The Mopologists Vs. Hollywood

[Doctor Scratch]

I've seen the first three episodes, and I agree that it's a pretty solid show. I also would be interested in hearing the Mopologists' thoughts--after they've actually seen it, that is. The portrayal of Brigham Young in the show is quite good: the actor does indeed do a great job, and Young, here, is a compelling presence. Rather than seeming like a limp-wristed clone of Kevin Bacon, he comes across here as a charismatic, crafty, ambitious, intimidating leader. My favorite moment? It's when he's chatting with Bridger and Bridger ribs him about the number of wives he has: "What is it, 23 wives?" And Brigham responds by saying that the media "exaggerates" the facts, and adds (just like the Mopologists would!) that a sizable percentage of his wives are actually elderly women, and he regards them more as "mother" figures! LOL! See? Polygamy wasn't just about sex, you anti-Mormon jerks!

And Hickman--the "Avenging Angel"--is also a compelling figure in the show. He's clean and scrubbed-looking, but you also know that he's willing to kill when necessary. Ultimately, I think the portrayal of Latter-day Saints in American Primeval is far more sympathetic than the renderings of the Indigenous characters, or (as someone already pointed out), the scumbag French-speaking characters, who are absolutely vile and repugnant here.

[Chap]

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.

My post was based on the post by Dr. Sunstoned, and was of course intended ironically.

[Doctor Scratch]

It looks like the Afore is promoting a "review" from a completely objective an unbiased source in the form of Steven Densley, who, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the people who helps pay for DCP's free trips to various places around the globe. Could it be the Densley will over-react to American Primeval? Take a look:

Here’s my review of American Primeval:
TLDR: The Old West was violent. Especially the Mormons. Oh. And they were weird religious fanatics.

Extended Version: This show has strong production value with gorgeous, if muted, cinematography. The performances are good. But the writing is sometimes weak as it portrays Latter-day Saints as caricatures of real people. I’m surprised they didn’t give Brigham Young a mustache to twirl as he plotted the expansion of his “kingdom” and the demise of the U.S. Government and any other group that got in his way. The Mormons are religious fanatics, and power-hungry, and their worship services apparently consist only of listening to angry, apocalyptic sermons in darkly lit tents. A brief backstory is provided, by way of photos of news headlines, indicating how the Mormons had been wronged by others when they were driven from their homes and their leader, Joseph Smith, was murdered. But the implied result is that they have become paranoid and consumed with blood lust. While the wrongs committed against them help explain their actions, we are expected to be unsympathetic toward, if not repulsed by, these dangerous weirdos.

Regarding the historical events, much of it is inaccurate and one-dimensional. For example, its portrayal of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is more impressionistic than true to the facts. And, of course, the show falsely indicates that Brigham Young was involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which is a position held by almost no historians and based on mere speculation.

In short, you would be well-advised to skip this one. But since it is the number one show on Netflix right now, I’m sure it will be seen by many. The upshot of it is that I think it is likely that people will wonder about the historical events and what Latter-day Saints were really like. (Reasonable people will have their doubts about this show.) It would be nice if it encouraged people to learn more and share the truth with others about Latter-day Saints and their history. Too bad it didn’t have that effect on the filmmakers.

I'm not sure which LDS he felt were "caricatures." Elder Pratt? Hickman? BY? Perhaps Densley disliked the scene where Hickman is sent in to buy all the hogs out from under Jim Bridger as part of a larger plot to take over the entirety of Fort Bridger, and Jim Bridger nearly hacks off Hickman's toes with a shovel as a kind of "warning shot"? Which aspect of this does Densley object to, I wonder? The idea that the LDS Church might attempt to buy big chunks of land against the wishes of people already living there? Is that an offensive "caricature"? Does the Church only ever build temples exactly where they're wanted? Or does it go ahead and install temple wherever it wants, regardless of what the locals think?

Meanwhile, I'm reminded yet again of Dean Robbers' observation that the Mopologists lack the ability to self-reflect when I read this line: "they have become paranoid and consumed with blood lust." Is it objectionable to portray Mormons--*any* Mormons--as aggressive or as having "blood lust"? Oh, wait: not that many days ago, Hales and Peterson were extolling the virtues of old-school FARMS: "Those guys were warriors" and "heavy hitters." "There was FARMS, guns blazing away." The Mopologists have long idolized killers like Porter Rockwell, and one of the most frequent commentators at SeN is called "The Last Danite." So, yes: it does seem just a *trifle* hypocritical that the Mopologists would object that LDS might be portrayed as being violent sometimes.

[I Have Questions]

Regarding the historical events, much of it is inaccurate and one-dimensional. For example, its portrayal of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is more impressionistic than true to the facts. And, of course, the show falsely indicates that Brigham Young was involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which is a position held by almost no historians and based on mere speculation.

That’s like saying Trump was not involved in the January 6th Capital Building attack. Sure he didn’t explicitly order it. Sure he didn’t participate in it. But what he said in the build up to it played a significant part in inciting the event, and it is reasonable to suggest that he knew what he was saying would likely prompt some of his lunatic followers to act outside of the law. Same as with Brigham Young.

[sock puppet]

Such peace-loving, non-violent types those 19th Century Mormons, right? Makes one wonder why there ever was the repulsive penalty mimicking in the temple ceremony that was removed about 1990, and blood oaths taken against the U.S. government that were removed circa 1926.

[Gadianton]

The Mopologists have long idolized killers like Porter Rockwell, and one of the most frequent commentators at SeN is called "The Last Danite." So, yes: it does seem just a *trifle* hypocritical that the Mopologists would object that LDS might be portrayed as being violent sometimes.

Absolutely true.

and their worship services apparently consist only of listening to angry, apocalyptic sermons

Densley should register on this forum and discuss his objections here. Densley needs to tap into his inner movie-goer and forget about Mopologetics. Why would a wild-west movie spend gobs of time portraying LDS services during times of peace? Densley should consider the subject matter of movies in general. Blockbusters are usually action movies and based on them, you'd think all Americans do is fight in wars or commit crimes. Movies are about volatility spikes: the revolutionary war, the civil war, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, robbing banks, building the atomic bomb or ships sinking -- stuff like that. Movies don't sell that show a midwestern family in their normal everyday life encountering no problems.

And, of course, the show falsely indicates that Brigham Young was involved in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which is a position held by almost no historians and based on mere speculation

Right, as usual, God's living prophet on the earth knew nothing about the bad stuff. At any rate, the show leaves Brigham's role as ambiguous.

Here's what wiki says about Fancher:

a member of the Baker–Fancher train was said to have bragged how he had the very gun that "shot the guts out of Old Joe Smith".[6] Other members of the party reportedly bragged about taking part in the Haun's Mill massacre some decades before in Missouri.[5] Others were reported by Mormons to have threatened to join the incoming federal troops, or join troops from California, and march against the Mormons.[7] According to one witness, the captain of the emigrant train, Alexander Fancher, rebuked these men on the spot for their inflammatory language against the Mormons

Whereas in the movie, Fancher is the one who doles out the insults and threats.

Densely ought to consider that plot-based movies, especially thrillers that move as fast as this one, are going to trade in tropes and caricatures and condense. What Densley needs to show is that the movie was more unfair to Mormons than it was other groups, especially those concerned about their identity. Would Shoshone Indians be universally thrilled with how they were portrayed? How about the other Indian groups? What about immigrants in general, like the French? Are women universally happy with how the women were portrayed? The leading lady was massively impulsive and spicy, even though she was tough, she was led by her emotions and required a man to show her how to do everything.

I think it is likely that people will wonder about the historical events

The upshot is that the Mormon characters exactly as portrayed will be big hits with the political right. Like Joe Rogan and Dana White are going to think any of them were uncool.

[drumdude]

It must be pretty disheartening for Daniel that his film Six Days in August did so poorly amidst the booming Mormon media zeitgeist. Water, water, everywhere… but not a drop for Interpreter to drink.

[Moksha]

On the Peterson Patheos blog, Dr. Peterson was unaware that the Oath of Vengence against Americans had been repealed and is not part of the current Temple ceremony. Information travels slowly to Utah County.

What is with the apologetic Mormon aversion to history? Do they feel they need to deny it every time Hollywood mentions LDS doings of the past? Why not just fess up to it?

[Dr. Shades]

That’s like saying Trump was not involved in the January 6th Capital Building attack. Sure he didn’t explicitly order it. Sure he didn’t participate in it. But what he said in the build up to it played a significant part in inciting the event, and it is reasonable to suggest that he knew what he was saying would likely prompt some of his lunatic followers to act outside of the law. Same as with Brigham Young.

That's a FANTASTIC point. Mind if I steal it?

[I Have Questions]

That’s like saying Trump was not involved in the January 6th Capital Building attack. Sure he didn’t explicitly order it. Sure he didn’t participate in it. But what he said in the build up to it played a significant part in inciting the event, and it is reasonable to suggest that he knew what he was saying would likely prompt some of his lunatic followers to act outside of the law. Same as with Brigham Young.

That's a FANTASTIC point. Mind if I steal it?

Feel free!