"Egregiously Misleading Historical Fiction"?

[Doctor Scratch]

I saw on "SeN" that the Proprietor is whining once again about the Netflix series, American Primeval, and its really rather compelling depiction of Brigham Young. He links to a Meridian article written (apparently) by a friend of his (Maurine Proctor), entitled "The Harm of Egregiously Misleading Historical Fiction." Proctor writes:

The problem with a dramatically produced historical fiction series is that people come away simply believing that it is true, and since the series has been riding at the number one spot as the most popular on Netflix, that means many have been influenced by these terrible fabrications. Carried along in a compelling story, viewers think they know something about Latter-day Saints which utterly discredits us. They know it’s true because publications everywhere are telling them this series is based on actual events and the story telling was so compelling.

"many have been influenced by these terrible fabrications"? Well, once I stopped slapping my knee and laughing, it occurred to me that there are quite a few things wrong with the Mopologetic complaints about American Pastoral. Or, rather, their complaints demonstrate that they are (as usual) guilty of massive hypocrisy. Because here's the issue: if it is so wrong to peddle "egregiously misleading historical fiction," then don't they need to shelve the Book of Mormon? To use Proctor's logic, "many have been influenced by these...fabrications." Lots and lots of Latter-day Saints now think that there was a city called Zarahemla--maybe it was somewhere in present-day US of A, or maybe it was down in the Yucatan. They also think that the Indigenous people did all sorts of horrible and violent things, per the depictions in the Book of Mormon.

Proctor quotes from a FAIR document:

The FAIR document notes that “when portraying real historical groups or events, filmmakers have an ethical responsibility to consult credible experts and representatives of the group being portrayed. Choosing consultants who lack expertise or who are known to have personal biases can lead to distorted narratives that misrepresent the group. This is particularly problematic when the portrayal involves a minority or religious group that has historically faced misunderstanding or prejudice.”

What, you mean like the Native peoples of the Americas? Proctor further quotes from FAIR:

They note that it is not “ethical for consultants to misrepresent a group in order to satisfy personal or ideological agendas.”

“Ethically sound consulting requires presenting a balanced and truthful perspective, even when personal beliefs or experiences differ from those of the group being represented. The goal should be to foster understanding and promote respectful dialogue, not to advance personal agendas at the expense of accuracy.”

Except, of course, the Book of Mormon is going to be given a free pass here, no? Or are the Brethren going to authorize extensive revisions to the text so that there are no longer "egregious misrepresentations" of what Native people were like? No--not likely. So, this FAIR statement actually winds up being a tacit admission of guilty, and an acknowledgement that Mopologists and other defenders of the Book of Mormon are "not ethical." I'm very glad to see them fessing up to the obvious.

[drumdude]

I don’t think they see the irony in representing Joseph and Brigham’s story as historically accurate, either.

The opening scene for Six Days in August includes Brigham Young using his magical Jedi Force priesthood powers to get some oxen out of a sticky situation. The movie represents all of the supernatural and magical events as having actually happened in history, which no non-LDS historian would accept as accurate.

If Mormons want to take advantage of artistic license to portray the faithful position, I don’t see anything wrong with the same being done to highlight the problems with Mormonism. In both cases, viewers have a responsibility to research what they’re being shown and come to the conclusions themselves.

[Fence Sitter]

Clearly the time limits of the show do not allow for historical accuracy nor is there any obligation on the part of the producers to do so. In fact, many of them are of the opinion that they should start from a particular pov and make the show fit that view for consistency. As a presentation of all the facts is not possible, those chosen are those that best suit the ends of the movie. One producer, a Lloyd J. Backer has remarked that he has a difficult time with writers that idolize truth. "Somethings that are true are not very useful in a movie. Truth is not entertaining: it can destroy the story. Writers should only tell that part of the story that is valuable to the production."

[I Have Questions]

They seem to be arguing that American Primeval isn’t historically accurate and is therefore misleading. It isn’t historically accurate. It was never presented as such. It’s only ever been promoted as a fictionalised drama. It’s like accusing a barbecue joint of being dangerously deceptive because it’s selling meat.

On the other hand, the producers of The Book of Mormon specifically claim it to be non fiction. How damaging and malicious is it to present as historical fact the notion that dark skin originates as the mechanism God used to highlight people he didn’t like? Let’s see Ms. Proctor spend some time defending that…

Brigham Young is responsible for inciting the Mountain Meadows violence in the same way Trump is responsible for inciting the Capitol Building violence.

[Doctor Scratch]

In a sense, American Primeval is disappointing because of all the historically accurate things that it *could* have included about BY. E.g., why not include his statement about how interracial marriage should be punished by “death on the spot”? Was *that* included in 6DIA? And what about BY’s teachings on blood atonement? Or Adam-God (which, according to DCP, was a case of BY being a “false prophet”)? How about his Moon Quaker or Sun-people stuff? Or the bit about God coming down and having physical intercourse with Mary?

So many missed opportunities for historical accuracy!

[Gadianton]

I have to agree with others here about the double standard for historical accuracy. And as Scratch noted, making it more historically accurate would only make it worse for the apologists, not better, as the violence from the Mormons was worse in reality.

However, to the extent that the historical accuracy correlates to making the Church look better and to the extent that viewers naïvely take the portrayal at face value: shouldn't the apologists be happy that viewers merely incorrectly assume what they saw was historical? What if the viewers, instead, watched the series over and over while praying frequently to know that it is true? What if they kept praying and fasting, not accepting 'no' as an answer, until they could stand and say they know without a shadow of a doubt that the series is true?

[Dr. Shades]

The problem with a dramatically produced historical fiction series is that people come away simply believing that it is true, and since the series has been riding at the number one spot as the most popular on Netflix, that means many have been influenced by these terrible fabrications.

Which "terrible fabrications?" The fact that the series depicted far fewer people--and no children at all--being slaughtered at Mountain Meadows than was actually the case? Would she rather it have been MORE accurate?

The FAIR document notes that “when portraying real historical groups or events, filmmakers have an ethical responsibility to consult credible experts and representatives of the group being portrayed. Choosing consultants who lack expertise or who are known to have personal biases can lead to distorted narratives that misrepresent the group. This is particularly problematic when the portrayal involves a minority or religious group that has historically faced misunderstanding or prejudice.”

What's her proof that those consulted either lacked expertise or had personal biases?

They note that it is not “ethical for consultants to misrepresent a group in order to satisfy personal or ideological agendas.”

What's her proof that any group was misrepresented, or that the consultants had any personal or ideological agendas?

“Ethically sound consulting requires presenting a balanced and truthful perspective, even when personal beliefs or experiences differ from those of the group being represented. The goal should be to foster understanding and promote respectful dialogue, not to advance personal agendas at the expense of accuracy.”

What's her proof that any of that happened?

Like I said, the only misrepresentation of Mormons I saw was them killing far fewer adults--and no children--than they actually did. If anyone else noticed any other misrepresentations, please let me know.

[I Have Questions]

The FAIR document notes that “when portraying real historical groups or events, filmmakers have an ethical responsibility to consult credible experts and representatives of the group being portrayed. Choosing consultants who lack expertise or who are known to have personal biases can lead to distorted narratives that misrepresent the group. This is particularly problematic when the portrayal involves a minority or religious group that has historically faced misunderstanding or prejudice.”

What's her proof that those consulted either lacked expertise or had personal biases?

The producers spent time with Richard E. Turley when researching the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Richard E. Turley Jr. is currently serving as assistant Church historian and recorder for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a position he has held since March 12, 2008.
Turley also served for eight years as managing director of the Family and Church History Department, overseeing the Church Archives and Records Center, the Church History Library and the Museum of Church History and Art.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ic-affairs

Massacre at Mountain Meadows is a book by Latter-day Saint historian Richard E. Turley, Jr. and two Brigham Young University professors of history, Ronald W. Walker and Glen M. Leonard. Leonard was also the director of the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City, Utah. The book concerns the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre in southern Utah, and is the latest study of the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_ ... in_Meadows

Notably, Oxford University Press published a landmark work in 2008 entitled “Massacre at Mountain Meadows” that pretty much set the gold standard for treatments of the subject. It was written by three Latter-day Saint scholars—the late Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glenn M. Leonard—who were granted full access to all Church archives and records and who enjoyed the complete support (including financial support) of the Church itself.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/searching ... -massacre/

In what way(s) could Richard E. Turley be described as lacking expertise on the subject, and what does she imagine his personal biases to be?

My understanding is that the producers downplayed the Mountain Meadows Event because the Fancher Party suffered horribly for 5 days, rather than the brief event shown in the series that only depicted a snapshot of the horrors inflicted, and it would have taken too much of the series run time to show it all.

It's worth noting that Maurine Proctor is the founder of the outlet that published her rant.

[Dr. Shades]

What's her proof that those consulted either lacked expertise or had personal biases?

The producers spent time with Richard E. Turley when researching the Mountain Meadows Massacre. . . Richard E. Turley Jr. is currently serving as assistant Church historian and recorder for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a position he has held since March 12, 2008.

I wonder if Richard E. Turley knows that Maurine Proctor thinks he lacks expertise and has personal biases. I wonder: If not Turley, whom would she rather the producers have consulted?

My understanding is that the producers downplayed the Mountain Meadows Event because the Fancher Party suffered horribly for 5 days, rather than the brief event shown in the series that only depicted a snapshot of the horrors inflicted, and it would have taken too much of the series run time to show it all.

Ahh yes, that's another "terrible fabrication:" The Fancher Party suffered far more from thirst and starvation than what the series portrayed.

Poor, poor Maurine.

[I Have Questions]

As a historian, I’ve been studying Brigham Young for the past 25 years. I’ve read his sermons, his letters and his journals. I’ve read the accounts of the people who knew him well. Brigham Young has his flaws as a person and leader, but any suggestion that “American Primeval” accurately describes him is deeply misguided.

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/01/1 ... ham-young/

From the people who produced the film:

Young was the then leader of the Mormon church with his own army — the Nauvoo Legion. “For this type of story, it was very important that we stayed authentic,” said executive producer Smith. “Even for all the Brigham Young sermons and speeches, a lot of his dialogue I took directly from text — real sermons that he had given — and used his exact words.”

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/ ... -explained

To lean into the show’s authenticity, American Primeval’s creatives enlisted experts across all aspects of production. “We had military consultants, we had Mormon consultants, we had trapper consultants, and they were all on set,” Berg explained. “I went with Dudley Gardner, the curator of the Bridger museum, to Fort Bridger in Wyoming for five days to get a deeper education into what life was like on that fort.” The EP then toured the site of the massacre with Richard E. Turley Jr., the co-author of Vengeance Is Mine: The Mountain Meadows Massacre and Its Aftermath, to learn more.

Berg also turned to consultants from the Shoshone Tribe and the Paiute Tribe, who were managed by Indigenous cultural consultant and project advisor Julie O’Keefe.

“My job on the show was to manage organized teams of cultural experts from the Tribes involved,” O’Keefe told Netflix. “Artisans, traditional language speakers from each Tribe, and cultural experts were engaged to create and advise every department. I also researched and used my network to create authentic camps for the Shoshone, Southern Paiute, and Ute with [production designer] Renée Read for set design, and I worked with [costume designer] Virginia Johnson to help produce period-specific traditional clothing for principal characters and background characters.”

In addition, she “resourced materials such as buffalo hide, elk skin, buckskin, beads, broadcloth, and blankets, following photos and research done by Virginia and the other department teams.”

Added Newman, “Everything was entirely geared towards authenticity. Every department did a tremendous amount of research. We had to make all these things you see on-screen. All of these elements had to be built. It’s incredibly time-consuming, but essential, because if someone shows up with some article of clothing or a weapon that didn’t exist in 1857, you’ve already lost.”

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/ ... -explained

What should viewers take away from this story?
“I think human triumph, the reinforcement of the good that people are capable of, is very important to me as it is to Pete,” says Newman. “The other part of what matters to me is the importance of an anti-nostalgic, truthful look at our history. I was a big Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the United States fan because it was the first time I was confronted with what I believed to be the truth. That these rose-colored glasses in which we view the past, from the first Thanksgiving onward, is a lie. It’s a lie meant to make us feel good about this really rugged, brutal path that we’ve taken.”

He adds, “I think we do a disservice to ourselves by looking at it in that way because it prevents us from seeing it [happening] again.”

Maurine prefers the lies.