Temple Scene in UTBOH

[Calm]

Interesting discussion.

https://juvenileinstructor.org/expose-in-under-the-banner-of-heaven/

Quote

A simple principle underlies my methodology when writing on esotericism: exposure is a violent act. (If the word “violent”—albeit appropriate—feels too dramatic for you, then feel free to replace it with “intolerant” or “harmful.”)

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

Quote

Academically trained scholars usually don’t need to be convinced that exposé is violent.

An important point. As I have repeatedly pointed out, what Mr Black and his ilk do would be considered a major research ethics violation at any credible institution of higher learning. 

[webbles]

I found a clip of it online and after watching it, I'm really disappointed in how it was portrayed.  It skipped all over the ceremony and focused on only a few select pieces.  I'm sure Black was trying to show how those parts were a factor in Brenda's murder and her treatment, but that is a real stretch.  It was also inaccurate in some aspects and makes the ceremony look real gimmicky.

I agree with the last line in the article:

Quote

Ironically, it is the creators of UTBOH who have silenced Brenda in their depiction of her experience in the temple.

I wonder if some of the journal entries and letters that Black had access to talk about other temple visits that Brenda might have done.  Did she visit as her marriage collapsed and her in-laws became worse and worse?  Brenda's sister (per the article) said that Brenda cherished it so I wonder if Brenda came back to the temple for solace during the difficult times.  If so, reworking the temple ceremony to be "sinister" is harmful to her memory.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, webbles said:

I found a clip of it online and after watching it, I'm really disappointed in how it was portrayed.  It skipped all over the ceremony and focused on only a few select pieces.  I'm sure Black was trying to show how those parts were a factor in Brenda's murder and her treatment, but that is a real stretch.  It was also inaccurate in some aspects and makes the ceremony look real gimmicky.

I agree with the last line in the article:

I wonder if some of the journal entries and letters that Black had access to talk about other temple visits that Brenda might have done.  Did she visit as her marriage collapsed and her in-laws became worse and worse?  Brenda's sister (per the article) said that Brenda cherished it so I wonder if Brenda came back to the temple for solace during the difficult times.  If so, reworking the temple ceremony to be "sinister" is harmful to her memory.

This surprises me. Surely you aren't suggesting it would have been better for them to portray the entire ceremony.

I'd definitely be curious if Brenda had any journals describing how she felt about it. Otherwise, it's pretty hard to know. It's also worth noting that her feelings about the ceremony could have changed over time, or depending on whom she was telling.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'd definitely be curious if Brenda had any journals describing how she felt about it.

She had a diary, iirc, that Sharon Weeks her sister, let Black read. Whether it included this event or not, don’t know. If it did, she had to read it as well and so her criticism of Black’s misrepresentation suggests it is positive if it exists. 

Edited June 16, 2022 by Calm

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

She had a diary, iirc, that Sharon Weeks her sister, let Black read. Whether it included this event or not.  If it did, she had to read it as well and so her criticism of Black’s misrepresentation suggests it is positive if it exists. 

On the other thread Tacenda posted something from a private Facebook group from Sharon (and then deleted it because it was private and she re-thought putting it up), but if I'm remembering right in it Sharon specifically says that Brenda spoke about how she loved her temple experience and that Black's portrayal did her sister a great disservice.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This surprises me. Surely you aren't suggesting it would have been better for them to portray the entire ceremony.

I'd definitely be curious if Brenda had any journals describing how she felt about it. Otherwise, it's pretty hard to know. It's also worth noting that her feelings about the ceremony could have changed over time, or depending on whom she was telling.

Personally, I'd rather they do the entire ceremony instead of just a few select parts.  Though I really don't see why they included it.  The connections that Black thinks are there are not there.  The Laffertys did not do anything related to the temple ceremony, nor to blood atonement.  The book didn't even make those connections.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

On the other thread Tacenda posted something from a private Facebook group from Sharon (and then deleted it because it was private and she re-thought putting it up), but if I'm remembering right in it Sharon specifically says that Brenda spoke about how she loved her temple experience and that Black's portrayal did her sister a great disservice.

You can find Sharon saying it in a Deseret News article - https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/5/11/23064288/under-banner-of-heaven-brenda-ron-dan-lafferty-murder-lds-church-real-fiction-sharon-weeks-sister

Quote

One of the biggest issues Weeks has with the series takes place in Episode 3.

Weeks said she was particularly disappointed to see one of Brenda’s most sacred, intimate and private moments — her temple wedding — depicted in a “creepy” light, even though in reality Brenda “loved every bit of it.”

“It was a personal, beautiful experience that she absolutely cherished,” Weeks said. “She loved every bit of it. She didn’t think it was weird. She didn’t think it was creepy.”

Weeks, who along with Brenda was raised as a Latter-day Saint by “pragmatic” parents in Idaho who didn’t take their religion to extremes, said she’s not active in the church these days, but she knows how “sacred” the temple ceremony is, and she wanted to protect her sister’s memory from being “exploited” in that setting. Weeks said her mother raised her and her sister to be fully prepared for the ceremony, so they knew exactly what to expect.

“I feel like they betrayed Brenda, and that I wasn’t able to prevent that from happening,” Weeks said. “I had no idea they would show her in that setting.”

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

On the other thread Tacenda posted something from a private Facebook group from Sharon (and then deleted it because it was private and she re-thought putting it up), but if I'm remembering right in it Sharon specifically says that Brenda spoke about how she loved her temple experience and that Black's portrayal did her sister a great disservice.

This is correct.

Brenda's sister, Sharon Weeks, stated the following [source][emphasis added]:

Quote

Weeks said she was particularly disappointed to see one of Brenda’s most sacred, intimate and private moments — her temple wedding — depicted in a “creepy” light, even though in reality Brenda “loved every bit of it.”

“It was a personal, beautiful experience that she absolutely cherished,” Weeks said. “She loved every bit of it. She didn’t think it was weird. She didn’t think it was creepy.”

Weeks, who along with Brenda was raised as a Latter-day Saint by “pragmatic” parents in Idaho who didn’t take their religion to extremes, said she’s not active in the church these days, but she knows how “sacred” the temple ceremony is, and she wanted to protect her sister’s memory from being “exploited” in that setting. Weeks said her mother raised her and her sister to be fully prepared for the ceremony, so they knew exactly what to expect.

“I feel like they betrayed Brenda, and that I wasn’t able to prevent that from happening,” Weeks said. “I had no idea they would show her in that setting.”

 

In a later interview, she stated the same [source][emphasis added]:

Quote

Brenda loved her Latter-day Saint faith. Sharon said, “She loved the temple, she loved seeing her whole family together dressed in white.” Brenda used her faith to embrace and welcome everyone. “It didn’t matter who they were,” Sharon said, “Brenda welcomed and embraced everyone.”

After she was married, Brenda would go to the temple at least weekly.

 

I don't have a direct source for this last bit, though it is perhaps somewhat implied in the previous quote, but I believe I remember hearing one of the reporters who interviewed Sharon say that, towards the end, Brenda was attending the temple multiple times a week. The temple was very meaningful to her, and that is certainly not how her experience was portrayed in the show.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, Amulek said:

This is correct.

Brenda's sister, Sharon Weeks, stated the following [source][emphasis added]:

 

In a later interview, she stated the same [source][emphasis added]:

 

I don't have a direct source for this last bit, though it is perhaps somewhat implied in the previous quote, but I believe I remember hearing one of the reporters who interviewed Sharon say that, towards the end, Brenda was attending the temple multiple times a week. The temple was very meaningful to her, and that is certainly not how her experience was portrayed in the show.

 

It doesn't really make a difference to me personally one way or the other, except it seems people are upset about something that isn't really worth getting upset about.

I guess I don't see how the sister's comments would prove that Brenda didn't also have some unease about certain aspects of the temple. The truth is we simply can't know how Brenda's feelings on everything and assuming her sister is the absolute authority on the issue may or may not be correct.

As people often claim in reference to Joseph Smith's 9+ versions of the first vision, even seemingly contradictory details may not actually be contradictory, but simply a different focus for a different audience.

Edited June 17, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 The truth is we simply can't know how Brenda's feelings on everything and assuming her sister is the absolute authority on the issue may or may not be correct.

 

There's a lot we can't know, but that doesn't justify just making stuff up about real people in order to fit a desired narrative.  Her sister is not the absolute authority, and no one here is making that argument.  But she is AN authority, and possibly the best authority we have at the moment.  Her opinions oughtn't be dismissed so casually. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

There's a lot we can't know, but that doesn't justify just making stuff up about real people in order to fit a desired narrative.  Her sister is not the absolute authority, and no one here is making that argument.  But she is AN authority, and possibly the best authority we have at the moment.  Her opinions oughtn't be dismissed so casually. 

I have no problem accepting her statements as an opinion

[Tacenda]

Haven't listened yet, but maybe it will give a few missed insights, not sure. It's with Lindsay Hansen Park and she was part of the development of the series. https://sunstone.org/e70-utboh-fact-fiction-and-episode-three/

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

There's a lot we can't know, but that doesn't justify just making stuff up about real people in order to fit a desired narrative.  Her sister is not the absolute authority, and no one here is making that argument.  But she is AN authority, and possibly the best authority we have at the moment.  Her opinions oughtn't be dismissed so casually. 

Especially given the circumstances surrounding this story.  It’s not Forrest Gump where inserting a fictional character into important and not so important actual events doesn’t change anyone’s perception of people or events; it is changing perceptions of a murder victim where part of the tragedy is so many who could have known her never will and instead of learning about her most likely loves and beliefs, the writer is substituting his own, inserting his biases, his likes and dislikes, using Brenda as a vehicle to do so, to promote and proselyte his way of thinking, not giving Brenda another chance to be known by others who could benefit from that encounter.  It is so self centered, so selfish to use Brenda this way, rather than celebrate who she was to the best of his ability.

Go create a fictional story all the way to make his point rather than steal the names and lives of real people who deserve our respect.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It doesn't really make a difference to me personally one way or the other, except it seems people are upset about something that isn't really worth getting upset about.

I guess I don't see how the sister's comments would prove that Brenda didn't also have some unease about certain aspects of the temple. The truth is we simply can't know how Brenda's feelings on everything and assuming her sister is the absolute authority on the issue may or may not be correct.

As people often claim in reference to Joseph Smith's 9+ versions of the first vision, even seemingly contradictory details may not actually be contradictory, but simply a different focus for a different audience.

That's why I'm curious if she actually wrote something about it in her journal.  I'm fairly certain that Brenda's sister (Sharon) has read the journal entries.  So, based on her statements, it would seem that either Brenda wrote nothing about it and Sharon is talking about conversations she had with Brenda, or that Brenda did write something about the ceremony and Sharon is relaying that.  In either case, Black doesn't have any standing to make Brenda's temple ceremony look "spooky".  Instead of telling her story about the temple, Black is telling what he thinks the temple ceremony really means.  I think a better use of the temple ceremony for Black would have been to focus on Dan or Ron in the ceremony.  Black is trying to connect the dots of the the temple ceremony and blood atonement and Brenda's murder so focus on Dan or Ron and show how they understood the temple.

I guess I'm just saddened that Black has now basically told millions of viewers that Brenda had an issue with the temple without any evidence.  It is a disservice to her memory.

[The Nehor]

The danger of doing a show about real people in such recent history is that if you take licenses with the facts for narrative purposes or because you didn’t have enough information to know or whatever there are sometimes still people alive who can say you got it very wrong.

[HappyJackWagon]

33 minutes ago, webbles said:

That's why I'm curious if she actually wrote something about it in her journal.  I'm fairly certain that Brenda's sister (Sharon) has read the journal entries.  So, based on her statements, it would seem that either Brenda wrote nothing about it and Sharon is talking about conversations she had with Brenda, or that Brenda did write something about the ceremony and Sharon is relaying that.  In either case, Black doesn't have any standing to make Brenda's temple ceremony look "spooky".  Instead of telling her story about the temple, Black is telling what he thinks the temple ceremony really means.  I think a better use of the temple ceremony for Black would have been to focus on Dan or Ron in the ceremony.  Black is trying to connect the dots of the the temple ceremony and blood atonement and Brenda's murder so focus on Dan or Ron and show how they understood the temple.

I guess I'm just saddened that Black has now basically told millions of viewers that Brenda had an issue with the temple without any evidence.  It is a disservice to her memory.

I completely agree with that.

You may be right but you're assuming he has no evidence. 

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The danger of doing a show about real people in such recent history is that if you take licenses with the facts for narrative purposes or because you didn’t have enough information to know or whatever there are sometimes still people alive who can say you got it very wrong.

Very true.

Ask any of the individuals depicted in Winning Time on HBO. Jerry West was particularly miffed.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Very true.

Ask any of the individuals depicted in Winning Time on HBO. Jerry West was particularly miffed.

When it can affect their reputations and how people treat them in real life, they should be, imo.  Black appears to thoroughly realize what he is doing in Banner as he was smart enough to change the names of all the living Lafferty family members, police, church members, even the name of the town and mostly just create characters rather than using real life people.  Only in the case of Allen does it appear he risked and kept an actual name…my guess is because he couldn’t sneak that by even the most oblivious watcher if they bothered to ‘pick up a paper’ to read up on the series or the case, saw that Brenda was not married to a Harold after all and immediately lost interest as they realized it wasn’t much of a true crime drama after all, but closer to a Law and Order episode, “ripped from the headlines”, only with religion and history thrown in, which makes it even more of a waste of time…or maybe he just thought Allen wouldn’t want to prolong his agony since the reality doesn’t make him look that great at times.

Given Allen never chose to be a public figure, unlike basket players, and given you can sue someone for posting your picture without your permission, I think Allen Lafferty has a great case for defamation of character against Black as well as right to privacy…but I don’t know the law.  It is not always just or right.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It doesn't really make a difference to me personally one way or the other, except it seems people are upset about something that isn't really worth getting upset about.

I have no particular devotion to church buildings, cathedrals, synagogues, temples, mosques, and so on that are used as houses of worship in other faiths.  I do, however, think it is pretty important to exhibits some measure of respect to both those buildings and the people who do venerate such buildings, and the acts and expressions of faith within them.  

I think it would awfully presumptuous of me to scoff at, even to the point of gaslighting, members of those other faiths taking umbrage with their sacred edifices and beliefs being ridiculed, profaned, desecrated, etc.  This would be even worse if I had substantial experience with these folks, and was familiar with their beliefs, and yet still proceeded to treat them this way.

I think it is a point of simple, basic, common decency and respect to abstain from such behaviors.  Even if a particular building or practice holds no import or significance to me, it may hold great significance to others.  So to saunter about telling them something along the lines of that they are "upset about something that isn't really worth getting upset about" would be a palpably disrespectful, even contemptuous, thing to do.

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess I don't see how the sister's comments would prove that Brenda didn't also have some unease about certain aspects of the temple. The truth is we simply can't know how Brenda's feelings on everything and assuming her sister is the absolute authority on the issue may or may not be correct.

You grant Black license to characterize Brenda's faith in a particular way, but when her sister does it, you insist that "we simply can't know."

Huh.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2022 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

... I guess I don't see how the sister's comments would prove that Brenda didn't also have some unease about certain aspects of the temple. The truth is we simply can't know how Brenda's feelings on everything and assuming her sister is the absolute authority on the issue may or may not be correct. ...

You're right: I would love to know how Brenda felt about the Temple from her directly, but there's one thing that prevents that from happening: Ron and Dan murdered her.  Under those circumstances, yeah, I think it is pretty common for family members to speak on behalf of deceased loved ones in expressing how they felt about certain things, and yeah, I think it is pretty common for sisters to confide in one another, and, no, if it's all the same to you, with all due respect, I'm going to credit Brenda's sister's close-second-hand account over your baseless speculation.  Thanks.

[JAHS]

On 6/15/2022 at 8:23 PM, webbles said:

I found a clip of it online and after watching it, I'm really disappointed in how it was portrayed.  It skipped all over the ceremony and focused on only a few select pieces.  I'm sure Black was trying to show how those parts were a factor in Brenda's murder and her treatment, but that is a real stretch.  It was also inaccurate in some aspects and makes the ceremony look real gimmicky.

I agree with the last line in the article:

I wonder if some of the journal entries and letters that Black had access to talk about other temple visits that Brenda might have done.  Did she visit as her marriage collapsed and her in-laws became worse and worse?  Brenda's sister (per the article) said that Brenda cherished it so I wonder if Brenda came back to the temple for solace during the difficult times.  If so, reworking the temple ceremony to be "sinister" is harmful to her memory.

Several years ago I was in a local library and found a book written in the 1940's that had the entire temple ceremony printed in it, so the exposure has been going on for decades. I think it is best to just ignore it when it happens, otherwise it brings even more attention to it.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have no particular devotion to church buildings, cathedrals, synagogues, temples, mosques, and so on that are used as houses of worship in other faiths.  I do, however, think it is pretty important to exhibits some measure of respect to both those buildings and the people who do venerate such buildings, and the acts and expressions of faith within them.  

I think it would awfully presumptuous of me to scoff at, even to the point of gaslighting, members of those other faiths taking umbrage with their sacred edifices and beliefs being ridiculed, profaned, desecrated, etc.  This would be even worse if I had substantial experience with these folks, and was familiar with their beliefs, and yet still proceeded to treat them this way.

I think it is a point of simple, basic, common decency and respect to abstain from such behaviors.  Even if a particular building or practice holds no import or significance to me, it may hold great significance to others.  So to saunter about telling them something along the lines of that they are "upset about something that isn't really worth getting upset about" is a palpably disrespectful, even contemptuous, thing to do.

You grant Black license to characterize Brenda's faith in a particular way, but when her sister does it, you insist that "we simply can't know."

Huh.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is asinine.

We can't know. I'm curious how you think we can have a complete understanding of Brenda's temple experience. You think that is knowable?

I have not granted Black any more license than I have Brenda's sister. I have merely pointed out that she is not the ultimate authority about every feeling Brenda had about the temple. That seems like a very basic statement, recognizing the limitations of Brenda's sister. Has Black interviewed anyone else about Brenda's feelings about the temple? What has Allen said about it? I have no idea. The only thing I am calling into question in the absolute faith some on this board are placing in Brenda's sister having a perfect understanding of Brenda's temple experience and feelings.

Yet, I've spent way more attention to this topic than I care to since it's really not important to me. I'll bow out and let you keep being offended about how a filmmaker's depiction doesn't match Brenda's sister's statements.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You're right: I would love to know how Brenda felt about the Temple from her directly, but there's one thing that prevents that from happening: Ron and Dan murdered her.  Under those circumstances, yeah, I think it is pretty common for family members to speak on behalf of deceased loved ones in expressing how they felt about certain things, and yeah, I think it is pretty common for sisters to confide in one another, and, no, if it's all the same to you, with all due respect, I'm going to credit Brenda's sister's close-second-hand account over your baseless speculation.  Thanks.

Um...yeah. I'm aware.

Yes, it is common for family to speak out, yet that doesn't mean they are infallible. Is it common for a sister to confide in her sister? Sure, I suppose. Might it also be common for a faithful LDS sister to try to paint her deceased sister in the most faithful light possible? Yeah. I think that's also possible. You can be offended in any way you choose. I can't stop you. Enjoy.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is asinine.

Yeah, you are telegraphing how you feel.  Big time.

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We can't know. I'm curious how you think we can have a complete understanding of Brenda's temple experience. You think that is knowable?

I think Sharon Weeks, Brenda's sister, is far more likely to be a credible and percipient witness as to "Brenda's temple experience."  In contrast, Black never met her, never interviewed her.  

Moreover, Black has a massive ax to grind against the Church.  He sought to use Brenda Lafferty to disparage and demean Brenda's faith.

In a contest between Black's characterization of "Brenda's temple experience" and Sharon's critique of that characterization, I think it's pretty clear which one is more likely to be accurate.  And that "contest" is the point of discussion you weighed in on.

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have not granted Black any more license than I have Brenda's sister.

Uh huh.

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have merely pointed out that she is not the ultimate authority about every feeling Brenda had about the temple.

Nice exaggeration.  Nobody is suggesting Sharon is "the ultimate authority."  As compared to Black, though...

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That seems like a very basic statement, recognizing the limitations of Brenda's sister. Has Black interviewed anyone else about Brenda's feelings about the temple? What has Allen said about it? I have no idea. The only thing I am calling into question in the absolute faith some on this board are placing in Brenda's sister having a perfect understanding of Brenda's temple experience and feelings.

And yet more exaggeration.  "Absolute faith."  "Perfect understanding."

Sheesh.

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yet, I've spent way more attention to this topic than I care to since it's really not important to me.

And yet, you couldn't help but come to a message board heavily populated by Latter-day Saints and gaslight them.  Telling them they they are "upset about something that isn't really worth getting upset about."  

We call get that you don't respect what we (including, it seems, Brenda) believe.  Really.  No need to gild the lilly.  And yet, here you are.  It's not enough that Black is publicly distorting and characterizing our faith as creeply, even evil.  Nope.  You have to add insult to injury by coming here and telling us that we are "upset about something that isn't really worth getting upset about."  

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll bow out and let you keep being offended about how a filmmaker's depiction doesn't match Brenda's sister's statements.

Drive-by potshots are often not worth defending, and aren't supposed to be defended.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 17, 2022 by smac97