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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Dwight
CTR A
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

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

Post by Dwight »

I am really irritated by that article. McKay clearly states that he just wants to be accepted warts and all, and has a problem of people pointing out the warts.
Modern Church leaders are Scooby-Doo villains who monologue about “the communists at the NAACP”
Apparently McKay is unaware of what Ezra Taft Benson spoke about in General Conference in 1967. The apostle that would be prophet when McKay was born and prophet almost until McKay would have been baptized. Of course the church has memory holed that talk. I know many members who still wholeheartedly repeated this well into the 90s and early 2000s. You can still find far right extremist Mormons that quote extensively from Benson.
I was in high school when it came out, busy waging a delicate campaign to convince my suburban-Massachusetts classmates that Mormons could be, if not cool, then at least normal.
He then says they got some things right, but this guy was born in 1987 and grew up in Massachusetts, far away from Utah County. The over use of Heavenly Father is rightly criticized and Lindsay Hansen Park wishes she had been brought in to tone it down earlier, but to me it helps give you the context quickly of how Mormons are different in their beliefs about god.
Joseph Smith is a charlatan and a pervert; Brigham Young is a power-mad tyrant.
Historically backed up.
The purpose of all the quasi-history is to draw a direct line from the founding of Mormonism to the murders at the center of the show. The real-life radicalization of the men who killed Brenda Lafferty involved a far-right anti-government group, festering misogyny, family dysfunction, and severe mental illness. (Both men had already been excommunicated from the Church for their extreme views by the time they killed Brenda.)
The excommunications were part of the show, they didn't try to hide it. You can't remove the Mormonism and blood atonement from the Lafferty's experience. Sure they had other things going on, but part of what got them in on this were Mormon in origin.
Black did not hire any practicing Mormons to write or consult on the show.
Factually wrong, Lindsay Hansen Park consulted, and in an interview on YouTube she says that active members were consulted, bishops, relief society presidents, temple workers. I am also unsure why it is necessary to be a practicing member to understand the culture. I suppose the church of Scientology should have consulted on Leah Rimini's project.
After attending the premiere in Salt Lake City, Patrick Mason, a historian of Mormonism at Utah State University, tweeted, “It’s a problem for the show that none of the Mormon scholars I was sitting with—all of whom know full well how to apply an open, critical gaze to our own culture and tradition—recognized ourselves or our people in the show.”
I grew up in the same ward (or the one next door as boundaries were changed, and changed back) as Patrick. He is roughly 4 years older than me, and his family moved within the stake when he was in high school. I can say that there were people in that ward that I recognized in the show. So I guess Patrick has a blindspot, or just didn't get to know some people the way I did with my parents still living in the home I grew up in. I am unsure what is more damning that Patrick is a liar, or so out of touch with being able to observe people around him that it calls into his question to draw good conclusions about historical figures.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3321
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

drumdude wrote:
Wed Jun 08, 2022 8:53 pm
It’s been about half of his posts over the last several weeks. He’s not particularly interested in it, of course! :lol:
Carla Watson probably sent an e-mail that said, "Do something about this, but act nonchalant."


By the way, Jim Bennett is the Republican mayor of Sandy, Utah.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Dwight
CTR A
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

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

Post by Dwight »

Moksha wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:53 am

By the way, Jim Bennett is the Republican mayor of Sandy, Utah.
I wish. I am registered to vote in Sandy owing to that being my last US residence. The mayor is Monica Zoltanski and she beat Bennett by 21 votes with ranked choice voting. I do not care for Bennett's Mormonism apologetics, but he seemed a better choice for mayor compared to the rest of the field.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

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

Post by huckelberry »

Dwight, I am totally in the dark about which article you refer to and who is this McKay. I may not be the only one lost about your reference.(well it is possible I missed something obvious)
User avatar
Dwight
CTR A
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 3:33 pm
Location: The North

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

Post by Dwight »

Morley wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:17 am
There's an interesting review of Under the Banner of Heaven in The Atlantic by McKay Coppins, who (in my experience) writes for the magazine when something that is Mormon has to be translated for secular liberals.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... m/661279/
Just a few posts up from my comments.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 1165
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

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

Post by huckelberry »

Dwight wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 6:39 pm
Morley wrote:
Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:17 am
There's an interesting review of Under the Banner of Heaven in The Atlantic by McKay Coppins, who (in my experience) writes for the magazine when something that is Mormon has to be translated for secular liberals.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... m/661279/
Just a few posts up from my comments.
Thanks Dwight,I read the article. I think I understand you to be thinking that there is a bit more reality to critical sense in the production that the article wishes to admit. I think it is difficult to measure.I am old enough to have sat through a few of Benson's political talks. I think there are weird ideas tangled around in Mormonism.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3196
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

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

Post by Philo Sofee »

Dwight quoting Mormon scholar Patrick Mason
"After attending the premiere in Salt Lake City, Patrick Mason, a historian of Mormonism at Utah State University, tweeted, “It’s a problem for the show that none of the Mormon scholars I was sitting with—all of whom know full well how to apply an open, critical gaze to our own culture and tradition—recognized ourselves or our people in the show.”
Dwight's response
I grew up in the same ward (or the one next door as boundaries were changed, and changed back) as Patrick. He is roughly 4 years older than me, and his family moved within the stake when he was in high school. I can say that there were people in that ward that I recognized in the show. So I guess Patrick has a blindspot, or just didn't get to know some people the way I did with my parents still living in the home I grew up in. I am unsure what is more damning that Patrick is a liar, or so out of touch with being able to observe people around him that it calls into his question to draw good conclusions about historical figures.

Indeed, I too know people exactly like portrayed who are still in the church acting like the Pyre's. What Mason obviously tries to do is swish the narrative away from the fact that this is the continuation of Joseph Smith theology/culture, and onto something...anything else to keep our minds occupied and away from the fact that this is simply Joseph Smith Mormonism extended into our own time using literality of scripture and prophetic pronouncement to perfect obedient effect. Mormons today have to do damage control over this heinous obvious unvarnished, uncorrelated continuation of the "glories of Joseph Smith's early Mormon times" - a fascinating window into the past with not much changed of attitude and fortitude in obediently carrying out the commandments of the Lord God's servants the prophets. Mormons today drastically need a disconnect from the Laffertys, and can't find it, so they deflect.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

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

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Mason’s response doesn’t mean much. To me and many of my Cassius colleagues, the characters in “Witnesses” are unrecognizable as Mormon historical figures. I guess this is just more of the decades-long trend of painfully banal depictions of Mormonism from a faithful perspective?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3192
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

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

Post by Kishkumen »

I recall when that PBS documentary The Mormons came out in 2007. On the whole it seemed not only fair, but even at times a celebration of Mormonism and the Mormon people. I enjoyed it immensely. It blew my mind when after the documentary aired some of the active LDS people who had been given a grand share of the show’s running time were publicly seeking to distance themselves from the show, as though the thing were some kind of anti-Mormon screed.

It was then that I realized how uncomfortable and hypersensitive LDS people can be when they sit through others’ depictions of them. They see ridicule everywhere. If something seems like it could possibly make them look uncool, they attribute it to anti-Mormon bias. The hysterical reactions to UTBOH need to be seen partly through this sensitivity.

OK, and that said, I think that it is almost impossible to distinguish between most pop-culture depictions of religious sects and caricature, sometimes mild, sometimes heavy-handed. But the element of caricature is almost always there. Having listened to RFM’s rebroadcast of an interview with one of the Laffertys, I think there is no escaping how Mormon they were. At the same time, there is no escaping how far off the map of mainstream Mormon they were.

Whatever a sociopath or psychopath touches will be tainted by the poison. Dan Lafferty is chronically and severely mentally ill. He could have done these kinds of crimes in quite different circumstances. Mormonism is a pervasive element of the scenery of this trágic, dark, drama, but at the drama’s core is mental illness. Dan Lafferty is a bad guy, and he should never be allowed out of prison.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3321
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

I imagine the idea has been discussed at HQ of Kirton McConkie representing Ron and Dan Lafferty in suing Hulu for this Under the Banner of Heaven mini-series.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply