The Mopologists Vs. Hollywood

[Doctor Scratch]

As you may have heard, a new Netflix series debuted yesterday--American Primeval. The show apparently features LDS characters (including Brigham Young) and so, naturally, the folks at "SeN" are incensed about this:

As I’ve previously noted here, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is coming under renewed attack from the entertainment industry in the form of American Primeval, a Netflix mini-series that was released today. Central to the narrative of American Primeval is a heavily fictionalized depiction of Brigham Young and of the infamous and unfortunate Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Here's the thing, though: as far as I can tell, neither the Afore nor any of the other commentators as "SeN" have even seen the show. The knee-jerk assumption--without even having watched the first episode of the series!--is that it's a "heavily fictionalized" "attack." On the one hand, the hypocrisy here is remarkable: how much did the Executive Producer of Witnesses and 6 Days in August complain about criticism of his films from people who hadn't seen them? He goes on to list a bunch of Church-friendly or Church-sanctioned links, including a bizarre FAQ with no attribution whatsoever: was this written by FAIR? There is no indication that the author has actually seen the show.

But it also occurs to me that this offers up an occasion for reflection. Can anyone--critic or Mopologist--name a single depiction, ever, in the entire history of cinema, of Latter-day Saints that the Mopologists think is "okay"? I certainly can't. Every single show or movie is automatically dubbed "anti-Mormon" and written off as "biased" fictionalization. From Angels in America (yes: I know, a play), to Big Love, to Under the Banner of Heaven--it's as if the Mopologists are incapable of seeing anything of redeeming value in any depiction that isn't controlled by either *them* or the institutional Church. This is remarkable, when you think about it, and it has all the earmarks of cult behavior--i.e., of them being brainwashed to the point that anything that deviates from the party-line narrative is automatically condemned as "anti-Mormon"--even before anyone has seen it!

Or, hey: prove me wrong. Let one of the Mopologists list a show, movie, or book written/produced by a non-Mormon that gave an "acceptable" presentation. Just one! I mean, even Helen Whitney's PBS documentary The Mormons was slammed for being "too biased," and that was about as sympathetic a portrait as one could imagine.

Meanwhile, I noticed the Afore bashing the notion of "diversity." This is hardly surprising given his political leanings (and the make-up of Interpreter's Board). And yet, part of his issue with the academic fetishization of "diversity" has to do with his feeling that it only promotes one "kind" of diversity, while excluding diversity of opinion, thought, point-of-view, etc. But when you get right down to it, actually, he hates *that* kind of diversity, too, since he is absolutely, staunchly opposed to any diversity of narrative depiction when it comes to Mormonism. Only the Church and its henchmen get to control the narratives and portrayals; everything else is anti-Mormon.

[Gadianton]

Thank you for the insightful OP, professor. Your knowledge of cinema is considered legendary by most people as far as I'm aware. You bring up a great point, that anything not produced by them or the institutional Church is anti-Mormon, although it may be that a good deal of Chapel Mormon content produced by the institutional Church is also anti-Mormon. I would start with church films they had no hand in whatsoever that are considered acceptable. I have a feeling, if FROB were yet in existence, that film would now be included with the reviews of books, articles, games, and whatever else.

Either way, I agree with you that they should pony up an example of a non-Mormon presentation of Mormons that they find acceptable.

Also noted that he hasn't seen the series yet and judging it just like those Internet trolls giving Witnesses 1 star without seeing it. (I never did that, by the way).

The comments on diversity are interesting. I'd read drumdude's post in the morning and it had been on my mind. Folks of his political persuasion (as you note) typically accuse diversity as being tyrannical towards conservatives. Of course, that tyranny is mostly a function of the assault on diversity among conservatives, which, sure, is often core to the conservative position. We're supposed to include everybody -- but we sure don't want to include those who aren't inclusive! What about the KKK? Why can't we include them, huh?

But boy, does DCP quickly become a progressive when it comes to including Mormons as Christians. Take the most heavy-handed woke attack on Christian traditional values and you can find the exact kinds of complaints from himself, Kiwi57 (especially), and the most hard-core apologists on the same Christians who exclude them as Christian for the same traditionalist kinds of reasons.

[Dr. Shades]

[A]s far as I can tell, neither the Afore nor any of the other commentators as "SeN" have even seen the show. The knee-jerk assumption--without even having watched the first episode of the series!--is that it's a "heavily fictionalized" "attack." On the one hand, the hypocrisy here is remarkable: how much did the Executive Producer of Witnesses and 6 Days in August complain about criticism of his films from people who hadn't seen them?

A very prescient observation, as usual, Doctor Scratch. DCP, will you please tell us, via your blog, whether you saw the episode before rendering judgment against it?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

The Afore posted over and over about how much he disliked Hugh Grant and made it clear he wouldn’t be watching the film Heretic. That didn’t stop the Afore from attacking and posting several derogatory articles about the film.

[sock puppet]

The Mopes' brittleness about anything that does not dovetail into the whitewashed historical narrative peddled by the current LDS Church betrays their insecurity, if not reveals how deep their doubts run. DCP has notoriety among a 'merry' little band of Mormons. If DCP were to come clean, he'd not even have them following him. He'd been an even more lonely old man.

[High Spy]

DanielPeterson Mod rws
a day ago
LOL. The Obsession Board cast member whose moniker resembles "Everybody's WC“

?

[Gadianton]

Anyone watching this? I wasn't itching to, to be honest, I figured I'd get an episode in this evening and now find myself just finishing episode 3. I can't say how it compares to Witnesses or 6 days because I haven't seen those, but I'd imagine Dan may not dare watch this out of fear of seeing a quality film. It is pretty good. 9/10 for drama.

Without spoilers, here are some of my thoughts about the Mormon aspects:

- Everyone in the show is pretty much a murderer so the brutality of the Mormons doesn't necessarily stand out as excessive.
- Other groups -- French speakers and Indians especially are portrayed less sympathetically than the Mormons.
- I think the portrayal of Brigham Young is likely accurate. The Mormons as portrayed will sell the Church better than Witnesses. Do you think Joe Rogan will respect Mormonism more after watching Witnesses than this?
- They introduced Brigham Young as the President of the CoJCoLDS, exactly as Russel M. Nelson has insisted!
- You have to admit Fancher ran his mouth pretty good. Should Governor Young just let that go?
- the Mormons were referred to as being "riled up" -- if a viewer unfamiliar with Mormonism were to encounter Sic Et Non right after viewing this show, would they have any reason to believe this isn't true?
- James Pratt's story may subtly typify an apostate narrative. Chapel Mormon who begins to learn the truth.

"Our Kingdom of God holds strong, it will cleanse and purify the world of wickedness!" -- Brigham Young.

I'm going to finish off evening chores and continue on to episode 4. Hopefully CWK will have a review of the series at some point.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Spoiler Alert! If you plan on viewing American Primeval, you might want to skip this post.

I watched the entire series. Here are some of my thoughts. The series was dark, gritty, and extremely violent. The violence was relentless throughout every scene. In my opinion, this excessive violence detracted from the overall quality of the series. On a positive note, the acting was excellent, and the directing was top-notch. The attention to detail and authenticity was the best I have ever seen. One of my passions is researching and collecting artifacts from the American West, including antique firearms from that period. I usually can spot anachronisms in Western films, but I didn’t find any in American Primeval. I even paused the stream to examine some of the clothing and firearms closely. It was clear that someone made the effort to ensure the film had a realistic and authentic appearance.

However, there was a significant amount of poetic license involved. The film placed the Mountain Meadows Massacre (MMM) site as being close to Fort Bridger, which is in Wyoming. Perhaps this was just the editing, but it was confusing to me. Additionally, the film depicted the Shoshone tribe camping near the MMM site. To the best of my knowledge, Shoshone people primarily inhabited Wyoming, Idaho, and Northern Utah and did not typically travel in Southern Utah.

The film also portrayed the Nauvoo Legion (Mormon Militia) and the Paiutes as being responsible for the massacre. They were, but it showed all of Francher's party being killed except 6 women. This is not correct. Some young children were spared. The film also showed the Mormon militia conducting a night raid that resulted in the demise of a troop of U.S. soldiers. While I’m not a professional historian, I don’t believe this actually happened. I know that Lot Smith engaged in some hit-and-run tactics against Johnston’s army, which involved burning a few wagons and scattering livestock, but I don’t recall any direct military confrontation leading to dozens of U.S. casualties.

The film did place the blame for the MMM directly on the church, as it should be. It also portrayed Brigham Young as being aware of the MMM. The actor who played Brigham Young did an excellent, well-researched job. Young came across as an arrogant authoritarian, which I believe he was. Hickman was also correctly portrayed as Brigham Young’s henchman.

[Chap]

The film also portrayed the Nauvoo Legion (Mormon Militia) and the Paiutes as being responsible for the massacre. They were, but it showed all of Francher's party being killed except 6 women. This is not correct. Some young children were spared.

Indeed yes.

And the fact that (some) (young) children were spared, and this film did not mention that, unmasks its blatant attempt to smear Mormons.

[Gadianton]

The attention to detail and authenticity was the best I have ever seen. One of my passions is researching and collecting artifacts from the American West, including antique firearms from that period. I usually can spot anachronisms in Western films, but I didn’t find any in American Primeval. I even paused the stream to examine some of the clothing and firearms closely. It was clear that someone made the effort to ensure the film had a realistic and authentic appearance.

This is fascinating, Dr. Sunstoned. Are you sure it was the best you've ever seen? Did you happen to see Witnesses? How realistic and authentic was that show in comparison?

It also portrayed Brigham Young as being aware of the MMM. The actor who played Brigham Young did an excellent, well-researched job. Young came across as an arrogant authoritarian, which I believe he was. Hickman was also correctly portrayed as Brigham Young’s henchman.

If there are any objections from the apologist over this portrayal of Brigham, I hope they cite reasons verifiable from history. He looks exactly like the younger Brigham in photographs.

And the fact that (some) (young) children were spared, and this film did not mention that, unmasks its blatant attempt to smear Mormons.

Are you saying this having seen the film? If not, I hope you watch the film and let us know if you feel the same way afterward. The only two children I recall in the scene escaped (though not spared) as they are central to the plot. I don't recall seeing other children or children being killed. The families portrayed hooking up with Fancher were husbands and wives just getting started and talking about their future families.