Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Binger
God
Posts: 3225
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Binger »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:13 pm
Binger wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 3:37 pm
I have no interest in clouding this. On the one hand, we have a story about murderers. You said there is a parallel to the story that brought us Trump and the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court. There is nothing cloudy in your point or my restatement.
Disingenuous, really. You have a brain. Use it. Don’t exploit gaps in posts to make others look bad. That’s what you habitually do. It should not be necessary to bog the conversation down with the time-wasting activities you foist on everyone.
But I have a really really small brain that is barely functional. Barely. ;)
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Kishkumen »

Binger wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:17 pm
Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 7:13 pm


Disingenuous, really. You have a brain. Use it. Don’t exploit gaps in posts to make others look bad. That’s what you habitually do. It should not be necessary to bog the conversation down with the time-wasting activities you foist on everyone.
But I have a really really small brain that is barely functional. Barely. ;)
You are plenty smart and fully capable of figuring out what I was saying without my help.
“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
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 1085
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Dr Exiled »

Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 3:43 pm
Dr Exiled wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 2:22 pm


I think the temple content was there to make the surrounding culture/church look culty enough to spawn the likes of the Laffertys. That was one of the main themes of the show - crazy Mormon cultists with their odd rituals and their murderous mountain meadows past, of course, could give birth to Lafferty types. It was only a matter of time. However, I agree that it was too obvious a connection. I was surprised that there wasn't an overlay of the murder scene and the temple, just to make it more obvious.
Also, the interplay between blood atonement and temple penalty commitments, together paint the Lafferty's twisted sense of rightness. To the director, I imagine that twisted thinking required somehow conveying both sides of that interplay. Not saying I agree with visually replaying a part of the temple ceremony -- a tactful conversation *about* covenants and penalties could have done the job. However, I do understand why some people carry so much anger about the destructive side of Mormonism (and its obsession with secrecy), and unfortunately we live in a world where toxic organizations have lost their ability to maintain a demand for secrecy, or respect for claimed sacred things, in the public eye. Mormonism has plenty of good, but plenty of toxic too.

Do believing LDS complain as vocally when film/media/audio scenes are made public of other "sacred" spaces of other religions and/or cults? It's a house of mirrors and angles, and insofar as 99% of the population is concerned, believing LDS have no special ground to stand on in demanding special treatment on secrecy.
I cringed throughout the series, not recognizing any of the characters. I didn't grow up in happy valley but I have family from there and they seemed, back then, to be far away from the way mormons of the 80's were portrayed in the series. Too much father in heaven obviously. It made me kind of defensive to tell the truth as these are still my people.

However, I can see why the connection was made between Brigham Young and his more fundamentalist bent and the Laffertys. Brigham Young was a real despot and I think he knew all along about Mountain Meadows and probably ordered it to show the US and the approaching army that we meant business. The comparisons could have been a little less obvious though, but, subtlety and nuance is sacrificed to reach a larger audience and we are left with simple connections.

I wouldn't watch it again and binged the first go around because I wanted to see how we were being portrayed.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Kishkumen »

I was surprised by the extent to which BY was thrown under the bus. Not that I had much of a problem with it. I think of BY as the guy who got the Mormons out to Utah, and that is about as much as I want to give him credit for. Aside from that he was a cravenly, greedy, irresponsible tyrant. So, no, I don’t really mind the way he is thrown under the bus. I think BY is the person most responsible for the freakish nature of Mormon fundamentalism, and in that way he is a forerunner of people like the Lafferty boys, but Mormonism is a lot bigger than BY’s pusillanimous self.
“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
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1191
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Dr Moore »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:25 pm
I was surprised by the extent to which BY was thrown under the bus. Not that I had much of a problem with it. I think of BY as the guy who got the Mormons out to Utah, and that is about as much as I want to give him credit for. Aside from that he was a cravenly, greedy, irresponsible tyrant. So, no, I don’t really mind the way he is thrown under the bus. I think BY is the person most responsible for the freakish nature of Mormon fundamentalism, and in that way he is a forerunner of people like the Lafferty boys, but Mormonism is a lot bigger than BY’s pusillanimous self.
100%. Also, is pusillanimous a root of p***y, or a derived version for intellectual historians? :P
User avatar
Dr Moore
Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
Posts: 1191
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Dr Moore »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:20 pm

I cringed throughout the series, not recognizing any of the characters. I didn't grow up in happy valley but I have family from there and they seemed, back then, to be far away from the way mormons of the 80's were portrayed in the series. Too much father in heaven obviously. It made me kind of defensive to tell the truth as these are still my people.

However, I can see why the connection was made between Brigham Young and his more fundamentalist bent and the Laffertys. Brigham Young was a real despot and I think he knew all along about Mountain Meadows and probably ordered it to show the US and the approaching army that we meant business. The comparisons could have been a little less obvious though, but, subtlety and nuance is sacrificed to reach a larger audience and we are left with simple connections.

I wouldn't watch it again and binged the first go around because I wanted to see how we were being portrayed.
Yeah, fair enough. Execution could have been better. The caricatures did get taken to too far an extreme and that is unfortunate because members who should know the story have reasons to ignore the series as blatant anti.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Reverend: how far into the show have you gotten at this point?
"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: 3318
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Kishkumen »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:40 pm
Reverend: how far into the show have you gotten at this point?
I have now finished the series as of last evening, Good Doctor.
“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
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 3318
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Kishkumen »

Dr Moore wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 8:37 pm
100%. Also, is pusillanimous a root of p***y, or a derived version for intellectual historians? :P
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ;)
“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
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Banner of Heaven: My Take (So Far)

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:45 pm
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:40 pm
Reverend: how far into the show have you gotten at this point?
I have now finished the series as of last evening, Good Doctor.
Gotcha. I more or less agree with the majority of the takes on this thread—yours included. In the “pantheon” of Mormon-related art/media, I think this is one of the better entries. Overall, though, I thought “Big Love” was a better series.

One of my favorite moments was at the end of, I believe, the penultimate episode where Allen tells Pyre to go and find the “red book” (it’s the Tanners’ magnum opus)—I lol’ed at that part. What’s more, I’ve noticed that every single Mormon summary of the episode omits any mention of that book’s title. I guess the Tanners still wield that sort of fear/power over the apologists.
"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
Post Reply