Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would also love to see an article on Diana and Matilda.  They were also victims of Ron and Dan.  But I bet they'd rather not be in the limelight so I don't expect to see any article about them.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

I find it ironic (along with engendering ... other feelings ... that may get me booted from the thread if I were to talk too much about them) that some people in this thread have said how much they identify with Detective Pyre and his struggle with his faith.  Yeah ... um ... about that ... He's ... a fictional character. :huh:<_< :rolleyes:  And the real victims, Brenda and Erica Lafferty and those who love them?  They're ... almost an afterthought.  They're ... props ... used (exploited?) to tell the "real" story (at least, the story that's "real" to the Messrs. Krakauer and Black and to those of their ilk) of the Detective Pyres of the world ... Poor, poor Detective Pyre!  Tsk-tsk-tsk!

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, webbles said:

I would also love to see an article on Diana and Matilda.  They were also victims of Ron and Dan.  But I bet they'd rather not be in the limelight so I don't expect to see any article about them.

I don't think anybody really wanted to be in the limelight here, but, that's OK.  The Messrs. Krakauer and Black had a story to tell! <_< :rolleyes: 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Islander said:

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.

Perhaps but we are living in an age where things that are are considered normal or fine today would have been considered outlandish in the past.  We may live in an age of information but people seem to be getting dumber and dumber with each passing generation. 

Link to comment

After a bit of thought, I decided that the show is more of anything a commentary on those adversarial to the Church (aka anti-Mormons). It would be better described as a spoof if the producers weren't actually intending to be serious. That it gets so very many things factually wrong, sometimes egregiously so, paints those who are discontented with the Church in a very bad light, utterly disconnected from reality. As in, "Really? This is how you see us? This is how you justify your discontent?"

But that's not the right way to think about it either. In reflection, anybody with a half a brain of education/experience with the Church or Church history is not the target audience. If instead it is viewed as a production directed towards those who don't know pretty much anything about the Church or Church history, the absurdities become less obvious -- a deceit, a lie, intended for the masses with the intent to turn people from the Gospel. A strategy well employed by another famous individual.

Link to comment
On 6/3/2022 at 11:39 PM, Islander said:

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.

And thank goodness for it, I say.  Joseph Smith had a holy aversion to a strong handed church which governs by strict creeds - and for good reason.

Quote

 I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like methodism and not like Latter day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be tramelled.

-Joseph Smith

While such spiritual freedom has some potential for "wild theological positions" to grow, it also gives the spiritual liberty necessary for deep and sustained personal spiritual growth and revelation.  The church is not without boundaries though, it is not a liberty without limits.  I think the church strikes a decent balance.

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, pogi said:

And thank goodness for it, I say.  Joseph Smith had a holy aversion to a strong handed church which governs by strict creeds - and for good reason.

While such spiritual freedom has some potential for "wild theological positions" to grow, it also gives the spiritual liberty necessary for deep and sustained personal spiritual growth and revelation.  The church is not without boundaries though, it is not a liberty without limits.  I think the church strikes a decent balance.

We humans, all of us, believe all kinds of things that are not correct. It's unbelief that is more problematic usually than erroneous belief. That is, I, and I think Joseph largely agree with you. “When men open their lips against [the truth] they do not injure me, but injure themselves. … When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” -- Joseph Smith

Link to comment
On 6/4/2022 at 11:40 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I find it ironic (along with engendering ... other feelings ... that may get me booted from the thread if I were to talk too much about them) that some people in this thread have said how much they identify with Detective Pyre and his struggle with his faith.  Yeah ... um ... about that ... He's ... a fictional character. :huh:<_< :rolleyes:  And the real victims, Brenda and Erica Lafferty and those who love them?  They're ... almost an afterthought.  They're ... props ... used (exploited?) to tell the "real" story (at least, the story that's "real" to the Messrs. Krakauer and Black and to those of their ilk) of the Detective Pyres of the world ... Poor, poor Detective Pyre!  Tsk-tsk-tsk!

I read an article or saw an interview with the actor that plays Detective Pyre and he mentioned he got his cues from an actual cop in Utah that was on a case with the FLDS and the detective lost his faith over it, whether it was researching into polygamy etc. not sure. So this is what he based the scenes on, according to the interview. Now to find the interview so you believe me. 😝 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 6/4/2022 at 1:56 PM, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps but we are living in an age where things that are are considered normal or fine today would have been considered outlandish in the past.  We may live in an age of information but people seem to be getting dumber and dumber with each passing generation. 

That's why I say the new prophet of the dumb dispensation is Mike Judge.

th-1831612626.jpg

I beat some time soon, we will start communicating with pictures instead of words... .. .. ...

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I read an article or saw an interview with the actor that plays Detective Pyre and he mentioned he got his cues from an actual cop in Utah that was on a case with the FLDS and the detective lost his faith over it, whether it was researching into polygamy etc. not sure. So this is what he based the scenes on, according to the interview. Now to find the interview so you believe me. 😝 

Even granting the truth of your assertion, still, that does not change the fact that the real, live, flesh-and-blood human beings who should be at the center of this story, Brenda and Erica Lafferty, instead, are nothing but ... afterthoughts.  Nothing but ... props.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, pogi said:

And thank goodness for it, I say.  Joseph Smith had a holy aversion to a strong handed church which governs by strict creeds - and for good reason.

While such spiritual freedom has some potential for "wild theological positions" to grow, it also gives the spiritual liberty necessary for deep and sustained personal spiritual growth and revelation.  The church is not without boundaries though, it is not a liberty without limits.  I think the church strikes a decent balance.

 

What happens is that pretty soon nobody knows what sound doctrine is. It is not a free for all. Either God decides who He is and what are we to do to worship Him as he desires or chaos descend on the church as it is evident in some denominations. It destroys confidence in the word of God. We also have creeds. The temple interview is a good example of it. Try and say that you do not pay tithing or adhere to the word of wisdom and see what happens. 

LIke I said, as long as it does not clash with explicit LDS doctrine is a free for all.

Edited by Islander
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Even granting the truth of your assertion, still, that does not change the fact that the real, live, flesh-and-blood human beings who should be at the center of this story, Brenda and Erica Lafferty, instead, are nothing but ... afterthoughts.  Nothing but ... props.

I can agree with that, I'm on the Under the Banner FB private group with Brenda's sister commenting often and I'll bet she'd agree. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Islander said:

What happens is that pretty soon nobody knows what sound doctrine is.

I disagree.  You don't seem to have much of a testimony of personal revelation.  I believe that personal revelation guides us all into sound doctrines as we are humble and faithful and hungry for oneness with God. 

The idea of personal revelation itself is the means by which we judge all teachings/doctrines/prophetic revelations, etc.  Spiritual progression is a personal and subjective process.  

Of course our understanding is going to be imperfect as we see through a glass darkly in mortality and have a veil placed over our perception.  No mortal knows the elephant as it is and are limited in understanding, doctrine, and perspective.   The work is to learn to discern the spirit through trial and error in faith. 

1 hour ago, Islander said:

LIke I said, as long as it does not clash with explicit LDS doctrine is a free for all.

  Like I said, and Joseph Smith said, that is good! 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Islander said:

Either God decides who He is and what are we to do to worship Him as he desires or chaos descend on the church as it is evident in some denominations. It destroys confidence in the word of God.

Do you see widespread chaos in our church?  I don't see a widespread destruction of confidence in the word of God as a result of spiritual liberty in our church.  The alternative of requisite cultic adherence to what is taught as absolutes is the bigger problem in my view.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Islander said:

What happens is that pretty soon nobody knows what sound doctrine is. It is not a free for all. Either God decides who He is and what are we to do to worship Him as he desires or chaos descend on the church as it is evident in some denominations. It destroys confidence in the word of God. We also have creeds. The temple interview is a good example of it. Try and say that you do not pay tithing or adhere to the word of wisdom and see what happens. 

LIke I said, as long as it does not clash with explicit LDS doctrine is a free for all.

“I cannot believe in any of the creeds of the different denominations, because they all have some things in them I cannot subscribe to, though all of them have some truth. I want to come up into the presence of God, and learn all things: but the creeds set up stakes, and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further’; which I cannot subscribe to.” -- Joseph Smith

This is consistent with his earlier comment that we will be damned for what we don't believe and not what we do believe. Creeds set up boundaries for that we can only believe such and such and not believe else. It's a subtle difference. The temple recommend questions are about some things we believe and are expected to abide. Tithing and word of wisdom are good examples. But there aren't any questions of the form "You do not believe [such and such]".  One might say, but we don't do that. I've seen it; I've seen it on this board. One example of this is the doctrine of Heavenly Mother. The Church's official position on Her is quite minimal and yet individuals members can believe quite a bit more about Her and still be in good standing. But some have said you cannot believe this/that about Her.

There is the potential problem with believing too much is if it contradicts more foundational beliefs. Yet that isn't an absolute criteria either. Sometimes beliefs can be held in conflicting tension until such a time as we know more and the tension is resolved. Other times we are just wrong. Yet, there has to be some degree of safety in allowing us to occasionally be wrong. It is when we constrain ourselves (via creeds for example) to the safety of never being wrong that we halt our progression (i.e. damnation). I believe God expects us to advance our beliefs, knowing full well that we'll make errors. We just have to have the humility to change those beliefs.

Link to comment
On 6/6/2022 at 8:51 AM, Nofear said:

After a bit of thought, I decided that the show is more of anything a commentary on those adversarial to the Church (aka anti-Mormons). It would be better described as a spoof if the producers weren't actually intending to be serious. That it gets so very many things factually wrong, sometimes egregiously so, paints those who are discontented with the Church in a very bad light, utterly disconnected from reality. As in, "Really? This is how you see us? This is how you justify your discontent?"

But that's not the right way to think about it either. In reflection, anybody with a half a brain of education/experience with the Church or Church history is not the target audience. If instead it is viewed as a production directed towards those who don't know pretty much anything about the Church or Church history, the absurdities become less obvious -- a deceit, a lie, intended for the masses with the intent to turn people from the Gospel. A strategy well employed by another famous individual.

I was Ok with it until episode 6 - then it started to be a little too 'silly' - then the final episode was like watching a melodrama with the mustache-twirling villain tying the woman to the tracks etc.  All balance and attempts a nuance went out the window, and I thought it became most obviously anti-LDS in its tone - something it had at least seemed to avoid in the first 5 episodes IMO.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Did anyone else know that Wyatt Russell is Kurt and Goldie Hawn's son? I just learned of it, he's a heck of a good actor, imo. (He played Dan) Sadly I'll bet Dan thinks he's all that for being depicted in a movie by a star. 

ETA: 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Here's a story by a man that went to the Lafferty's for chiropractic care right after his mission and he got to know them pretty well. He does mention something very true. Back then to say "Heavenly Father" instead of "God" was more common than people are making it out to be. And come to think of it that's true. I was even afraid of using the expression "God". 

 

file:///home/chronos/u-912c05b9cc00f8d6debec4c30f20e1beb2588a83/MyFiles/Downloads/Me%20and%20the%20Laffertys.pdf

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
On 6/4/2022 at 10:40 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I find it ironic (along with engendering ... other feelings ... that may get me booted from the thread if I were to talk too much about them) that some people in this thread have said how much they identify with Detective Pyre and his struggle with his faith.  Yeah ... um ... about that ... He's ... a fictional character. :huh:<_< :rolleyes:  And the real victims, Brenda and Erica Lafferty and those who love them?  They're ... almost an afterthought.  They're ... props ... used (exploited?) to tell the "real" story (at least, the story that's "real" to the Messrs. Krakauer and Black and to those of their ilk) of the Detective Pyres of the world ... Poor, poor Detective Pyre!  Tsk-tsk-tsk!

That's a pretty jaded analysis. The notion that one cannot comment on relating to a particular character without somehow cheapening the tragedy of the murders is a non sequitor. Like rights, feelings are not pie; there's plenty to go around.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Here's a story by a man that went to the Lafferty's for chiropractic care right after his mission and he got to know them pretty well. He does mention something very true. Back then to say "Heavenly Father" instead of "God" was more common than people are making it out to be. And come to think of it that's true. I was even afraid of using the expression "God". 

 

file:///home/chronos/u-912c05b9cc00f8d6debec4c30f20e1beb2588a83/MyFiles/Downloads/Me%20and%20the%20Laffertys.pdf

You either didn't upload the file or you are linking to a local file.

And I've always been adverse to using either of the terms.  So, for me, favoring one over the other is weird.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Here's a story by a man that went to the Lafferty's for chiropractic care right after his mission and he got to know them pretty well. He does mention something very true. Back then to say "Heavenly Father" instead of "God" was more common than people are making it out to be. And come to think of it that's true. I was even afraid of using the expression "God". 

True. When I was baptized in the late '70's, it sounded really stilted, cult-like and odd to use that terminology.  I got used to it, but I used it only when teaching, just to fit in and for sake of communication.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

That's a pretty jaded analysis. The notion that one cannot comment on relating to a particular character without somehow cheapening the tragedy of the murders is a non sequitor. Like rights, feelings are not pie; there's plenty to go around.

My biggest issue is not with you, nor is it with anyone else who identifies with Detective Pyre: You identify with the character with whom you identify.  By far, my biggest issue is with the screenwriters, with Mr. Black and with anyone else responsible for the screenplay.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

My biggest issue is not with you, nor is it with anyone else who identifies with Detective Pyre: You identify with the character with whom you identify.  By far, my biggest issue is with the screenwriters, with Mr. Black and with anyone else responsible for the screenplay.

Well, to be fair to them, this wasn't a documentary; it was a drama. I'm not a huge fan of much of the dialogue, looseness with facts, or many of the creative choices, but I recognize that the story could be told a number of ways and it still be a compelling story.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Well, to be fair to them, this wasn't a documentary; it was a drama. I'm not a huge fan of much of the dialogue, looseness with facts, or many of the creative choices, but I recognize that the story could be told a number of ways and it still be a compelling story.

Even many docudramas are fairer to their [ostensible] subjects than it seems that this one was to Brenda and Erica Lafferty.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, webbles said:

You either didn't upload the file or you are linking to a local file.

And I've always been adverse to using either of the terms.  So, for me, favoring one over the other is weird.

When I c/p'd it came up. But maybe that's only on my end. 

I probably use heavenly father mostly too, unless I'm discussing on here. Saying "God" out loud, I still have qualms, because of my LDS culture. 

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...