florida.  Diana's letter to President Benson appears to have caused Ron to have a meeting with one of his assistants.  That doesn't look like she was told to be an "obedient wife".

Brenda died not because she wasn't being an "obedient wife".  She died because Dan and Ron had read a book that taught extremely incorrect doctrine.  This book has never been endorsed by the church (Joseph Smith condemned it shortly after it was published).  She was a strong woman and was widely praised in the community.  She got a job by her own ability (and not because of some professor making a pass on her).  Yes, she didn't exactly want to be a stay-at-home mom and she resented that.  But she took that and made it her thing.

Edited June 4, 2022 by webbles

[Islander]

On 4/26/2022 at 8:34 AM, pogi said:

The church doesn't support extremism.  Sure, extremists can blossom from any entity, even from liberals.  Like I said, I think you would have a hard time demonstrating that there are more extremists in Mormonism than anything else. 

People are crazy no matter what organization they belong to.

 

I tend to agree. But, there is an aversion in the Church to correct erroneous doctrine spoken from the pulpit or within a class setting if such is not blatantly juxtaposed to explicit Church doctrine or dogma. That is a petri dish for wild and convoluted "theories" and theological positions. Also, there are statements from GA's and the like in the historical record that the Church can not retract from which today sound pretty outlandish. But such "statements" fall under the lose and rather dubious category of "revelation". All the Church can do is attempt to sweep it under the proverbial rug which is becoming increasingly harder to do in the information age. 

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Chum said:

The 1980's Utah theme was the part I wasn't sure about. Never been to Utah and was baptized in 1993.

I was in Provo from 76-87, time off for summer the first four years.

What I have seen so far did not ring any memory bells save the props (including the typical clothing, though the Pioneer costumes were more elaborate than the usual, look like more modern versions) and hairdos.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Another article:

https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2022/6/3/23110084/who-is-the-real-brenda-wright-lafferty-what-we-miss-when-we-dont-ask-under-the-banner-of-heaven

Lovely picture constructed of the real Brenda. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Calm