Under the Banner of Heaven ep 1

[caspianrex]

Hey y'all, 

As some of you know, I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I am a collector of editions of The Book of Mormon. I was watching the first episode of Under the Banner of Heaven, about which I have some mixed reactions, but that's not my point here. As a BoM "enthusiast," I noticed in one scene that one of the Laffertys is shown reading a passage from the BoM, but it's not the familiar missionary edition from the 1980s, or a quad combo, but rather a facsimile edition of the 1830 BoM (see screencap below). Does anyone have any idea if fundamentalists like the Laffertys would really have read the 1830 edition instead of the Church's Salt Lake City edition? I mean, in the series (which, I know, is not exactly historically accurate) they consistently refer to themselves as "LDS," so I would have expected to see a conventional LDS edition of the BoM.

Anyway, that detail stuck out to me. Please understand, I am neither endorsing nor condemning the series, and I don't want to get involved in a discussion of the show's merits or lack thereof. I'm just interested in this particular detail. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts about it.

[latterdaytemplar]

1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

Hey y'all, 

As some of you know, I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I am a collector of editions of The Book of Mormon. I was watching the first episode of Under the Banner of Heaven, about which I have some mixed reactions, but that's not my point here. As a BoM "enthusiast," I noticed in one scene that one of the Laffertys is shown reading a passage from the BoM, but it's not the familiar missionary edition from the 1980s, or a quad combo, but rather a facsimile edition of the 1830 BoM (see screencap below). Does anyone have any idea if fundamentalists like the Laffertys would really have read the 1830 edition instead of the Church's Salt Lake City edition? I mean, in the series (which, I know, is not exactly historically accurate) they consistently refer to themselves as "LDS," so I would have expected to see a conventional LDS edition of the BoM.

Anyway, that detail stuck out to me. Please understand, I am neither endorsing nor condemning the series, and I don't want to get involved in a discussion of the show's merits or lack thereof. I'm just interested in this particular detail. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts about it.

My speculation:

Given that the Church's 1981 edition would have been the most commonly available in Utah at that time, I suspect that the Laffertys would have had a copy of it rather than the 1830 edition (which, I believe, was not so common at all during that time). Even the FLDS have historically used and continue to use the mainstream Church's version of the scriptures.

This is, of course, assuming that the above-imaged scene takes place in or post-1981 (I have not watched it yet); if it takes place before, then it would be most likely that he'd have used the previous version.

[Calm]

I didn’t recognize the book, thanks for picking up on that.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said:

My speculation:

Given that the Church's 1981 edition would have been the most commonly available in Utah at that time, I suspect that the Laffertys would have had a copy of it rather than the 1830 edition (which, I believe, was not so common at all during that time). Even the FLDS have historically used and continue to use the mainstream Church's version of the scriptures.

This is, of course, assuming that the above-imaged scene takes place in or post-1981 (I have not watched it yet); if it takes place before, then it would be most likely that he'd have used the previous version.

I bought a side by side comparison between the RLDS JST and selected Bible verses at the BYU bookstore around 1980.  They had other less common scripture available like the alleged Book of Jasper, the Apocrypha, etc.  I have no doubt BYU Bookstore would have had a copy of the 1830 edition, though that is one I don’t specifically remember looking at (I was into Old Testament).  Given the level of fanaticism that was portrayed in the series, if that is accurate, I can see it as likely Lafferty had a copy of the 1830.

There were and are several big used bookstores that had massive Mormon collections in Utah, some carried a few new editions as well, so my guess is it would be very easy for the Laffertys to find an 1830 edition.

But why the director went with an 1830 edition, but used a selection from the Times and Seasons to actually read is strange.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Hey y'all, 

As some of you know, I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I am a collector of editions of The Book of Mormon. I was watching the first episode of Under the Banner of Heaven, about which I have some mixed reactions, but that's not my point here. As a BoM "enthusiast," I noticed in one scene that one of the Laffertys is shown reading a passage from the BoM, but it's not the familiar missionary edition from the 1980s, or a quad combo, but rather a facsimile edition of the 1830 BoM (see screencap below). Does anyone have any idea if fundamentalists like the Laffertys would really have read the 1830 edition instead of the Church's Salt Lake City edition? I mean, in the series (which, I know, is not exactly historically accurate) they consistently refer to themselves as "LDS," so I would have expected to see a conventional LDS edition of the BoM.

Anyway, that detail stuck out to me. Please understand, I am neither endorsing nor condemning the series, and I don't want to get involved in a discussion of the show's merits or lack thereof. I'm just interested in this particular detail. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts about it.

I have a facsimile of the first edition. It was published by Deseret Book in 1980 to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the organization of the Church in 1830. The product was quite popular that year, as I recall, but it was not reprinted.

So it’s not outlandish that some Church members would have those facsimile copies, especially back when this took place, which would have been not long after 1980. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

The quote from the series and the Times and Seasons version:

“When the brethren show a unity of purpose, our labor, our toil and anxiety are diminished.  Our yoke is made easy and our burden light.”  

——

“We feel at this time to tender to all, old and young, both in the church and out of it, our unfeigned thanks for their unprecedented liberality, kindness, dilligence [diligence], and obedience which they have so opportunely manifested on the present occasion. Not that we are personally or individually benefitted [benefited] in a pecuniary point of view, but when the brethren as in this instance shew [show] a unity of purpose, and design, and all put their shoulder to the wheel, our care, labor, toil, and anxiety is materially diminished, "our yoke is made easy; and our burden is light."

 

From Times and Seasons. 

 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Times_and_Seasons/3/13. *****

Edited April 29, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

The Trib is offering a recap:

https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/tv/2022/04/28/episode-recaps-fxhulus/

[Calm]

Anachronisms so far:

The dresses and boots on the girls for Pioneer Day seem off the shelf current to me, I don’t remember that style of boot from back then…but I have never had more than 4 pairs of shoes and 1 pair of boots at a time, so could be wrong.

Greg Olsen print at crime scene. Ten years too early

Reflecting pool at Temple Square. 

I couldn’t see one chapel in the aerial shot of ‘East Rockwell”…why they fictionalized even the town is beyond me.  It feels like they don’t actually care about the crime, it is only a vehicle for pitching the idea “Mormonism breeds dangerous men.”  I am guessing it is supposed to be a shoutout to Porter Rockwell, to show how Mormons venerate him. 

How does eminent domain work?  From what I have read preparing/planting a field would only increase its Fair Market value, not prevent seizure.  

Anything anyone else caught as wrong time period?

Edited April 29, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anachronisms so far:

The dresses and boots on the girls for Pioneer Day seem off the shelf current to me, I don’t remember that style of boot from back then…but I have never had more than 4 pairs of shoes and 1 pair of boots at a time, so could be wrong.

Greg Olsen print at crime scene. Ten years too early

Reflecting pool at Temple Square. 

I couldn’t see one chapel in the aerial shot of ‘East Rockwell”…why they fictionalized even the town is beyond me.  It feels like they don’t actually care about the crime, it is only a vehicle for pitching the idea “Mormonism breeds dangerous men.”  I am guessing it is supposed to be a shoutout to Porter Rockwell, to show how Mormons venerate him. 

How does eminent domain work?  From what I have read preparing/planting a field would only increase its Fair Market value, not prevent seizure.  

Anything anyone else caught as wrong time period?

Well done on the anachronisms; now do the same thing with the Book of Mormon. 😉

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well done on the anachronisms; now do the same thing with the Book of Mormon. 😉

I don’t have an issue with there being some anachronisms given my view of the transmission process.    I think I have seen them all, at least up to a few years ago (read CES letter, various versions; seen other lists).  Nothing was earthshaking for me. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Calm

[ttribe]

Just now, Calm said:

I don’t have an issue with there being some anachronisms given my view of the transmission process. 

Just a little joke.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Just a little joke.

I know, it made me smile. But thought I should answer anyway. Habit of answering posts or the defender in me peeking out, I can’t tell. 

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Hey y'all, 

As some of you know, I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I am a collector of editions of The Book of Mormon. I was watching the first episode of Under the Banner of Heaven, about which I have some mixed reactions, but that's not my point here. As a BoM "enthusiast," I noticed in one scene that one of the Laffertys is shown reading a passage from the BoM, but it's not the familiar missionary edition from the 1980s, or a quad combo, but rather a facsimile edition of the 1830 BoM (see screencap below). Does anyone have any idea if fundamentalists like the Laffertys would really have read the 1830 edition instead of the Church's Salt Lake City edition? I mean, in the series (which, I know, is not exactly historically accurate) they consistently refer to themselves as "LDS," so I would have expected to see a conventional LDS edition of the BoM.

Anyway, that detail stuck out to me. Please understand, I am neither endorsing nor condemning the series, and I don't want to get involved in a discussion of the show's merits or lack thereof. I'm just interested in this particular detail. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts about it.

I joined in 1980, and I had the blue-covered paper missionary edition with Moroni and his trumpet on the cover

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

How does eminent domain work?  From what I have read preparing/planting a field would only increase its Fair Market value, not prevent seizure.  

Utah has limitations on the use of eminent domain on “century farms” if I remember correctly. If the family owned the land for a century or more and put up a farm on it or turned it back into a farm it might be protected. I have no idea how far these laws go back though or if I am remembering this right.

[Calm]

Found another anachronism.

That McD straw of Taba’s is too fat for 1982 milkshake or soda.  Can’t believe I actually found an article on it. 1988.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-lip-smacking-look-at-the-day-that-drinking-straws-got-bigger/2013/07/07/f3fd8b8e-e584-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

Point of the Mountain is too cool of a name to be altered to Draper Prison. Please register my dissatisfaction. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Calm

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, caspianrex said:

Hey y'all, 

As some of you know, I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I am a collector of editions of The Book of Mormon. I was watching the first episode of Under the Banner of Heaven, about which I have some mixed reactions, but that's not my point here. As a BoM "enthusiast," I noticed in one scene that one of the Laffertys is shown reading a passage from the BoM, but it's not the familiar missionary edition from the 1980s, or a quad combo, but rather a facsimile edition of the 1830 BoM (see screencap below). Does anyone have any idea if fundamentalists like the Laffertys would really have read the 1830 edition instead of the Church's Salt Lake City edition? I mean, in the series (which, I know, is not exactly historically accurate) they consistently refer to themselves as "LDS," so I would have expected to see a conventional LDS edition of the BoM.

Anyway, that detail stuck out to me. Please understand, I am neither endorsing nor condemning the series, and I don't want to get involved in a discussion of the show's merits or lack thereof. I'm just interested in this particular detail. I would like to hear anyone's thoughts about it.

The two Lafferty brothers were raised in the LDS Church.  They were not fundamentalists. They were returned missionaries, and one brother served in the Bishopric.  Their parents were senior missionaries.  Of course they went off the rails, but I do not think they joined a fundamentalist breakoff.   They did meet with the School of the Prophets in Salem for a while, but they were too nuts even for that group. I would label them apostates.

I think the book in question was a hard bound special edition of the BoM that Desert Book sold for a time.  If I remember correctly, at an extra cost, you could also get a copy that was leather bound.

 

Edited to add:  I just read Scott's post, and he has a better memory than I do, he mentioned this was 1980 commemorative edition.  I knew it was a special edition.

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by sunstoned

[Peacefully]

Just finished the first episode. It plodded along until the end, but I think I’m hooked now. I’m unfamiliar with the story, so I’m not sure how much license they are taking with it. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Just finished the first episode. It plodded along until the end, but I think I’m hooked now. I’m unfamiliar with the story, so I’m not sure how much license they are taking with it. 

I read "Under the Banner of Heaven" years ago, but forgot all about it, so seeing it with new eyes. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Just finished the first episode. It plodded along until the end, but I think I’m hooked now. I’m unfamiliar with the story, so I’m not sure how much license they are taking with it. 

I am not hooked.  But finding the anachronisms was fun even if it added an hour to the watch time for checking the four possibles (two for real).

I only got pissed at the very end when they juxtapositioned the hand of young Joseph lifting up to shield his eyes from the light of the First Vision with a bloody hand pushing opening the baby’s nursery door.  If they had gone with older Joseph, I likely would have rolled my eyes like I did for the rest of the episode’s random and over the top stuff.  But this was offensive.  Young Joseph, I don’t buy he was less than sincere and not the sincerity of the whack jobs like Laffertys…assuming they were sincere in their evil.    To put young Joseph right next to the murder of the infant was meant to be intentionally shocking. 
 

What I dislike the most about the series so far is the real crime, the real people, the real tragedy are playing second fiddle to a fictional character’s struggle with his faith.  They are just tools being used to explore a fictional faith crisis.  I am going to stop at that because I could have a looonnggg rant on this.  I am going to add at this point, because they adapted so much for the writer’s goal (changing the name to Rockwell instead of American Fork to perhaps show a veneration towards Porter Rockwell, for one), I don’t know what is part of the real life of the real people or not.  So am I learning about them or are they more or less fictional as well?  Did Brenda really want to be a newscaster or was that added for conflict?  Did Allen get detained first and did he provide any of this theological conflict or did he just keep his mouth shut.  Did Robin Lafferty take off with his family or was that for the plot line?  It bugs me I don’t have a clue about the people themselves because of putting the story of made up, not even composite Jeb Pyre front and center.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not hooked.  But finding the anachronisms was fun even if it added an hour to the watch time for checking the four possibles (two for real).

I only got pissed at the very end when they juxtapositioned the hand of young Joseph lifting up to shield his eyes from the light of the First Vision with a bloody hand pushing opening the baby’s nursery door.  If they had gone with older Joseph, I likely would have rolled my eyes like I did for the rest of the episode’s random and over the top stuff.  But this was offensive.  Young Joseph, I don’t buy he was less than sincere and not the sincerity of the whack jobs like Laffertys…assuming they were sincere in their evil.    To put young Joseph right next to the murder of the infant was meant to be intentionally shocking. 
 

What I dislike the most about the series so far is the real crime, the real people, the real tragedy are playing second fiddle to a fictional character’s struggle with his faith.  They are just tools being used to explore a fictional faith crisis.  I am going to stop at that because I could have a looonnggg rant on this.  I am going to add at this point, because they adapted so much for the writer’s goal (changing the name to Rockwell instead of American Fork to perhaps show a veneration towards Porter Rockwell, for one), I don’t know what is part of the real life of the real people or not.  So am I learning about them or are they more or less fictional as well?  Did Brenda really want to be a newscaster or was that added for conflict?  Did Allen get detained first and did he provide any of this theological conflict or did he just keep his mouth shut.  Did Robin Lafferty take off with his family or was that for the plot line?  It bugs me I don’t have a clue about the people themselves because of putting the story of made up, not even composite Jeb Pyre front and center.

I'm sorry you're having to dissect the series for FAIR, it sounds like it's very upsetting. It's upsetting to me even! I am glad they make the regular LDS folk more normal and very likable. It'd be tough to be around my inactive kids and relatives if they watched this and then wonder about me and others, of course hopefully they'd know me better than that. But I wonder if people are going to judge LDS people wrongfully after viewing these episodes. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

I'm sorry you're having to dissect the series for FAIR, it sounds like it's very upsetting.

Not upsetting. I just dislike it because it taking what should be front and center, real people, real victims and essentially trivializing their suffering by turning it into plot devices for a fictional story.  Sometimes those have value in themselves, but this is not claiming that as its purpose.  I see it therefore as manipulative and exploitative.  It is directing people to put more emotional investment into fiction than real people in what is supposed to be history, but since I would have to do research to figure out what was actually history…waste of time.  I’d rather read a bio or watch a documentary about it.  The Mark Hoffman documentary awhile back was time well spent  

The moment that angered me with young Joseph was only a moment. I am not going to get worked up into anything more than what I have said here. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, caspianrex said:

................ a facsimile edition of the 1830 BoM................

A lot of people bought those facsimile editions back then, as has been pointed out already.  However, they are not very practical since one cannot look up chapter and verse.

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not hooked.  But finding the anachronisms was fun even if it added an hour to the watch time for checking the four possibles (two for real).

I only got pissed at the very end when they juxtapositioned the hand of young Joseph lifting up to shield his eyes from the light of the First Vision with a bloody hand pushing opening the baby’s nursery door.  If they had gone with older Joseph, I likely would have rolled my eyes like I did for the rest of the episode’s random and over the top stuff.  But this was offensive.  Young Joseph, I don’t buy he was less than sincere and not the sincerity of the whack jobs like Laffertys…assuming they were sincere in their evil.    To put young Joseph right next to the murder of the infant was meant to be intentionally shocking. 
 

What I dislike the most about the series so far is the real crime, the real people, the real tragedy are playing second fiddle to a fictional character’s struggle with his faith.  They are just tools being used to explore a fictional faith crisis.  I am going to stop at that because I could have a looonnggg rant on this.  I am going to add at this point, because they adapted so much for the writer’s goal (changing the name to Rockwell instead of American Fork to perhaps show a veneration towards Porter Rockwell, for one), I don’t know what is part of the real life of the real people or not.  So am I learning about them or are they more or less fictional as well?  Did Brenda really want to be a newscaster or was that added for conflict?  Did Allen get detained first and did he provide any of this theological conflict or did he just keep his mouth shut.  Did Robin Lafferty take off with his family or was that for the plot line?  It bugs me I don’t have a clue about the people themselves because of putting the story of made up, not even composite Jeb Pyre front and center.

I can see how you would feel that way. Since I have no knowledge of the story, or the book it was based on, I am watching it like I would a fictional murder mystery. Watching it that way, I find it interesting. I also find all the references to “Mormonism” interesting. I didn’t get the connection between Joseph Smith raising his hand and the bloody hand, but I could see how that would be offensive. I’ve only watched the first episode, so it may jump the shark for me at some point. I do think Andrew Garfield is doing a good job, so far. 

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I read "Under the Banner of Heaven" years ago, but forgot all about it, so seeing it with new eyes. 

I found the first episode pulled me in enough that I will watch the next episode. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of people bought those facsimile editions back then, as has been pointed out already.  However, they are not very practical since one cannot look up chapter and verse.

It’s more of a keepsake than a study aid.