I just finished the Under the Banner series last night, and well, it was a long strange trip. I’m listening to some interviews about it on Sunstone podcast. Basically, it just feels like Mormon[1] culture is varied and weird, and if you add fundamentalist and polygamist sects into the mix, it’s even more varied and weird. Then on top of that, if you add in psychopaths like the homocidal self-justifying Lafferty boys, then yeah, you are looking through church doctrines and history through a funhouse mirror. And then if you look at all of that through disaffected (for good reason) eyes, well, you’re also going to get additional slant.
So I get it that Church members (including me) feel that this (gestures wildly) isn’t my experience and often not even recognizable, but there’s also this knee-jerk response ingrained in us to consider ourselves full time press secretaries for the Church (every member a missionary!) and to come out swinging in defense of both the Church, and in the case of progressive members like most of us, in defense of a principle I’ll call #notallmormons which basically = “I think any Mormon who is different, especially more orthodox, from me is pretty much a weirdo,” well, the struggle is real.
Contrast that with how those more orthodox Mormons view the rest of us: “Any Mormon who is less orthodox than me (or who doesn’t vote the way I do) is lazy, lax and looking to sin.” I suspect there’s a version of this in most denominations, but I am really seeing it as a result of the series. In an unexpected upside, it seems that even the Church is (FINALLY) embarrassed about the exposure of its right flank in its critiques of the show, although not quite enough for my taste (a given since a lot of post-Trump era church members and probably 99% of leadership are too far to the right for my taste).
**SPOILERS** **LOTS OF SPOILERS** **I’M NOT KIDDING**
A lot of the series explores the fictional main character’s faith crisis as he continues to learn more about the fundamentalist sects of the Church, history that he’s only ever heard from a white-washed perspective if at all, exposure to an outside perspective from his agnostic Native American partner who is as close to a moral compass as we see onscreen, his beloved mother’s mental and physical decline, his wife’s threats of divorce and unwillingness to listen to his doubts, and probably most importantly, the heavy-handed pressure of local (and implied higher level) church authorities designed to interfere with a murder investigation in the interest of preserving the Church’s reputation.
The Guardian issued this criticism, which partly sums up how I feel about the elements of the show that related to the Church’s involvement:
I don’t know if you can say it’s something inherently rotten about the LDS church, as the show sometimes seems to argue; what’s clear is that the church – an institution that secretly amassed a $100bn war chest – is more protective of its reputation than its people, like many other large institutions. Such institutions promise clarity, but people are messy. As a series, Under the Banner of Heaven struggles to maintain focus, but it never loses faith in that fact.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/apr/28/under-the-banner-of-heaven-review
The Church(TM) didn’t actually intervene in these conspiratorial ways, and the Lafferty brothers who committed the murders were excommunicated years prior, which is why this element of the show crosses a line, IMO, in the “true crime” genre. The fictional overt conspiracy of local Church leaders is laugh-out-loud over-the-top, including a local leader “reminding” the “Lamanite” detective that his people (the Paiutes) helped the Church out at Mormon Meadows (which is an incident that was not widely known by average Church members, and which for sure nobody was aware of and proud of within any level of the Church as this implies–he’s practically high fiving the guy for helping his ancestors slaughter “gentiles”), and when the detectives send this lunatic packing, he actually shakes the dust from his feet in the police station which they both find amusing. Seriously, W. T. F. [2]
But I also agree with the Guardian’s comment. The Church does care, as demonstrated repeatedly, more about its reputation than victims of abuse (as do all large organizations and churches), particularly those who are victims of domestic abuse, and in the 80s this was even more of an issue.[3] I am just doubtful that the Church would side with excommunicated fundamentalists guilty of murder under any circumstance, or really would side with excommunicants or murderers in general. That’s why they were exed. The Church was literally breathing a sigh of relief that they had already exed these guys, and they were so against what fundamentalists like the Lafferties were all about (that would be “The Principle,” aka the practice of polygamy) that a question was added to the temple recommend question to weed them out as a result, and study groups like theirs were deemed verboten. The Church doesn’t conspire with murderers to protect them from the law (the implication being that Mountain Meadows Massacre is basically the forerunner, and nothing’s changed since–we’re a bloodthirsty lot). Additional case in point, Ted Bundy was also a Mormon convert (in name if nothing else as he was already mid-career in his killings), and nobody from Church leadership was showing up for him.
A different element of conspiracy that comes out in Episode 7 is unfortunately all too believable, that the Utah County detective had his own history of unprofessional sharing of investigative information with his contacts within the Church, something that was proven to be an issue in the BYU rape scandal that resulted in a two-year attempt to decertificy the BYU police due to this exact type of misconduct. (A judge ruled against decertification the same day Trump supporters stormed the capital). Obviously that type of “friendly collaboration” / malfeasance would have only been worse and more prevalent in the 80s.
The final episode also addresses something that was a problem in earlier episodes, not being sufficiently centered around the female victims of these patriarchal Lafferty men who abused wives and children with threats and actual terror and violence toward them and their children. In one scene, Diana who is being actively hunted by murderers, crosses the country to rescue resourceless, abandoned Matilda who is basically under house arrest by her complicit mother-in-law. At a gas station, one of the less violent Lafferty brothers attempts to re-capture Matilda, and while Diana screams at several bystander men to help them, all of whom ignore what they are witnessing, Diana finally convinces Matilda to stand up for herself. It’s a powerful scene for women and for victims. I imagine it’s apocryphal and intended to be symbolic. It still felt exhiliarating.
There was a Twitter thread predicting (before it aired) that in Episode 7, Detective Pyre would get up in Fast & Testimony meeting (his wife who is pissed at his faith crisis has been pressuring him to get up and bear testimony “for his daughters”) and bear his un-testimony. Thankfully, that was not the resolution of his faith crisis in the episode. Honestly, what happened was really satisfying, IMO, and far more positive than anything that preceded it in terms of commentary on the Church. Aside from a few glimpses of his lovely mother’s faith [4], most of the “faithful” in the show are amoral, racist, misogynistic robots from somewhere between Stepford and Waco. I mean, Mormons in rural Utah (at the time anyway) during the mid-80s probably would look like that to many of us in 2022 [5]. They might still, although American Fork no longer qualifies as rural.
But that’s not what happened. At some point, Det. Pyre, who has mostly lost his faith at this point, particularly due to the absolutely ham-fisted interventions of local leaders who are literally the worst humans on the planet, twirling their mustaches while tying Miss Kitty to the railroad tracks, is completely unable to determine what to do. After all he and we have seen in the preceding six episodes, he finally hits a breaking point and shouts out, unapologetically, “What the f*#$!” I mean, at this point, his outburst was basically every viewer, well, except those who took at face value that the Mormon Church(TM) is the proud slaughterer of innocents, and that the belief system is so ludicrous and untenable that a few conversations about history with someone who could have prevented his wife and daughter’s murder with a simple phone call are sufficient to leave it in tatters. He asks his partner how he operates without a moral compass, which is fricken ironic. His partner takes him out to nature and helps him get in touch with his own gut, something that will ring true for many whose faith in “obedience to leaders” eroded and who had to convert that to making choices rather than just doing as they were told.
Coincidentally, his agnostic partner is also the one who leads him back (after a fashion) into the Church. He sings a Paiute song from his childhood that is meaningful and beautiful to him, despite his own lack of faith in the Paiute religion. Det. Pyre ultimately reconnects in a joyful reunion with his wife and children. He has found a way to honor the beauty of his former faith and culture, to embrace the good, while also finding and following his own moral compass rather than being cajoled and coerced by church leaders who expect blind obedience to them and the Church. In bloggernacle terms, I interpreted this as him becoming PIMO (physically in, mentally out) as a way to keep peace with his wife and to honor his mother. But he has already seen glimpses of harm being done to his daughters’ self-perception and the Church expectations of them, and he will counteract those messages, at least within his own family.
My final conclusion after watching the series is that any critiques of the show, aside from factual inaccuracies (and even those are subjective based on one’s view of contradictory historical accounts), are going to be idiosyncratic. Mine certainly are.[6] The series was definitely uneven, complex, confusing (!), and unfamiliar to what I imagine is a mainstream Mormon experience (my own, natch), but it also had some beautiful moments and acting. I particularly appreciated the feminist, yet faithful, portrayal of Brenda, the murder victim, and Diana[7] who risked her life to rescue her sister-in-law. The contrast between the empathy and courage of the women and the cowardice and self-justification of their abusers was a valuable glimpse into domestic violence, a topic that deserves more attention in the Church.
- Do you find Church members too defensive whenever the Church is portrayed in media? Does it make you feel defensive?
- Do you find it ridiculous (as I do) that church leaders would try to hinder a murder investigation? If not, why not? If so, do you think it’s out of bounds for the “based on real events” true crime genre as I do?
- If you haven’t watched the series, does this make you more or less interested in it?
- Do you think it’s wrong to use a true crime series to explore a fictional faith crisis, or is it a good vehicle for that? Do you think this portrayal of faith crisis was well done (if you watched it)?
Discuss.
[1] Yes, I am going to use the term Mormon freely in this article. GET OVER IT.
[2] Which doesn’t stand for “Why the Feet?”
[3] There are countless, countless examples of this, of church leaders who would never advise a woman to leave her abusive marriage.
[4] Played by one of Andrew Garfield’s acting coaches no less!
[5] Although I have also had plenty of quibbles with just how nutty they seem to me, and I was at BYU from 1986.
[6] As I previously mentioned, I found the temple scene to be quite moving and beautiful (one article defending the Church found it intentionally “creepy”) and I also found the garment scene to be flattering and attractive, a thing which I had never supposed to be possible!
[7] Who wins “Most Mormon hair” of the series.
Wheat & Tares 
Nobody presented UTBOH as a documentary. Everyone knows it’s a fictional drama based on real life events. Therefore, TBMs can claim that all the bad parts are the fiction and Church critics can claim all the bad parts were based on actual events. We all win.
As a post-TBM, I view UTBOH this way: the events depicted in this series (related to the Lafferty family itself) are not literally true in every instance. But I haven’t seen any depiction of that family that seems unreasonable given their backgrounds. I don’t see why a TDM has to get defensive about a fictional drama and I don’t see why a Church critic has to condemn all Mormons or the Church based on this show.
My guess (pure speculation) is that folks like the Laffertys were going to have family issues no matter where they were and no matter what their belief system. But given their personalities (starting with the father), violence was more likely to happen if some kind of holy justification could be discovered. And that’s what Mormonism gave them. Mormonism (even if they had been x-ed) empowered and enabled them. Critics can easily make this case and TBMs don’t need to be offended by it.
My observation is that excommunication of people who commit crimes is a way the TSCCOJCOLDS (add whichever letters seem appropriate) can put distance between itself and the criminal by saying “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” this guy isn’t one of us. For all its failings the RCC doesn’t say that criminals, including pedophilic clergy, are no longer Catholics, even if excommunicated.
My inactive daughter found this very compelling and quite lovely, and was able to identify with both the craziness and the great sanity of other members. She could take the whole thing as representative of her experience with the church. But then again, we have had most of these conversations over time.
I should also point out that the way this faith crisis happened was completely different from a pre-internet faith crisis. It’s a modern version of a faith crisis (black & white, all-in believer encounters alternate versions of history which erodes trust, sending believer down a spiraling rabbit hole) rather than one that is contemporary to the time period in question.
Another point someone mentioned is that these fictionalizations about the role the Church played in the investigation are meant to show the emotional impact on believing members rather than an actual reality. The problem is, it could have been written to show that it’s his feelings or guilt or worries, but to actually have church leaders fully sanctoined by higher ups doing illegal things to back up these psychos is an ethical problem. People viewing it who don’t know the church at all will assume it’s more or less accurate. To me, this approach is going too far. For example, I don’t have a problem with discussing in the bloggernacle how excommunication is an “act of violence” metaphorically and emotionally, but I’m not down for writing a TV show for a broad audience “based on true events” and portraying an excommunication as an actual act of violence just to get a point across. That’s just me. I wouldn’t imply there was another conspirator who was a real person (or in this case, entity) who was in fact not really implicated in reality.
The show also shows Brigham Young conspiring to murder Joseph Smith, which no historians have stated, and for which there is no support and plenty of counter-evidence. For one thing, he wasn’t even in the state at the time. And, let’s be clear, I think Brigham Young was pretty terrible as human beings go. But he didn’t do that. I wouldn’t have voted for him in the succession crisis, as I said in this post: https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/08/26/succession-crisis-by-the-numbers-what-would-you-do/. He did enough actual things that were terrible that we don’t have to make crap up.
I thought the most compelling parts of the show were 1. the calling Brenda received to save her family. I felt like that was the main reason the church was getting involved in the show. It was more a sense of guilt for sending Brenda down that road. 2. The emotional reaction Pyre had at realizing the organization he loved had been lying to him. It felt close to my reasons for walking away. I left just as my daughters were getting to interview age so much of the show felt very relevant to me.
Angela C: My comments were about the Lafferty family but you have added comments about the Mormon history interpretations presented like the one you mention about BY conspiring to murder JS. I think most viewers understand that history is complicated and that the victors usually write the history. For example, we know much more about Brigham Young’s version of events that that of James Strang or Sidney Rigdon. So when we are presented counter-theories like the example above, we can entertain it as a possibility but definitely not a certainty. I doubt any viewer walked away believing (unless they believed already) that BY had JS killed. Having said that, I agree with you that nobody needs to exaggerate how terrible BY was because the actual truth about him is condemning enough.
I finished the show after reading your previous post about it and I’m very glad I did. I agree with the criticisms mostly, though I think we can chock most of them up to the old cliche of Hollywood trying to add drama to everything at the expensive of factual accuracy. I think your observation that people’s criticisms will be idiosyncratic based on their lived experience is very apt. (For my part, some of the characters in the show sound a lot like my in-laws)
In the end, there are a few images from the show I won’t be getting out of my head any time soon:
*additional spoiler warning*
– Andrew Garfield reading a red book in the car in the garage, sobbing. I’ve never seen something from my own life represented like that and it was a powerful, validating moment for me. I’m very grateful that when I leveled with my wife about my doubts, she didn’t react like Sister Pyre in that scene.
– Joseph Smith’s eyes rolling back in his head as he exhales the text of D&C 132 right in front of Emma. Obviously this probably isn’t how that moment played out in real life, but the juxtaposition of him spiritually manipulating Emma this way after watching the batsh*t Lafferties do the same thing with their wives was extremely illuminating. It drove home Allen’s later point about men acting on their selfish desires and calling it God. I can’t unsee that.
– Detective Taba pointing at a beautiful desert vista and saying, “If there is no God, doesn’t that make this all the more miraculous?” I’d never heard it put like that before and I loved it.
Also, I’m glad you mentioned the temple recommend interview question about not associating with polygamy-centric study groups.
The actual wording of the question when I first went through the temple—“do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the church…”—makes a lot more sense after watching the Lafferties and that piece of work Onias pontificate about the need to return to polygamy in their creepy-a** meetings.
The problem is that the question is so vague that it’s entirely counterproductive. Any fundamentalist could claim that practicing polygamy is exactly in line with the church’s teachings so the question ends up mostly serving to make poor TBM kids anxious about associating with non-members too much. Oh, right, that and it also gets weaponized against LGBTQ activism.
“Do you find Church members too defensive whenever the Church is portrayed in media?”
Yes. Church members’ social media defense and promotion of the Church make Johnny Depp’s PR army and Russian bots look like amateurs.
On church portrayals of media, consider this. What cities are usually portrayed in movies and sitcoms? New York, LA, Chicago, Boston, Miami, and a few others. Granted, these are the largest cities in the US. But when was the last time you saw a portrayal of Salt Lake City? Personally I would love to see a romantic comedy or sitcom based in SLC, and one that did justice to the true dynamics of the city. But alas, Mormons are very sensitive about how they and the church are portrayed in media productions.
Also I find it very interesting just how much Jews and Catholics are portrayed in media productions. You’d think Mormons should be there too. After all, the Jewish population of the US is equivalent to the Mormon population.
John W: “Also I find it very interesting just how much Jews and Catholics are portrayed in media productions. You’d think Mormons should be there too. After all, the Jewish population of the US is equivalent to the Mormon population.” As someone who lives in greater LA, the Jewish community has a strong Hollywood presence, both for actors and for writers. I think that’s why their stories get heard. Mormons don’t tend to seek Hollywood-type careers.
“Do you find Church members too defensive whenever the Church is portrayed in media? Does it make you feel defensive?” 100% yes. The Book of Mormon musical is coming back into town in our Broadway series. We share season tickets with with some fellow ward members. They won’t go see it with us. Won’t even entertain the idea. Thought. Stop.
This show literally gave me all the feels. Quite bored mostly. It was too long. A lot of laughter at the exaggerated uses of terms like brother, sister, heavenly father, etc. A few literal tears watching Matilda, Brenda, Dianna, and Emma be treated as mere objects of God and man. Anger at the gaslighting, which we know the church is very good at. And as Kirkstall noted, connection with Andrew Garfield’s faith journey. The change in the way your community treats you, the difficult discussions with my life partner, worry about how my choices impact my children, etc. It was raw for me seeing this on screen. Like an out of body experience.
I wouldn’t really recommend the show to anyone. There are better documentaries out there right now. But I’m still glad I watched it.
I don’t watch much TV, so I missed the series. So thanks for this write-up and comments.
What I have noted from the discussions here and other locations on the bloggernacle are the descriptions of institutional fear, the overwhelming pressure to confirm and the willingness to sacrifice the one for the good of the many. While I would also have laughed at the misteps in this production, I have to admit that the aforementioned elements would have made me cringe and think yes, they are getting close to Utah and Mormon culture.
FYI, the notion that non-believers and non-LDS cultural elements serve to beautify and balance the LDS community is something that I can testify is true.
Kirkstall: regarding the TR question about affiliating with groups counter to Church teachings, it is definitely too broadly worded. When I was getting ready to go on my mission, I encountered that question for the first time and found it alarming. What did “affiliate” even mean? I had more friends who weren’t Mormon than who were. Did that mean that my “affiliation” with them was a problem? What if I disagreed with the Church about the ERA (which I 100% did!)? Was that what was meant? So I asked the interviewer, and I was told that it was added specifically to weed out those who were forming or joining “polygamist apostate groups.” I was pretty confused because I didn’t know that there were people doing that in modern times, or that there were enough of them that it was a problem. Why would they even want a temple recommend? So this patient guy explained all of this to me, and frankly, I never looked at Utah the same way again. I had spent all my years growing up in Pennsylvania basically calling all my classmates idiots for thinking that any Mormons had practiced polygamy since around the turn of the century. Boy was I wrong! Polygamy was (and is) the only thing these folks know about Mormons.
Old Man: I would have loved to see a more nuanced and accurate version of the pressure a Det. Pyre might have felt without falsely showing local church leaders (including GA level) intervening on behalf of the Lafferties. In a Sunstone interview, two different historians disagreed on whether this was a good storytelling device. One said they were taking a page from the Hoffman bombings because the Church had bought things from Hoffman, then gaslit Church members who found the Salamander Letter troubling–Oaks personally did this, then when Hoffman was revealed to be a forger and murderer, the Church’s relationship with him was problematic for at least a few media cycles. But that was absolutely the opposite of what happened with the Lafferty murders. The Church, having excommunicated them years prior, was vindicated by their conviction. It didn’t make the Church look bad–the Church looked right and discerning for having distanced themselves from them so early and so utterly. I’m sure both cases put negative scrutiny on the Church in a very broad sense, but again, the Lafferty situation showed that they were right, that the Lafferties were bad people, not good Mormons. So, that’s why it makes no sense as a plot device to have them basically colluding with them.
I do think members are generally too defensive of how the church is portrayed. I was probably like that myself once. I recall some participants discomfort when discussing the book Educated in my non-active daughter’s book group in Lehi – most were active members.
I’m living in Canada and haven’t been able to see the series but I would very much like to see it so hope it makes it’s way here – especially since it was mostly shot in Alberta. I have read and listened to quite a bit on the series and a couple of things stood out to me as problematic. The first was showing BY being involved in Joseph Smiths murder. I’m by no means a BY fan but I think it unfair to put this suggestion in to the minds of non-members even though there’s plenty other things that are problematic about his character.. The second thing I’d heard that was totally fictionalized was that of an actual GA interfering with the investigation. A bit of a heavy-handed way of inserting the suggestion of interference that although we all know happens, is always filtered down via lower minions on the totem pole.
I’m fine with the idea of portraying a faith crisis because I could easily relate. I’m currently in the middle of renewing my TR after letting it expire 9 months ago and it’s a fraught process. I’m lucky the first part was with my very understanding son in law and bishop.
@Angela C, re your comment, “I should also point out that the way this faith crisis happened was completely different from a pre-internet faith crisis. It’s a modern version of a faith crisis (black & white, all-in believer encounters alternate versions of history which erodes trust, sending believer down a spiraling rabbit hole) rather than one that is contemporary to the time period in question”
This faith crisis was very much inline with what happened to a friend at BYU in 1994/5 pre internet. He found a book or two that presented the real history of the church and immediately began questioning everything coming from the correlation committee. He stopped trusting his local leaders, seeing their pressure tactics for the manipulation they were. He transferred out of BYU after his freshman year. It may not have been most common, but I bet the faith crisis depicted here was an accurate portrayal of one type of faith crisis that happened back then.
Do you find it ridiculous (as I do) that church leaders would try to hinder a murder investigation? If not, why not? If so, do you think it’s out of bounds for the “based on real events” true crime genre as I do?
A thousand times, yes. The church is portrayed as an over-the-top cabal where mafia, er, I mean “The Brethren” are always looking over Pyre’s shoulder, even possibly holding his family hostage, to obstruct the investigation. I don’t think there is any truth to that at all and in fact the church was probably anxious to see blame fall on excommunicated fundamentalists. Aside from the ridiculous dialog, this is probably the biggest problem with the show.
However, there is a murder investigation or two that the church famously did obstruct (probably) and that would include the Mountain Meadows Massacre, one of the worst atrocities committed on American soil. Possibly also the Bear River Massacre; I’m not sure about what investigation went on there if any.
Regarding this statement: Additional case in point, Ted Bundy was also a Mormon convert (in name if nothing else as he was already mid-career in his killings), and nobody from Church leadership was showing up for him.
I’ve watched documentaries on Ted Bundy and Mormon church members did stick up for him when he was first arrested in Utah. I don’t know if your distinction is “Church leadership”. I don’t recall the details, but I won’t be surprised if I look it up now & one of the supporters mentioned was a bishop (not sure if that qualifies as “leadership”?). At least one church member was interviewed and appears in the show.
“Kidnapped from that Land: The Government Raids on the Short Creek Polygamists” by Martha Sontag Bradley-Evans, (1993) is a readable book about the transition The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints went through over the decades that followed the manifestos.
I believe the author was a BYU professor of history when she wrote it.
Dialogue and Sunstone were producing content with accurate history for some years before Brenda and Erica Lafferty were murdered.
Accurate, critical church history was available in 1984, but did require more effort to find. Also, a willingness to read it without pigeonholing it.
I thought overall the show was well done. I agree that the faith crisis of Det Pyre was a bit anachronistic, down to the concept of a shelf. But the show did a good job of capturing the emotions of a modern faith crisis, but placed it into the 1980’s. Small quibble.
In regards to the church’s obstruction to the case in the show, I did’t see it that way. And while I did find the dusting of the feet scene to be laughably out of place, I viewed the meddling of church leadership to be about asking the police to leave the church out of its public statements about the case by omitting the fundamentalist ties. Basically asking the police to try to not implicate or embarrass the church publicly. And that, I did find to be in line with the church’s goals today, even though I doubt the church leaders actually took such a stance in the actual case, especially with the veiled and open threats that were over the top.
MarieB: You are correct that there were individual members who knew him and gave character references (much to their chagrin, no doubt), but yes, I was making a distinction between that and this series. In fact, the distinction is even more clear because no individual members were shown applying pressure or standing up for the character of these guys. Only leaders.
DoubtingTom: I don’t really object to the portrayal of Church leaders telling the police to keep the church’s association out of the press. But the series went out of its way to cross the line in showing the Church essentially acting as an accomplice to the murderers, even demanding that the police release suspects into their custody (!). That’s frankly nuts. Plus, there were intimidation tactics used against Det. Pyre. All on behalf of excommunicated murderers, and something that was fictionalized. That kind of fictionalization just goes too far, IMO. If it was about Det Pyre feeling the ever-present need to defend the Church, he could have had a conversation with his wife, his bishop, his mom, or a friend talking about his conflicted feelings. Instead, the Church is portrayed as basically complicit with the murderers. That was not only unnecessary, but it’s pretty outlandish.