Jump to content

Temple Scene in UTBOH


Recommended Posts

Do you guys want me to reach out to Brenda's sister Sharon? When she posts she sometimes asks us to ask her any questions. I could ask what questions you have. She often posts on the Sunstone Under the Banner of Heaven Watch Group's FB private group.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do you guys want me to reach out to Brenda's sister Sharon? When she posts she sometimes asks us to ask her any questions. I could ask what questions you have. She often posts on the Sunstone Under the Banner of Heaven Watch Group's FB private group.

Ask her if Brenda describes her temple experience in her diary and if that is how she knows Brenda loved the temple and her first experience of it and if not, how does she know (Brenda told her perhaps?).

I would be quite grateful. 
 

ps:  not asking her to share the diary. That is private and special and doesn’t belong to the curious and should be kept in the family unless they truly want to share it as a way to tell the world the kind of person Brenda was. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I completely agree with that.

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

When no evidence is presented it is generally safe to assume no evidence. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Um...yeah. I'm aware.

Yes, it is common for family to speak out, yet that doesn't mean they are infallible.
 

So, because family members are not "infallible" with respect to expressing the wishes, opinions, and so on, of their deceased loved ones, that gives us license to discount what they say in toto?* Okay.  If you want to do that, you can.  I don't, and I won't, and I think I'm in good company.

*And, moreover, for some reason, we're supposed to accept the opinions of the Mr. Blacks and the Mr. Krakauers of the world, who never even knew Brenda Lafferty, over those of Brenda's sister?  Ummm ... no.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it common for a sister to confide in her sister? Sure, I suppose. Might it also be common for a faithful LDS sister  [emphasis added by Kenngo1969] 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.

You're ignoring (or perhaps were not aware of) the fact that, by her own account, Sharon Wright Weeks "is not active in the Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "these days"*, so, sorry, but there goes your rationale for discounting what she has to say.

Try again.

*Source: 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#:~:text=Sharon Weeks pauses while speaking,in-law%2C in 1984., last accessed today.

Link to comment
6 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.

Good point. Brenda is dead after all, so why should anybody care about what is said about her at this point. Right? :rolleyes:

 

6 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.

Oh come on. It isn't like Brenda's sister is a secret staffer over at FAIR or something. She has long since left the church, but she thinks that DLB did her sister dirty here, and this is one specific area that she has spoken out about. 

Brenda was super excited about attending the temple and absolutely loved her experience. 

If you, DLB, or anyone else can provide even one sliver of evidence to the contrary I would be happy to reconsider my opinion, but from where I sit right now her sister seems pretty darn credible to me. 

 

Edited by Amulek
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Danzo said:

When no evidence is presented it is generally safe to assume no evidence. 

Especially since he has been quite open about so many other things and is really pushing imo their efforts to make it ‘authentic’.  My guess is if he had evidence to defend himself against Sharon Weeks’ criticism, he would.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Calm said:

Ask her if Brenda describes her temple experience in her diary and if that is how she knows Brenda loved the temple and her first experience of it and if not, how does she know (Brenda told her perhaps?).

I would be quite grateful. 
 

ps:  not asking her to share the diary. That is private and special and doesn’t belong to the curious and should be kept in the family unless they truly want to share it as a way to tell the world the kind of person Brenda was. 

Okay, I asked her and used most of the wording here to help me. :) I'll let you know what she responds with. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, I asked her and used most of the wording here to help me. :) I'll let you know what she responds with. 

Thank you. That would be great.  Please let her know it is appreciated if she is able to respond or not. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Calm said:

Especially since he has been quite open about so many other things and is really pushing imo their efforts to make it ‘authentic’.  My guess is if he had evidence to defend himself against Sharon Weeks’ criticism, he would.

Lest we not forget, he also made the following statement (source):

“Any filmmaker who says their biopic is 100% fact is telling a lie,” Black says in an interview from his London home. “A writer defines their style by how far they can bend history before it snaps.”

Link to comment

This "history" of Brenda and Erica Lafferty, then, has bent, snapped, been pulverized, has been sprinkled over Mr. Black's breakfast cereal, has been consumed, has been digested, and has been excreted ...

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This "history" of Brenda and Erica Lafferty, then, has bent, snapped, been pulverized, has been sprinkled over the breakfast cereal of the Messrs. Krakauer and Black, respectively, has been consumed, has been digested, and has been excreted ...

The history of the Laffertys that was in the book is a lot more accurate than the history in the tv show.  The tv show barely follows the book.  It is almost like a completely different story with the same name and cast.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, webbles said:

The history of the Laffertys that was in the book is a lot more accurate than the history in the tv show.  The tv show barely follows the book.  It is almost like a completely different story with the same name and cast.

I'll take your word for it.  Already, I have too many books in my reading queue as it is.  I'm disinclined to add Mr. Krakauer's work to the list.  I have edited my post to single out Mr. Black.

Link to comment
On 6/17/2022 at 10:48 AM, Tacenda said:

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/

I only listened to the first hour or so but here's some thoughts of mine.

At the beginning of the podcast, they talk about the reason for why they had one of the brothers in the remote cabin.  Even though that didn't happen, they do say that there were people who were living in the remote woods for purposes to get away from the government (they mentioned the
Ruby Ridge standoff).  And they also do point out, correctly, that Dan didn't accept running water or anything from the "government".  But I'm not sure if those two ideas should actually be connected.  Dan and his brothers didn't ever really live in the remote woods.  They lived inside of the cities in Utah Valley.  Yes, those cities are fairly small compared to the coastal cities, but it still wasn't a "remote cabin."  I'm not sure that Dan and his brothers ever really wanted to leave civilization.  They wanted to save it.  One of the big things in the School of the Prophets and Ron's prophecies was a "safe place" in Salem, UT that would be just below the Dream Mine.  This location is not deep in the mountains, unless you consider Utah Valley to be deep in the mountains.

In talking about the temple ceremony, they point out that it was a Catholic director in charge.  And the reason why Brenda's arms were completely out (almost like a cross) was because she (the director) made that decision based on her own up bringing.  That makes sense and was one of the things that I found quit strange about the ceremony.

They talk about the main reason why they had to include the temple ceremony was to ensure that the viewers would know that blood atonement, the temple ceremony, and Brenda's death were all related.  And, yes if you see that connection, that makes sense for needing to show that.  But, that connection is something that Dan and Ron didn't make though Lindsay does say that Dan does connect it but I don't know where she is getting that.  If it is from Dan, it is most likely from a much later interview which is suspect since he has changed his views on the murder.  Oddly enough, Krakauer doesn't make that connection in the book and he interviewed Dan so it would have to be after his interview.  Lindsay also says that the oath (the one shown in the film) is demonstrably bad and that it has led to bad things.  That's the first that I've heard that the oath has actually led to bad things.  Unless she is equating the oath to blood atonement, then I'm not sure how she can say that.

Another piece they talk about is Helen Mar Kimball and Lindsay says that Joseph was violent towards her.  Not in a physical sense, but by marrying her at such a young age and preventing her from being around friends of her own age, she was "imprisoned".  They also say that Joseph asked Heber for his daughter in marriage, but we have no evidence of that.  The only evidence we have is that Heber asked Helen to marry Joseph so that Heber could be connected to Joseph.  Also, the idea that Joseph promised exaltation because of their marriage is also incorrect.  Helen might have misinterpreted that, but her parents didn't see it that way.  Lindsay, though, really, really, really doesn't like this story.

One funny part in the episode is where Lindsay talked about she tried hard to get the set designers to make the Bishop's office more mundane.  The set designers wanted a nice office but she tried to convince them that the office would have been extremely bare.  She also had a hard time explaining why it need scratchy carpet on the wall (I love the scratchy carpet in old church buildings).  She didn't win all those fights but she tried.  Also, it appears that Sigmund Freud is in the Bishop's office behind his desk.  She didn't catch that on time and is a little embarrassed about it.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, webbles said:

But, that connection is something that Dan and Ron didn't make though Lindsay does say that Dan does connect it but I don't know where she is getting that.  If it is from Dan, it is most likely from a much later interview which is suspect since he has changed his views on the murder.  Oddly enough, Krakauer doesn't make that connection in the book and he interviewed Dan so it would have to be after his interview.

I just re-listened to the interview that RFM posted from around 2000.  At around the 42 minute mark, Dan said that he originally didn't know why he needed to kill them.  But he now believes (as of 2000) that the reason is that he is Elijah and that the murders would help announce him to the world.

I don't know where Park or Black gets the idea that it was blood atonement or temple penalties.  It isn't from Dan or the book.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, webbles said:

I just re-listened to the interview that RFM posted from around 2000.  At around the 42 minute mark, Dan said that he originally didn't know why he needed to kill them.  But he now believes (as of 2000) that the reason is that he is Elijah and that the murders would help announce him to the world.

I don't know where Park or Black gets the idea that it was blood atonement or temple penalties.  It isn't from Dan or the book.

When one is creating [out of whole cloth?] in the service of a certain narrative, not only will more than a few ideas lack foundation completely, they will be created ex nihilo.

Link to comment
On 6/17/2022 at 2:08 PM, 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" would be 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

Why is someone's sacred edifices, practices or beliefs somehow above critical scrutiny?  Who made that rule?  Religion has no special exemption from critical scrutiny.  Nor is faith the most important virtue as religious people feel act like it is.  Both are open to fair scrutiny and criticism.

Edited by Teancum
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Key word there: fair. I don't think that @smac97 would disagree that these things are open to scrutiny, as long as it is fair and even-handed.

Perhaps. He can opine. I guess that fair and even handed may mean something different to each observer. I find most Latter-day Saints don't find much criticism of say the temple endowment ever fair and even handed and usually bristle about it.

Link to comment
On 6/17/2022 at 9:24 PM, Calm said:

Thank you. That would be great.  Please let her know it is appreciated if she is able to respond or not. 

Here's her response:

 

Thank you for asking. My parents have shared Brenda's journals and letters with so many people. The state of Utah took copies. Newspapers have copies. They have been discussed over and over again. She wrote about her temple experience but more importantly she told me. Brenda loved the temple. She and Allen attended almost weekly. She traded babysitting to go. She just loved it. Some people feel that way about the church and the temple and she was one of them.
Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Here's her response:

 

Thank you for asking. My parents have shared Brenda's journals and letters with so many people. The state of Utah took copies. Newspapers have copies. They have been discussed over and over again. She wrote about her temple experience but more importantly she told me. Brenda loved the temple. She and Allen attended almost weekly. She traded babysitting to go. She just loved it. Some people feel that way about the church and the temple and she was one of them.

My post back:

thank you, I'll pass this along. I appreciate the information and insight into Brenda's life. I read UTBOH years ago and years ago saw that Ron Howard had in the works to make it a movie. But it has finally been made and I'm glad because the book didn't enable me to see your sister like the series did and I'm sure it wasn't near enough and wish it had focused on more Brenda and her daughter's memory.

Here's her response to my response just now:

Let me know if you have any more questions about Brenda. It is important to me that her truth is told correctly.
They can't tell the story without her but it will never be about her. Victims are very rarely the focus of the story.
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Here's her response:

Thank you for asking. My parents have shared Brenda's journals and letters with so many people. The state of Utah took copies. Newspapers have copies. They have been discussed over and over again. She wrote about her temple experience but more importantly she told me. Brenda loved the temple. She and Allen attended almost weekly. She traded babysitting to go. She just loved it. Some people feel that way about the church and the temple and she was one of them.

:good:

Link to comment
On 6/17/2022 at 9:28 AM, 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. ...

 

On 6/17/2022 at 12:30 PM, 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.

 

On 6/17/2022 at 1:45 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

On 6/17/2022 at 3:49 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

So, because family members are not "infallible" with respect to expressing the wishes, opinions, and so on, of their deceased loved ones, that gives us license to discount what they say in toto?* Okay.  If you want to do that, you can.  I don't, and I won't, and I think I'm in good company.

*And, moreover, for some reason, we're supposed to accept the opinions of the Mr. Blacks and the Mr. Krakauers of the world, who never even knew Brenda Lafferty, over those of Brenda's sister?  Ummm ... no.

You're ignoring (or perhaps were not aware of) the fact that, by her own account, Sharon Wright Weeks "is not active in the Church" of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "these days"*, so, sorry, but there goes your rationale for discounting what she has to say.

Try again.

*Source: 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#:~:text=Sharon Weeks pauses while speaking,in-law%2C in 1984., last accessed today.

 

On 6/20/2022 at 7:14 AM, Tacenda said:

Here's her response:

 

Thank you for asking. My parents have shared Brenda's journals and letters with so many people. The state of Utah took copies. Newspapers have copies. They have been discussed over and over again. She wrote about her temple experience but more importantly she told me. Brenda loved the temple.  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] She and Allen attended almost weekly. She traded babysitting to go. She just loved it. Some people feel that way about the church and the temple and she was one of them.

Oh, please! :rolleyes:   What would she know?!  Just because she says Brenda told her ...  Right,  @HappyJackWagon ? :huh: :unknw: 

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...