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

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Mormon history, menaindthentoire Mormon umbrella isreplate with violent events. From Mountain Meadows to the Allreds, the Laffertys, The Daybells, and Warren Jeffs.  I would toss Brigham Young into the pot as well.  You know that blood atonement thing.

I always liked his saying people should be “used up.”

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

You seem to be claiming that our teachings "feed into" these mental illnesse making them more dangerous.   I was genuinely caught off guard by the mental illness angle though.  Who said anything about mental illness?  

I think it is pretty clear that some of the teachings of Mormonism in all its falcors play well into some who think God is talking to then ending up with violent actions. I think there are plenty of examples.  No need for mental illness at all.

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe the producer is former LDS and I believe Andrew Garfield spoke to many members to get a sense of their faith. So they may not have come to you, but they did talk to others with history and knowledge   If they ask 10 people they'll get 10 different interpretations of the faith.

I agree that faith is like a rainbow of many different hues and interpretations.  They didn't come to the same conclusion as you and I though.  For them there are only to shades - comedy or horror:

Quote

 “but listen, if you do a deep dive into any religion, but I think particularly the Mormon religion, there’s only two ways to go. It is either going to become a musical comedy or it’s going to turn to terror and horror.”

Should I expect anything other than this from the series?

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Let me be clear - I don't think Mormonism is unique in 'breed[ing] dangerous men.' I also don't think 'dangerous men' come only from religion. I do think John Williams had a good point about religions which refer to listening to voices being a place where such dangerous people can find both a safe haven and a justification for their actions.

I also don't think 'Under the Banner of Heaven' is saying ONLY Mormonism 'breeds dangerous men'  or that it breeds MORE dangerous men. I think what the Mormon community does need to recognize, however, is that there are teachings, scriptures and doctrines in its past and current practices which have been and will continue to be used as justification for horrible crimes. Again, there is NOTHING unique about that, but the Mormon community shouldn't simply respond with a 'there's nothing potentially harmful' in our teachings or culture which could lead to bad acts. That simply isn't true.

This seems like a fair assessment.

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that faith is like a rainbow of many different hues and interpretations.  They didn't come to the same conclusion as you and I though.  For them there are only to shades - comedy or horror:

Should I expect anything other than this from the series?

DLB is hardly the only one involved with making this series.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

DLB is hardly the only one involved with making this series.

My never-LDS son-in-law is looking forward to watching it. I’m looking forward to hearing what he thinks. 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mormon history, menaindthentoire Mormon umbrella isreplate with violent events. From Mountain Meadows to the Allreds, the Laffertys, The Daybells, and Warren Jeffs.  I would toss Brigham Young into the pot as well.  You know that blood atonement thing.

I keep hearing this, but the evidence doesn't seem to be bearing it out.  We have two events (maybe a couple more?) over the course of a couple hundred years and a few million members.  I don't know anyone who would consider that kind of record to describe a religion that is 'replete with violence'. 

Plus, most of these listed are not an aspect of Mormon history anyway. They are members who did horrible things, but not things that were sanctioned or taught by the church. They did things that would get them (or did get them) kicked out of the church for doing them in fact. 

But again, even if we counted these people, they are a handful out of millions.  There's probably a few more that we aren't aware of that we could add to the list internationally (but that weren't big enough to make the international news) but still, even if we add in those "probables", the rate of religious violence among members of the church of Jesus Christ could hardly be categorized as "replete".

 

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

What specific "extreme teachings" leads to extreme "preppers"?  Having a food supply, being out of debt, and being temporally self-sufficient doesn't sound "extreme" to me.  Sounds quite reasonable and even wise.  What "extreme" teachings led to the Daybells belief in zombies and all of their off-the-wall crazy beliefs?  Which "extreme" teachings specifically led to "anti vaxxers" - help me out with that one please (I think you are confusing political parties with church teachings)?   If the church was the source of these extreme views, you would think they would be friendly to these extreme characters and beliefs...but, nope.  They are excommunicated and warned against their beliefs and teachings. 

When you take the teachings of Mormonism from a holistic perspective, it is overwhelmingly GOOD, moderate, kind, friendly, and service oriented. 

I think you are entirely missing the point. Maybe intentionally. And I have not said there is not a lot of good teachings in Mormonism. 

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I keep hearing this, but the evidence doesn't seem to be bearing it out

Sure it does.  I gave quite a few examples off the top of my head.  Feel free to check out some of the references others have posted.

 

Sorry for the bad spelling on my post. Going to fast today.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

I think what the Mormon community does need to recognize, however, is that there are teachings, scriptures and doctrines in its past and current practices which have been and will continue to be used as justification for horrible crimes. Again, there is NOTHING unique about that, but the Mormon community shouldn't simply respond with a 'there's nothing potentially harmful' in our teachings or culture which could lead to bad acts. That simply isn't true.

There isn't a belief system (both religious and non), political ideology (both conservative and liberal), status (married, polygamous, monogamous, or single), sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual), gender (male, female, or transgender) or culture (regardless of where it exists) that has not be used to justify horrible crimes.

These things are a part of the human condition and do not exist because of any organization or ideology or practice.  So what really does the Mormon community need to acknowledge exactly?  That it's made up of humans?

Ok, we acknowledge that.

 

 

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

“This portrayal goes counter to the accounts of contemporary observers and the understanding of historians who have investigated the matter of crime in nineteenth-century Utah..."

It depends upon which contemporary observer you ask. Repeating my quote from Porter Rockwell's obituary in the Salt Lake Tribune from earlier:

"Porter Rockwell is another of the long list of Mormon criminals whose deeds of treachery and blood have reddened the soil of Utah, and who has paid no forfeit to offended law…. He killed unsuspecting travelers, whose booty was coveted by his prophet-master. He killed fellow Saints who held secrets that menaced the safety of their fellow criminals in the priesthood. He killed apostates who dared to wag their tongues about the wrongs they had endured. And he killed mere sojourners in Zion merely to keep his hand in."

[bsjkki]

Sorry if already posted.  Church Response to Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven (churchofjesuschrist.org)  Below is one response. The link provides others. From 2003 when the book came out.

 

Response from Mike Otterson, director of Media Relations, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as shared with the Associated Press. This is his personal reaction, as a convert of 35 years and as someone who has seen the Church in operation around the world, from the smallest branch to the highest levels.

Krakauer’s portrayal of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is utterly at odds with what I — and millions like me — have come to know of the Church, its goodness, and the decency of its people. This book is an attempt to tell the story of the so-called fundamentalist or polygamous groups in Utah, and to tie their beliefs to the doctrines and the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The result is a full-frontal assault on the veracity of the modern Church.

This book is not history, and Krakauer is no historian. He is a storyteller who cuts corners to make the story sound good. His basic thesis appears to be that people who are religious are irrational, and that irrational people do strange things. He does a huge disservice to his readers by promulgating old stereotypes. He finds sufficient zealots and extremists in the past 150 years to help him tell his story, and by extrapolation tars every Mormon with the same brush. The exceptions are the rule by his standards. One could be forgiven for concluding that every Latter-day Saint, including your friendly Mormon neighbor, has a tendency to violence. And so Krakauer unwittingly puts himself in the same camp as those who believe every German is a Nazi, every Japanese a fanatic, and every Arab a terrorist.

It is evident from the adulation that Krakauer heaps on three or four historians who are unsympathetic to the Church that they have heavily influenced him. On the other hand, there is such a paucity of quotes attributed to modern Church leaders or ranking members that one wonders who the “dozens of Mormons” were whom Krakauer is supposed to have interviewed for his research.

Krakauer writes a great deal about Joseph Smith, who organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1830. Joseph Smith surely disturbed the status quo in religion in his day, and does so even now. Furthermore, he lived out his days “on stage” for all to observe — some to criticize and some to venerate. He was God’s conduit for bringing back bold doctrines concerning the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of the human experience, the purpose of life and even the nature of the universe. His legacy is that millions of people today throughout the world accept him as the Prophet of the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by bsjkki

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure it does.  I gave quite a few examples off the top of my head.  Feel free to check out some of the references others have posted.

 

Sorry for the bad spelling on my post. Going to fast today.

A handful of examples over 200 years and millions of members?  That percentage doesn't equal a history "replete with violence".  The percentage of violent acts that are a part of the history of the church and committed by members in their capacity as members is miniscule. 

No statistician would categorize an organization with a percentage that small as being 'replete' with anything.

 

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There isn't a belief system (both religious and non), political ideology (both conservative and liberal), status (married, polygamous, monogamous, or single), sexuality (heterosexual or homosexual), gender (male, female, or transgender) or culture (regardless of where it exists) that has not be used to justify horrible crimes.

These things are a part of the human condition and do not exist because of any organization or ideology or practice.  So what really does the Mormon community need to acknowledge exactly?  That it's made up of humans?

Ok, we acknowledge that.

 

 

[sigh] I'll just point out the part where I said - "...but the Mormon community shouldn't simply respond with a 'there's nothing potentially harmful' in our teachings or culture which could lead to bad acts. That simply isn't true." My sense in reading comments by many defenders both here and on Facebook is that they are trying to paint a picture which ignores the ugly teachings of Brigham Young and others upon which the Lafferty brothers relied to justify their crimes.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It depends upon which contemporary observer you ask. Repeating my quote from Porter Rockwell's obituary in the Salt Lake Tribune from earlier:

"Porter Rockwell is another of the long list of Mormon criminals whose deeds of treachery and blood have reddened the soil of Utah, and who has paid no forfeit to offended law…. He killed unsuspecting travelers, whose booty was coveted by his prophet-master. He killed fellow Saints who held secrets that menaced the safety of their fellow criminals in the priesthood. He killed apostates who dared to wag their tongues about the wrongs they had endured. And he killed mere sojourners in Zion merely to keep his hand in."

Can we really use a source that is that biased for anything dealing with historical accuracy?  It would be like asking Rosebud and KK to write Dehlin's obituary and then trying to use it as evidence of against him.

[Teancum]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A handful of examples over 200 years and millions of members?  That percentage doesn't equal a history "replete with violence".  The percentage of violent acts that are a part of the history of the church and committed by members in their capacity as members is miniscule. 

No statistician would categorize an organization with a percentage that small as being 'replete' with anything.

 

ok....😏

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, ttribe said:

DLB is hardly the only one involved with making this series.

With his inside knowledge of the series, should I expect his assessment to be far off?

Edited April 26, 2022 by pogi

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Plus, most of these listed are not an aspect of Mormon history anyway. They are members who did horrible things, but not things that were sanctioned or taught by the church.

I'll restate a point I made above. When Brigham Young went to the site of one of the coldest mass murders in U.S. history and saw the marker, he said it should read, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and I have taken a little." That is from Wilford Woodruff's journal.

Was the mass murder really God "taking a little" of the vengeance that the Saints had been praying for? Maybe the mass murder wasn't sanctioned by the Church, but Brigham Young sure thought it was God carrying out his righteousness.

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

With his inside knowledge of the series, should I expect his assessment to be far of?

He is a producer and writer on the series, I believe, but they did also bring in other people to assist. Lindsey Hansen Park (as I've previously referenced) played a pretty significant role in the behind the scenes elements of the series as well. She may no longer be an active member, but she is very knowledgeable on Mormon History and culture and has publicly stated that she gave a significant amount of effort to the accuracy of portrayals of both in the series.

That being said, if you go into watching the series with the expectation you've expressed, I suspect that is exactly what you'll find.

Edited April 26, 2022 by ttribe

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can we really use a source that is that biased for anything dealing with historical accuracy?  It would be like asking Rosebud and KK to write Dehlin's obituary and then trying to use it as evidence of against him.

My point is much more modest than you are imagining. Calm quoted a FAIR article that said something to the effect that "contemporary observers" thought 19th Century Mormons were extraordinarily peaceful. The Salt Lake Tribune article is contemporaneous evidence that not all 19th century observers agreed that the Mormons were peaceful. It would seem Calm's source was cherry picking.

[pogi]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think you are entirely missing the point. Maybe intentionally. And I have not said there is not a lot of good teachings in Mormonism. 

I have no intent to portray your point in a way other than what you intend, otherwise I am wasting my time.  I am truly confused as to your point if you think I am missing it.  Have you not made an accusation of "extreme teachings in Mormonism" that leads to extremism and violence?   I have simply asked for specific examples of those extreme teachings that lead to anti vaxxers, for example.  How is that intentionally misconstruing anything you said by asking for clarity?   Here is exactly what you said, so I don't misconstrue you:

Quote

I think any extreme views create, well extremists.  And there are extreme teaching in Mormonism that lends to things like the Lafferty's. Snuffer, Julie Rowe, Daybells, preppers, Conspiracy theorists, anti vaxxers, and the list could go on.

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It depends upon which contemporary observer you ask. Repeating my quote from Porter Rockwell's obituary in the Salt Lake Tribune from earlier:

"Porter Rockwell is another of the long list of Mormon criminals whose deeds of treachery and blood have reddened the soil of Utah, and who has paid no forfeit to offended law…. He killed unsuspecting travelers, whose booty was coveted by his prophet-master. He killed fellow Saints who held secrets that menaced the safety of their fellow criminals in the priesthood. He killed apostates who dared to wag their tongues about the wrongs they had endured. And he killed mere sojourners in Zion merely to keep his hand in."

Again, a few violent members of a society is not the same thing as a violent society. Talking individually rather than generally can make a big difference in perception.   The best approach to judge realistically is based on comparing statistics and Utah territory with its high percentage of Saints demonstrates lower levels of violence than surrounding areas.  I have no doubt there was violence and rhetoric that was easier to use to rationalize violence by some than it should be, but unless someone can document a tendency among the overall community rather than pointing to individuals, it is much less meaningful than a statistic that, for example, says so many more murders per 100,000, etc. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, ttribe said:

He is a producer and writer on the series, I believe, but they did also bring in other people to assist. Lindsey Hansen Park (as I've previously referenced) played a pretty significant role in the behind the scenes elements of the series as well. She may no longer be an active member, but she is very knowledgeable on Mormon History and culture and has publicly stated that she gave a significant amount of effort to the accuracy of portrayals of both in the series.

Ok, but that doesn't answer my question.  Are you suggesting that he is wrong in his assessment about a film that he was a producer and writer on?

[Vanguard]

Bluebell is making a compelling case. I had not considered her angle. How can a religion with as many millions of members/former members as we have not have at least a list a few out-of-control examples? For sure, several examples are horrible but what - 6 examples? 10? 20?

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A handful of examples over 200 years and millions of members?  That percentage doesn't equal a history "replete with violence".  The percentage of violent acts that are a part of the history of the church and committed by members in their capacity as members is miniscule. 

No statistician would categorize an organization with a percentage that small as being 'replete' with anything.

 

I think the question isn't the prevalence of quantity, but whether our religion was the legitimate source of the number that did occur?

Not many of the billions of Catholics were crusaders or inquisitionists.  Not many of the billions of Protestants were witch hunters.  Not every one of the millions of Muslims are Al Quaeda jihadists.
But those events came directly from those religions.

We have events that came directly from our religion too.