Which Is More Accurate, Witnesses or Under The Banner Of Heaven?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I've finally started watching Under the Banner of Heaven and completed episode 4 and 5 last night. I'm not watching in chronological order (long story), but will try to watch episodes 1 through 3 this weekend.

In Episode 4 we see Joseph and Emma discuss Joseph's new "revelation" on polygamy. We see Emma's response to Joseph that if he is going to take extra wives, then she will start taking extra husbands. This of course prompts Joseph to suddenly get the revelation found in D&C 132:54 "And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law"

Under the Banner of Heaven portrays the issue of polygamy in a very historical manner. In complete contrast, Witnesses mentions nothing about polygamy except a brief mention of Fanny Alger. Nowhere in Witnesses is Fanny even shown or discussed.

EPISODE 4 goes to Under the Banner of Heaven.

Episode 5 shows the destruction of the printing press and the reasons behind the destruction, the subsequent arrest of Joseph and the gunfight at Carthage which leads to the death of Joseph Smith.

In Witnesses, the printing press is never discussed or shown, or the reasons for Joseph's arrest. In Witnesses, Oliver has a brief dream about Joseph falling from the window of Carthage Jail.

EPISPODE 5 goes to Under the Banner of Heaven

So far, it's not even close. Under the Banner of Heaven is so much more accurate than Witnesses in its portrayal of Mormon history.

[Moksha]

Under the Banner of Heaven is so much more accurate than Witnesses in its portrayal of Mormon history.

Under the Banner of Heaven did not have the burden of having to be faith-promoting, so of course, the movie could be more historically accurate.

[Philo Sofee]

Under the Banner of Heaven is so much more accurate than Witnesses in its portrayal of Mormon history.

Under the Banner of Heaven did not have the burden of having to be faith-promoting, so of course, the movie could be more historically accurate.

It goes to show Mormons should not be allowed to tell their own history....

[Moksha]

It goes to show Mormons should not be allowed to tell their own history....

Kerry, do you agree with the mycologist's assertion that Mormonism thrives best when members are kept in the dark and fed naturally excreted fertilizer?

[Philo Sofee]

It goes to show Mormons should not be allowed to tell their own history....

Kerry, do you agree with the mycologist's assertion that Mormonism thrives best when members are kept in the dark and fed naturally excreted fertilizer?

Indubitably. The expulsion of cackophany from the lower extremities of Mormon scholarship and whitewashed history exacerbate any truth being told. Therefore bloviation of Bovine manure is the inevitable result, of which the Holy Ghost is said to be duly testifying of.

[Rollo Redux]

I’ve been very underwhelmed by “Banner.” The Mormon lingo is way off (far too much use of “brother” and “sister,” for example). The script makes a caricature of Mormons. I expected a lot better. I haven’t seen “Witnesses” but sounds like it sucks. Frankly, I’m surprised they even brought up Fanny Alger.

[Res Ipsa]

I just watched the first three episodes. I grew up in the “mission field,” and don’t recall adults calling each other “brother” and “sister” like they do in the show. I remember using those terms combined with there last name, so Brother X and Sister Y. I was wondering if that was a Utah cultural thing, but it doesn’t sound like it. And I don’t recall such frequent references to “Heavenly Father,” We didn’t refer to him so casually. Is or was it like that in small Utah towns. To me, it makes the more mainstream Mormons seem more cult like than anything I recall.

The lead detective seems very naïve and stilted for an LDS adult of his age. I recall Blood atonement as something I C was aware of before I went to college. It was no great secret. And the reaction he has upon hearing that Allen has lost his faith was so over the top it seemed cartoonish.

All that aside, I have had contact with a few LDS families that remind me of the way the Lafferties are portrayed, which feels quite creepy. And although the segues into the historical bits are forced, the way the history is interwoven with the Lafferty story is very effective, I think. I think it’s setting up the point of the book pretty effectively.

I do wish they hadn’t cut the dream mine out. I thought that part of the story added to the bizarreness of the brothers.

All that being said, I find the basic facts of the story to be gripping in a horrific way. Having done a little reading over at the Freedom Forum, I’d say there are quite a few potential Avenging Angels out there.

[Moksha]

(far too much use of “brother” and “sister,” for example)

The use of that expression has tapered off from 40 years ago. I imagine it was used more often in Utah County, especially in the town of Eagle Rock (close to the site of the proposed FARMS Ziggurat).

[Rollo Redux]

I lived in Utah County at the time of the murders and I don’t recall the incessant use of “brother,” “sister” and “Heavenly Father” as portrayed in the show. Whoever wrote the script went way overboard to make Mormons into a caricature, in my opinion.

[Res Ipsa]

I lived in Utah County at the time of the murders and I don’t recall the incessant use of “brother,” “sister” and “Heavenly Father” as portrayed in the show. Whoever wrote the script went way overboard to make Mormons into a caricature, in my opinion.

Thanks, Rollo. It’s an odd choice to me that I don’t recall being present in the book.