LA Times, “ But many active Latter-day Saints, even some who have been publicly critical of the church, feel that the series maligns their faith and misrepresents key moments in its history, all in service of the troubling idea, as one character puts it, that Mormonism “breeds dangerous men.” (They also have a host of more granular criticisms about nuances such as the frequency with which characters say “Heavenly Father.”)

“For us, saying ‘Under the Banner of Heaven’ is representation for Latter-day Saints is kind of like saying ’24’ was representation for the Islamic community,” said C.D. Cunningham, managing editor of Public Square magazine, a publication that examines culture and current events from a Latter-day Saints perspective but does not have official ties to the church.

“This is not what representation looks like. This is not helping people understand who we are as a people or getting that message out. It’s designed to make us look alien and outsider,” he added….
The church has not officially commented on the series since it debuted in April, but David Bednar, a member of the governing body the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, recently suggested it was part of a long pattern of discrimination and misunderstanding.

“We have been mischaracterized since 1830, when the church was established,” he said during an event last month at the National Press Club. “I don’t think it will ever go away.”

He also addressed the criticisms leveled at the show by current members of the church — particularly the suggestion that he paints Mormonism as inherently violent.

“I’m not saying that it breeds exclusively dangerous men,” he said, “but there is something in teaching little boys that this patriarchal structure is God-ordained and lasts into the afterlife, and gives them that power over women. That can create dangerous men, if you blur the lines between selfish desire and the voice of God.”

“I don’t think most Mormons are violent; most are not, thank goodness,” Black said. “But I’m not talking about physical violence. I think if you’re participating in a patriarchal structure that harms women, you might not realize the violence you’re helping perpetrate.”

The show’s depiction of the temple endowment ceremony was similarly frustrating to some viewers. Not only did it portray a sacred ritual that is typically closed to outsiders — a fact that many Latter-day Saints found inherently disrespectful — it also emphasized aspects of the sacred rite that have since been eliminated: a menacing throat-slicing gesture symbolizing the penalties faced by anyone who broke their covenant with God, and the anointing of the naked body, including intimate areas, with oil.

For his part, Black considers the series a challenge to the dominant narrative church members are taught.

“You can nitpick,” he says. “But it doesn’t make the problems go away. Until Mormons show the courage to look into their own shadows, the church will not improve.”

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-06-04/under-the-banner-of-heaven-hulu-mormon-church-latter-day-saints-reactions

>This is not helping people understand who we are as a people
> or getting that message out.

That's neither the series' claim nor it's responsibility.

No one, for example, would expect a movie or series about the Spanish Inquisition to offer up apologetics or educational segments on the modern Catholic Church.


> it also emphasized aspects of the sacred rite that have since
> been eliminated

It showed stuff that was then current, or contemporary to the period in which the movie was set. It would otherwise be invalid. The ceremony of 2022 is not what might have influenced these guys back in the 1980s. Besides, as always, the apologists are duplicitous about this. If the current rites were depicted, but they happened to be "worse" or more menacing, then the apologists would be whining that the wrong time period was shown. The bottom line is that they are not happy with ANYTHING being depicted that makes them look bad.

Gordon B. Stinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >This is not helping people understand who we are
> as a people
> > or getting that message out.
>
> That's neither the series' claim nor it's
> responsibility.

People understand Mormons just fine, a bunch of self righteous bigots who are AOK with their abusive CULT’s abuse of gays, minorities, women and occasionally get violent about it. What’s to understand?

> No one, for example, would expect a movie or
> series about the Spanish Inquisition to offer up
> apologetics or educational segments on the modern
> Catholic Church.
>
>
> > it also emphasized aspects of the sacred rite
> that have since
> > been eliminated
>
> It showed stuff that was then current, or
> contemporary to the period in which the movie was
> set. It would otherwise be invalid. The ceremony
> of 2022 is not what might have influenced these
> guys back in the 1980s. Besides, as always, the
> apologists are duplicitous about this. If the
> current rites were depicted, but they happened to
> be "worse" or more menacing, then the apologists
> would be whining that the wrong time period was
> shown. The bottom line is that they are not happy
> with ANYTHING being depicted that makes them look
> bad.

Depicting their nutty Masonic rituals accurately makes them look bad, which is why they are ‘sacred, not secret’.

"We have been mischaracterized since 1830, when the church was established."

This really stands out as emblematic of the Mormon mindset. This person believes fully in the sanitized version of history they have been sold their whole life (probably) by the church. They simply cannot grasp that the rest of the world might see the church and its history MORE accurately than Gospel Doctrine manuals and seminary lessons. They refuse to read outside sources, and when they are forced to grapple with negative depictions of the church because of a cultural phenomenon like this series, it becomes another example to them of "Oh, poor us! They get us so wrong!"

So it ends up we can't even have productive discussions with Mormons about the actually-problematic aspects of the series, such as the historical conjecture about Brigham Young's responsibility for Joseph's death, or the role of mock violence in the temple ceremony in the Lafferty brothers' murders, because they're effectively sitting there with their fingers in their ears going, "La la la! I can't hear you! The church is true!"

Anziano Young Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "We have been mischaracterized since 1830, when
> the church was established."
>
> This really stands out as emblematic of the Mormon
> mindset.


This jumped out to me too, when I read the article. It's like the phenomenon almost everyone experiences at least once in life: you have the one friend/co-worker/employee/acquaintance/etc, who just doesn't get along with anyone. They would have you believe that the problem is EVERYONE ELSE, but the simple answer is that THEY can't get along with anyone. They are the problem.

Just out of curiosity, I ended up on Gary Gilmore's wikipedia page earlier, because of a related thread, and noted that his father, who was born in 1890, would taunt his mother by referring to BY as "Bring 'em Young." And that was a century ago!!

My dad was born (1933) and raised in Saint Louis, and he grew up knowing that Missourians "loathed" Mormons (the war, extermination order, etc).


Anyway, all that to say that society has had the Mormon's number since the beginning. Mormons have been a problem, and made problems, from the start.

Anziano Young Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "We have been mischaracterized since 1830, when
> the church was established."

Ironically the reason Joseph got killed by the mob are that he destroyed the Nauvoo Expositor press for printing the most honest account ever written of Joseph’s abusive sexual and financial behavior, calling his morals and ethics into serious doubt.

You can’t do that in America.

Never could.

Beyond that he hadn’t managed to keep his sexual abuse secret, and there were plenty in the mob who had reason to exact revenge on that Charlitan.

They made an idol out of that scoundrel Joseph’s Myth, who was just as his 1st Counselor said he was, sexually exploitative and wanted to bed William Laws wife Jane, who was having no part of it or him. She had the only real man in Nauvoo.

> This really stands out as emblematic of the Mormon
> mindset. This person believes fully in the
> sanitized version of history they have been sold
> their whole life (probably) by the church. They
> simply cannot grasp that the rest of the world
> might see the church and its history MORE
> accurately than Gospel Doctrine manuals and
> seminary lessons. They refuse to read outside
> sources, and when they are forced to grapple with
> negative depictions of the church because of a
> cultural phenomenon like this series, it becomes
> another example to them of "Oh, poor us! They get
> us so wrong!"
>
> So it ends up we can't even have productive
> discussions with Mormons about the
> actually-problematic aspects of the series, such
> as the historical conjecture about Brigham Young's
> responsibility for Joseph's death, or the role of
> mock violence in the temple ceremony in the
> Lafferty brothers' murders, because they're
> effectively sitting there with their fingers in
> their ears going, "La la la! I can't hear you! The
> church is true!"

Great summary.

To your point, I had my Bishop tell me, ”It sounds like you have been reading a lot of anti Mormon literature.”
I asked him what he meant by anti Mormon literature.
“Anything that doesn’t agree with the official version of Mormon History.”
I said,” Like the first 4 versions of the first vision?”
He said,” Well, they are all pretty much the same in essence.”
I shook my head negatory
He said,”They’re not?”
I said,”No! They differ in who was there. The first one, the only one written in Joseph’s own hand, only mentions one Lord, singular. The plural story didn’t appear until the 4th version, which is the official version.”
He said,”Well, I didn’t come over here to get into a heavy doctrinal argument with you…”
I said’ “You came to understand why I resigned. When I tell you, you don’t want to know.
So which is it!?!
You want to understand or do you just want to check me off your ToDo list?
We agreed to disagree and respect one another’s right to believe whatever they like.
It’s worked out well for the past 20yrs.,

Where's the bit about the bishop telling you not to share your misgivings about Mormonism with your wife and kids?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where's the bit about the bishop telling you not
> to share your misgivings about Mormonism with your
> wife and kids?

That was prior to resigning,
The story above is about after resigning.
He was also a close personal friend of the family, my wife's OB/Gyn, who delivered most of our kids. Any Mormon from where my wife grew up knows him. He's the Mormon gynecologist who assured me my wife was a virgin before we got married, in front of my fiance!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2022 08:49PM by schrodingerscat.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He's the Mormon gynecologist who assured me my
> wife was a virgin before we got married, in front
> of my fiance!

DEAR GOD. What?!

“We have been mischaracterized since 1830, when the church was established,”

I thought Jesus established it when he was here and Joey was just the vessel for "Restoration".

Hard to remember what is reality when the narrative keeps changing.

No such thing as bad publicity.

That lady needs to learn how to read the room. NonMormons that know much of anything about the Mormons already thought of them as alien. This just added a little more heft to the belief.

Oh, let's see

Warren Jeffs (the polygs are a direct offshoot of Utah Mormonism)

The Allred guy who got shot around 1977 from the United Apostolic Brethren

LeBaron brothers

Ted Bundy (short-time convert)

Mark Hacking

Susan Powell's husband

Cliven Bundy (no relation to Ted)

Ammon Bundy

Mark Hofmann

Elizabeth Smart kidnapping.

Chad and Lori

Singer-Swapp shootout at Marion, UT

Richard Worthington and the attempted bombing at Alta View Hospital over a tubal ligation he didn't approve of

And of course the Laffertys

And the Mountain Meadows Massacre, still the number 3 largest non-military single day killing event in US history. It was number 1 for well over a century until Oklahoma City bombing surpassed it.


OK, name another US denomination that can put together a roster like that from among the general denomination membership. You could probably beat the Mormons if you include pedophile priests, and there are what, 40 million Catholics?. Percentage-wise, Mormons are indeed dangerous.

Adding to BofJ's list:
- Orin Porter Rockwell

- the Danites

- the law enforcement officers {predominately LD$} who shot John Singer in the back, eventually triggering the Singer-Swapp shoot out

What is it that they always seem to maybe get tagged, nucking futs?

Military abbreviations of sopafu fubar and snafu all seem to work fairly well, too.

Joseph's M¥th Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is it that they always seem to maybe get
> tagged, nucking futs?
>
> Military abbreviations of sopafu fubar and snafu
> all seem to work fairly well, too.


Most normal people who've been exposed to Mormonism will say "creepy" or "cult" or worse. But all those people are WRONG! Everyone one of them is the problem, not the morg.

We were taught NOT to use the word "God".

Heavenly Father was definitely the preferred title.

God was also a swear word and we did not want people to think we

swore.

There definitely was a push NOT to use the word GOD.

It also distinguished us from other denominations.

And that's the way it was.

Villager Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We were taught NOT to use the word "God".
>
> Heavenly Father was definitely the preferred
> title.
>
> God was also a swear word and we did not want
> people to think we
>
> swore.
>
> There definitely was a push NOT to use the word
> GOD.
>
> It also distinguished us from other denominations.
>
>
> And that's the way it was.

Yep, very true in my past experience too.
I think UTBOH is brilliant. The TV series was different from the book and both ask VERY TOUGH questions about the faith taken to its logical extreme.
The Laferties took MORmONism to a further extreme than Warren Jeffs, but a different branch of extreme.
MORmONism is like a many headed hydra with extreme vipers for hair.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2022 06:53PM by schrodingerscat.

Same here. One must never say God, only HF. Just as I was told to say I was not Christian but mormon.

Contentions of the devil.


....since 1830

If "you can't handle the Truth" - maybe they should watch movies that don't touch on Mormonism.