September Dawn opened in theaters last Friday. Opinions on the movie vary widely. It seems that, much like reactions to Helen Whitney’s PBS documentary The Mormons, viewers either love or hate September Dawn.
If you have watched the movie, we’d like to know what you thought of it. Please comment here only if you have seen September Dawn.
For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, we recommend a video clip by Living Hope Ministries and an article by Bill McKeever.
Me and my wife saw the movie, I plan to buy it when it comes to DVD. The one thing I thought was wrong was the Jail scene. It did not look like a jail, it looked like they were sitting at home, Then they did show Joseph shooting at people, but the History tell us he shot 3 people, and he did not get shot a fly backwards out a window, like the Movie, He tried to jump out the window to escape.
Then the thing I found strange was, the LDS called the Christians Gentiles, but yet now a days the LDS want to be called Christian. Shows how much the Church has changed and how sanitised the Church has become. Rick b
The movie set representing Carthage Jail was fairly accurate. At the time of the shooting, Joseph Smith and the other prisoners were being held in the jailer’s bedroom, not in a jail cell.
I saw the movie on Friday morning. I was impressed with Cristopher Cain’s very truthful story. The things I saw on the screen matched with the research I’ve done on the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Seeing this horror on the silver screen made this event more real for me than all the books I’ve read on the subject.
Cain showed how fanaticism can take over. Some of the Mormons didn’t want to do what they were being told to do, but they turned off their consciences and committed these atrosities because in their minds it was a mortal sin not to obey their prophet. This brings to mind the terrorists in the Middle East. They too, have turned off their consciences and have only one goal — to kill the infidel(anyone who doesn’t support their form of Islam). We must remember this and never mindlessly follow what our conciences tell us is wrong.
This atorocity cannot be ignored. The blame belongs with the Mormon leaders of that time. We must remember it and talk about it; and guard against any massacre of innocents happening anywhere again.
I recommend everyone see this movie and learn the lessons it has to teach. It is not portraying the LDS religion in a bad light, but what can happen when fanaticism takes over.
I have never been to visit the Jail and did not know how jails were set up back then, I think of our modern jails as a jail setting, but still, JS tried to jump out the window, not fly backwards from getting shot. Myth busters even showed getting shot with our high powered modern guns could not cause you to fly backwards like that, that is just hollywood. Rick b
Mountain Meadows has never been my favorite topic. It literally makes me sick to my stomach when I read about the slaughter and how the Mormons demanded money for taking care of the orphans. Being in ministry to Mormons, I went and saw the movie out of a sense of duty, but normally I would avoid the topic out of queasiness.
If I was a Mormon I could understand feeling like my people were unduly demonized in the movie. The prayer-juxtaposition between the imprecatory bishop of the Mormons and the kind-hearted pastor of the Fancher-Baker group was too much. I’d like to see some evidence that this kind of rhetoric had a place at the bottom of the Mormon hierarchy.
I think that the directer and screenwriter overly imposed the real rhetoric of the Mormon reformation spoken at the top onto the lay members. In principle, Brigham’s doctrine of individual blood atonement (built upon the premise that the blood of Christ cannot atone for some sins and that execution for such sins is expiatory) is horrific, and I found it helpful to see it fleshed out for people to see. Mormons still need to face up to what is at least in principle and in teaching a gospel-denying heresy of Brigham Young. But the way Brigham’s doctrine so loosely fell from the mouths of Mormons in interpersonal dialog seemed unrealistic and artificial.
A lot of the things (but not all things) Brigham said were historical, but many outsiders (and uninformed Mormons) would probably assume all of it was exaggerated.
Another sub-theme was polygamy and how it made for marriages that weren’t between people who had actually fallen in love. The bishop advised one of his sons to take another wife. He already had three. It’s the kind of thing that makes you shudder. While many Mormons would glibly acknowledge the past practice of polygamy and yet mentally disassociate themselves from the thought of it ever having happened among the mainstream group, this needs to be on a movie screen for the ugliness of it to be publicly seen.
At another point, the bishop’s son confronts his father over the death of his (the son’s) mother. It is revealed that the bishop’s wife was taken by an apostle, and that the bishop acquiesced to it (something not without precedent in Mormonism). When the woman tried to take her children and run away, she was murdered on the principle of individual, expiatory blood atonement, which was again acquiesced to by the bishop. All out of a submission to earthly human priesthood authority leadership above the written word of God.
There was one love story between an unmarried Mormon man and a woman from the Christian wagon train. Although unrealistic for obvious reasons, I thought the love story was fun and actually humanized the Mormon people by showing a common ground of young love between the Christian and the Mormon. I think the purpose of this man’s character was to show that not all Mormons were willing to kill such innocent people at the direction of the prophet or other priesthood authority leadership. That Brigham was depicted as ordering the massacre wasn’t as nearly striking to me as the willingness of the lay members to follow what they at least thought were orders from the prophet. Mormonism still needs to deal with these demons today: it fosters a submission to priesthood authority leadership that at major points displaces the commandments and doctrines and moral principles found in the word of God. The best solution to this is to put the authority of the infallible scriptures above fallible human leadership. That either happens via prima scriptura, or even better, sola scriptura, neither of which have been wholly embraced by Mormonism, and neither of which will ever find a place in Mormon theology without some foundational changes to the way people think about the reliability of the Bible and the role of living leadership.
The film was obviously on a low budget, so that was a huge disadvantage. It’s unfortunate that some Mormons are focusing on the composite, summary criticism of regular movie critics (who have never studied the Mountain Meadows Massacre) while seemingly acting callous toward the fleshing-out on screen of real events. It was helpful for me to see a depiction of the massacre, of the men so cowardly murdered, of the women and children running and screaming for their lives with traumatic fear. When Joseph scorned the reliability and authority of the Bible, started his adulterous relationships with people like 16-year-old Fanny Alger, and embarked upon some of his quasi-theocratic ambitions, he probably never dreamed that his foundation would bring forth such fruit. Such is the nature of sin. But let us remember that the propensity to commit such sins (including the massacre) is not unique to a religion, but is common to all humanity. While not all are children of the religion of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, all are children of the sinful Adam, and need the “second Adam“, Jesus Christ, to accomplish in our place what we could never accomplish for ourselves.
I saw the movie September Dawn on Friday. These are my thoughts about the movie and its portrayal of the MMM.
I do not believe the intent of the movie was to promote “Mormon bashing.” In discussions with my DH, I told him I felt the message of the movie was how fear and intolerance can drive people to participate in atrocious acts. When one reflects on the persecution of the early Saints, it can lead to a clearer understanding of why the MMM happened. The Saints were whipped into a frenzy based on fear that they were going to be driven out of Utah. This frenzy grew to the point where the individuals who participated in the massacre had lost their ability to reason. The end result was the slaughter of innocent men, women and children.
I realize many who see the movie will come away angry. Some will come away with feelings of anger toward the Mormon Church, its leaders and its members. Some will come away with feelings of anger toward how the Church, its leaders and its members were portrayed. Some will come away thinking to themselves, “No sir, that’s not history.” I came away with feelings of deep sorrow because everyone involved in the MMM was a victim.
My thought is that if people look deeper into the message of the movie, they might view it in a different light.
These are just my thoughts, for what they are worth.
MY wife and I laughed most of the way through it.
We could not believe that we did those things as Mormons AND believed it was what God wanted. The temple scenes were by far the most hysterical.
Looking at it from a new point of view made us realized just how childish the whole cult is. Would an all powerful God really be so stupid as to need secret hand shakes (signs and tokens) to let you into heaven?
I liked the whole “Gentile” part. I was waiting for him to say he was Jewish because Mormons believe that’s what they are (my patriarcle blessing says I am from the tribe of ephram).
It was like when a Mormon claims to be Christian however would that same Mormon call a Christian a Mormon?
The really chilling aspect of the whole movie/massacre is the killing of children. In a very loose way it would not be to bad if it was only a kind of “revenge” (Like Jeff Lindsey says on his website) but these Mormons killed children. What person would think it is ok to kill children (Over the age of eight)?
I spotted a few inconstancies like the guy who shot both a woman and the baby she was holding. I believe it was a man holding the baby.
The added fictional story line did bring a face to all the horror. I’m sure we can never fully realized the pain that this event caused everyone involved.
I would see this again and I plan on buying the DVD. I just hope more go to see it. I would also like to see any deleted scenes.
I saw the movie Saturday afternoon. While I thought the love story between the Mormon young man and the “Gentile” young lady to be somewhat sappy, I thought the movie to be historically correct from what research I have conducted. I could understand why Mormons might be offended about the movie but if they were honest, they would address the issues that are most concern to them like the massacre itself; blood atonement; role of the Danites in early Mormon history; authority of the prophet; polygamy; Jesus’s sacrifice not redeeming all sins; Joseph Smith’s declaration to be a second Mohammad and his destruction of the Nauvoo Press; Joseph Smith shooting at his persecutors.
While I believe the producer/director took some liberties to involve in Brigham Young in meetings where the decisions were made, overall it’s very accurate. I wish Mormons that are attacking the movie on a historical basis would apply the same concern for historical veracity with their film “Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration.” After watching that film, any respect I had for Mormon historians went out the door. No valid historian would have claime to have researched or been involved with that production as it never showed polygamy, the reason Smith was sent to jail, the way he “translated” from the golden plates (did he read off them like the movie showed or did he use the seer stones as glasses or did he put the seer stones in a hat and stick his head in the hat like the witnesses said he did?), his use of a pistol to protect himself against the mob, his treasure-hunting days before “finding” the golden plates, etc.
“September Dawn” not only depicts a massacre perpetrated by the Mormon church but it also represents what the church has always been in their approach to gaining new convert as well as changing history to make themselves more acceptable and that is the word: deceptive.
Wow… that’s a real quote! And they all said “amen”! Even I thought that one was fabricated at first.
I saw the movie on Sunday evening ( after trying to get into it 2 other times, they kept changing the times than what was advertised). I could tell this was a low budget movie, however it did tell a truthfull story of how people get themselves brainwashed into a religion and then are capable of doing unthinkable things. I think it showed how the entire leadership of that church was involved and found the MMM extremely disturbing. I find it also disturbing that the mormon church today still controls the memorial and the grave sites of those who were murdered. Why has this not been turned over to the families or at least an outside interest? And the mormon church needs to step up to the plate and take resposibility this crime. Yes, john D. Lee was executed for these murders but in 1960 the church reinstated his membership and endowments. This is just a year sentence for each murder. Seems a extremely lenient to me.
Ad said
Seems to me almost every non-LDS member has been able to say, this movie was/is very accurate and can prove it. So the LDS who bash the movie as not accurate, please explain how you came to that idea. Simply saying it is not, does not make it so. Rick b
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/inmemory.htm#IN MEMORIAM
The link above has a list of the known victims of the Mountain Meadow Massacre as well as a list of the children who’s lives were spared. This website, of the “Mountain Meadows Association”, whose membership is comprised mostly of the descendants of the MMM victims, is a great place to go for information on the subject.
I watched “September Dawn” opening night. Personally I came away thinking that they were too gentle on Brigham Young. I wanted to have more back ground on the history of the times of the MMM before I went to see the movie, so I read “Blood of the Prophets, Brigham young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows” by Will Bagley. Something called the “Mormon Reformation” was happening at this time. The “Saints” believed the war at the end of time had already begun. They regarded the Indians as a weapon God had placed in their hands. Together the Mormons and the Lamanites (Indians), who David Lewis called “the battle ax of the Lord, would unite to overthrow the United States of America, and establish Zion. The problem was that the Indians would not unite because the individual tribes were sworn enemies. John D. Lee recalled hearing every Sunday “that the Mormons were to conquer the earth at once, and the people all thought the millennium had come, and Christ’s reign upon earth would soon begin, as a accomplished fact.” With rumors that the US was sending troops to Utah, George A. Hicks wrote “We believed the time was at hand that ‘one man should chase a thousand and two should put 10,000 to flight.’ We believed it was our duty to do all we were able to do and God would do the rest and we were full of faith that the set time had come to favor Zion.”
With the Mormon Reformation, Brigham Young had called for all the Mormons to be rebaptized, swear oaths to avenge the blood of the prophets (Joseph and Hyrum Smith), and consecrate or deed their property to the President of the Church.
Over my limit
by the way, AARON, i saw the movie this afternoon..so i’m allowed to post (so says you)
Amanda, you’re certainly welcome to contribute to a substantive discussion about the movie, but anything else will be deleted. Grace and peace.
aaron??? why did you delete my post??? i saw the movie….???
apparently i have overstayed my welcome on this very christian website. i know where i am no longer wanted. and frankly, i’m not surprised.
I think I was honestly really frustrated. The Christian minister was so milktoast and irrelevant, I could hardly imagine anyone taking him seriously. While I really agree that the dialogue and rhetoric employed by Voight’s character, in contrast with the overly pie-in-the-sky, token preacher character, it seemed to be all but blatant propaganda. Not to mention the fact that all of the characters were two demensional and predictable: all the Mormons were brainwashed or evil, all the Alabama Company were free-thinking, gracious good people. People aren’t that black and white.
I am a big supporter of this ministry and regular reader of Mormon Coffee (albeit this is my first post); but I couldn’t believe that Christians would be fully in league with a film like this. My God is pure truth. There is no shadow of falsehood in Him. And while subjectivity is certainly no sin, spinning truth and bearing false witness is. I think this movie, at times, was guilty of it.
Don’t get me wrong, I really hope this is one of those things where a Mormon hear for the first time about things like blood atonement, blood oaths, Danites, etc. and really get a chance to reconsider if they do know who Jesus is; but I think it really is one of those things where Mormons, like I take it Ms. Amanda above me is, see this movie and say “see, those wicked, misguided gentile Christians have gone and blasphemed God’s true Church with blatant falsehoods and straw men arguements, we must really be God’s true Church or they would be able to level more compelling arguements than that”.
Amanda, I deleted your post because it was a hit-and-run personal attack. If you can contribute something substantive to the conversation while following our commenting guidelines, I can guarantee that your comment won’t be deleted.
Glenn, I share your concerns, although I think it’s an overstatement to say (or at least imply) that those behind Mormon Coffee are “fully in league with a film like this.” For one thing, not everyone in the Fancher-Baker wagon train was as well-behaved as the movie depicts. One of the many factors that led up to the massacre was an attempt to arrest some of the emigrants for public intoxication. There was also apparently some provocative rhetoric from some of the emigrants that incited fear and/or anger. Also, read my above review where I said, “If I was a Mormon I could understand feeling like my people were unduly demonized in the movie. The prayer-juxtaposition between the imprecatory bishop of the Mormons and the kind-hearted pastor of the Fancher-Baker group was too much… [T]he way Brigham’s doctrine [of individual blood atonement] so loosely fell from the mouths of Mormons in interpersonal dialog seemed unrealistic and artificial.”
Bill McKeever’s extended review of the film is forthcoming and I would anticipate a lot of detail and balance.
I saw the movie on Monday. There were about five people in the whole theater which I think is a shame because the movie is definitely a story that would keep more than a few people from embracing Mormonism. I thought that it was fairly historically accurate, I would have liked to see the cross erected that was etched with “Vengeance is mine saith the Lord” and it would have been even better if the movie showed Brigham remove the cross and erect his own memorial that said something along the lines of “vengeance is mine..” I thought the temple scenes may be to much for some Mormons to handle. That is some sacred (secret) stuff!
I’ve read (here and elsewhere) concern over the part of the movie where it cut back and forth between the prayers of the Christian pastor and the Mormon bishop. When I saw the movie I, too, thought the scene a bit extreme, unbelievable, and unfair to the Mormons. But as I thought about it afterwards, my criticism of the scene softened.
The emigrants had no reason to be anything but thankful to the Mormons for permission to rest in the Meadows. They had no idea they were targeted for destruction. The prayer offered by the pastor (though the beatific look on his face was over the top, IMO) was just the same sort of prayer offered by my pastor every Sunday morning.
While agreeing with Aaron that the harsh rhetoric of LDS leaders was perhaps unrealistic coming from the mouths of lay members, Mormons calling for curses against their “enemies” was certainly historically accurate. Consider Heber C. Kimball’s words:
While history does back up the scene to some degree, I think Mr. Cain was using some poetic license here with the intent of drawing a clear distinction between “healthy” religious faith and “fanatical” religious faith. Remembering that September Dawn is not intended to be a documentary, I’d say his technique was effective.
Thanks for the quote, Sharon. And wow, I am increasingly amazed at all this. That is the same sermon that Heber said,
Why would it seem unconceivable that they would pray for the death of the immigrants when in actuality they condoned or participated in the murder of men, women and children under the age of 8? I think the prayer is harmless compared to what actually happened.
apparently his technique was “effective” on the contributers here- however, how many people did you say went to the movie? very few, and no one is really covering it in the news in terms of its legitimacy to mormons today. in fact, there was a story about that evangelist preacher in florida who lost his radio show because he was preaching hate against muslims…but no mormon stuff. so then ,why is it important on this blog?
and Aaron, you have said that my comments aren’t substantive, i just think you strongly disagree. to be quite honest, i believe this movie attracts the gossiper in all of us. i believe all that is going on here is a bunch of gossip. people quoting people, and making accusations yet none of us were there. yet, you say I must be substantive, well my whole point is that the movie itself is not substantive (according to just about every critic out there, and the lack of attendance). people on this site have admitted themselves it is not a documentary. so do you consider a work of fiction portrayed as fact and deleting opposing points of view, to be substantive debate?
i mean no disrespect to individuals on this site, but i certainly mean to disrespect the premise of this movie.
and sharon, in all fairness to heber c. and the mormons who perpetrated this crime, whoever they are….many of them lost loved ones to religious finatics as well, who simply did not like mormons or the prophet…now, if you want to look that up…THAT is historically accurate…the whole state of missouri apologized to present day mormons for those heinous atrocities. so does this condone the act by whoever perpetrated it? no, but you can’t look at the things they say as if they were unscathed and un-persecuted people. the movie portrays them as the only motivation they had was sheer religious fanaticism…when it could have been animosity..and they used religion to justify their actions (a condemnable offense- but not new to religion–i.e. slavery) those people will pay for what they did. but i, and other mormons do not deserve THEIR condemnation.
Amanda, do you think we should disbelieve the sermons as recorded in the Journal of Discourses, a source often quoted by church-published, correlated Mormon literature?
Also, do you think the film was inaccurate when it depicted the murder of the women and children in the Fancher-Baker wagon train? Is it inaccurate to say that Mormons like John D. Lee were following the obligatory orders and counsel of what they felt was their inspired church leadership and priesthood authority?
Amanda, however poorly, the movie does show that there were a package of factors behind the massacre, especially religious justification and animosity toward the gentiles who were purportedly associated with the murder of Joseph Smith, the persecution back out east, and (if I remember correctly) Johnston’s coming army. The fanaticism that was depicted was most clearly seen in the irrational, blind submission to “priesthood authority”, i.e. church leadership, something that I would argue that Mormonism itself fosters.
I have yet to meet a Mormon that will answer the questions that have been seimilary asked of Amanda here on this blog. To me, that shows that they can’t defend their church. I would admonish and encourage Mormons to study the history of their church, especially its beginnings. If you’re embarrassed by Brigham Young, I can understand. What I don’t understand is how Brigham Young can make these statements, preach how Adam was God and yet Mormons just seem to shrug and say: “Oh well, we don’t believe that now.” You can’t have it both ways. Spencer Kimball said the Adam-God doctrine was false, plain and simple. So that means that Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church was a false prophet. Am I right? Will anyone from the LDS church answer the questions?
When I saw the movie, there were a good number of people in attendance. When it comes out on DVD, even more people will see it which I’m sure is a concern of the church. Maybe by that time the LDS leaders will have crafted a response from where we can begin to have an intelligent discussion on our differences.
The church hasn’t made an official comment on the movie, and i doubt then will when the movie comes out on DVD. But we’ll see.
Ad, i don’t remember you posing this question, you have to understand that as a minority on this site, i have many questions in my direction and it is hard to address everything…
Ad, you make a conclusion on a false assumption. Many prophets, in the old testament weren’t infallible. we have to remember that these men are called of God, however, they are still men. they are still on a path to understanding Him–yet, God works through them for the people of that time. He always makes up the difference. Consider Moses, he was fearful of speaking, thought he was simple-minded..but the Lord worked through him and led the Jews to the promised land.
and i’m sure many of you have more examples of this…prophets having weaknesses.
now, in terms of doctrine, ad, i see how this might be confusing–this is why no one should take anyone’s word for it, when it comes to truth, we should all seek it out in our prayers and study. the prophets themselves counsel us to pray about everything, and let our relationship with God enlighten us as individuals.
You, and i’m sure many on this website, may have shared your beliefs in Christ…yet, you have weaknesses…but i’m sure God has worked through you to touch people, or serve them. there really is no difference when it comes to Prophets, except they are called of God specifically to serve and guide His sheep in uncertain times.
now, many of course do not believe He was an actual prophet (fair enough)…however, you cannot use his mistakes and inadequacies as a litmus test for his validity as a prophet.
I saw the movie on opening night. There were about 10 people in the theater. I expected this, as I understood this to be a movie which would appeal to a very narrow audience. I think once word gets out more people may attend, or be interested in purchasing the DVD. As an ex-Mormon, raised in the LDS church, I thought the movie was well done and reasonably factual considering the liberties that Hollywood takes with all fact-based movies.
I still have many Mormon relatives, and when confronting them about their prophets contradicting each other I get an explanation that basically amounts to this: Each new prophet has direct communication with god. If a previous prophet has embarrassed the LDS chruch by his doctrine, the current prophet just claims a new revelation from god to refute the other doctrine. No apologies necessary. Mormons today blindly follow their prophet’s revelations from god, just as they did back then. Fortunately for today’s Mormon, the new revelations are politically correct and Christian friendly. They need to study historical facts.
aaron, sorry, i would like to respond to you, but i have to post back to back, i hope you understand.
i see your point that, if indeed, mormonism fosters the blind leading the blind..that would be a definite problem. i’m not sure how you would actually argue that though.
my experience with priesthood leadership has been a good one (i will submit, however, to the fact that there are SOME priesthood leaders in the mormon church who have served unworthily–and tried to abuse their callings- that is inevitable-for man to fall short and make bad decisions). i have always felt loved by my priesthood leaders. their calling is one of service…my bishop has stopped by my house on numerous occasions just to see how things are going, if he can do anything to help. When my family is in trouble in any way, we call the priesthood leadership and they organize the ward in such a way to meet our needs and the needs of other members. that is the ONLY purpose of the priesthood, to serve. Christ set this example. it is His priesthood.
those who think it is one of power and influence, their hearts are filled with pride, and their priesthood is obviously rendered ineffective because it is no longer used to serve others.
the movie portrays Brigham Young in this light…self-aggrandizement and power-hungry. Have any of you read all of the history of the church in Utah? the martin handcart company? please research that-if you are sincere in your desire to know the truth…(“there are saints on the plains” section, or you can read the history in its entirety)-cross reference it with other unbiased sources
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=c8ab49f833f3f010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
aaron, i find it only fair to post my responses, because i am being accused of not answering, i answered ad’s question, and you didn’t post it…why? (if i am wrong, forgive me)
and in terms of your question, why did they act on what they thought was priesthood leadership…and if i thought the movie was inaccurate on this point..i don’t know how accurate that part was…i wasn’t there when the atrocities took place..but i’m willing to assume that happened. i’m sure there is some kind of evidence to suggest that was indeed the case…i never once made excuses for that behavior…i’ve said time and time again that those who are responsible, will be held accountable..what i dislike is the assumption that they were acting on actual priesthood authority- from Brigham Young or other church leadership(refer to my previous response-you’re smart enough to connect the dots)-it’s not beyond the scope of reasoning that some may have ABUSED their priesthood…Brigham Young? doubtful (refer to previous comment)
i feel ill-equipped to make any judgments because i don’t feel it is right to making harsh conclusions when i don’t know for sure…it doesn’t at all change my knowledge of the restored gospel.
i hope that makes sense…i’m sure you disagree on some levels, but that point of view is certainly reasonable.
Amanda, your church did come out with a statement on the film back in February. They called it a “distortion,” but, true to form, failed to explain this vague comment.
Feeling as confident as you do, to “disrespect the premise of this movie,” may I ask how many actual books you have read on this subject?
how is the word “distortion” a vague comment? distortion is pretty specific- this movie distorts the truth. and it hasn’t occurred to many of you that perhaps the Church has more important things to do than fight off its’ critics with less “vague” comments…i don’t think their mission is to make sure Bill McKeever, true to form, gets a more specific response that pleases him. i hardly believe it is the Lords work to constantly engage the opposition. (basically what i do on this website).
i have read “vague” historical accounts from unbiased sources when the subject was brought up in seminary. If the church were trying to hide this occurrence then why are we taught about it in historical terms? besides, this hate-mongering you are perpetrating on the mormon church is a superficial endeavor. There is little to be gained from attempting to place blame somewhere with the church. need i remind any of you that there is much history in EVERY religion that is condemnable. does that say anything about you, Bill, that evangelicals previous to you were responsible for justifying slavery with the bible? no. neither is this atrocity that is attributed to members of the mormon church 150 years ago, relevant to the mormon church today.
so it doesn’t matter how many books you have read on the subject…you’re probably wasting your time if you think this will somehow open peoples eyes to your very disagreeable opinion of the mormon church. I accept that you dislike everything i stand for, but why obsess? i feel your questions have been answered quite clearly and resolutely. you may disagree, but there isn’t much more that can be said that hasn’t already been said.
thank you for your comments
Amanda, it is vague because it does not state what exactly is “distorted.” It gives the impression that there is no factual value in the film.
*Is the film distorted when it shows Mormons refusing to sell the wagon train supplies?
*Is the film distorted because it has Brigham Young calling for people’s throats to be cut?
*Is the film distorted when it depicts John D. Lee deceiving the emigrants by telling them the Mormons will grant them safe passage to Cedar City?
*Is the film distorted because it has Mormons dressing like Indians and shooting at innocent emigrants?
*Is the film distorted when it shows Mormons killing women and children?
I could probably be more understanding if your church said it contained “some” innacuracies (all films have that), or even that the film draws conclusions that the LDS Church does not agree are accurate, but that is not what was said. It gave a blanket assertion that was certainly misleading. And sadly, similar to what took place in 1857, Mormons take what they hear from their leaders and run with it without searching out the facts for themselves.
I’ve looked at several blogsites over the past several days and I have found that those who are actually read up on the subject find the film, aside from its weak sub-plot and predictable script, to have some historical value. That is why I asked you what you have actually read on the subject. I have to agree with Ad, if Mormons really care about truth in film, they might start with Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration. Quote for quote, I’d venture to say September Dawn is much more accurate than that film. Amanda, this topic is relevant today because it shows that your church still cannot be totally forthright in how it presents it’s history to the general public. Pointing that out is not hate-mongering.
I am a descendent of Captain John T. Baker killed at Mountain Meadow. I attended a 3 day memorial service in Cedar City UT in 1991, by invitation from president Hinckley. I was touched by President Hinckley’s message of forgiveness and reconciliation when he acknowledged the Mormon Church’s participation in the Massacre and simultaneously absolved the Piute Indian Nation.I remember too, following the speech of President Hinckley, a beautiful prayer given by a Piute Chief in his native language. I didn’t understand the words, but my heart understood the melodic blessings. I regret being unable to recall his name. At the time, the descendents of the Massacre did not question President Hinckley’s edict that no cameras, recorders etc would be allowed at the memorial (attended by hundreds), nor did we object to the Mormon members searching our pockets and handbags before we entered the roofed stadium. President Hinckley announced at the beginning of the ceremonies that “the Church” would be recording the ceremony on video and we could “obtain copies” at a later date. Ironically, none of the descendants have ever been able to “obtain” that video. I had always considered the delays a matter of massive-church-red-tape; until . . . Mr. Hinckley, stated at a re-dedication ceremony at Mountain Meadows in 1999, “My presence here today is in no way an acknowledgement of the church’s participation in what happened her in 1857.” As children, we were required to read Brooks’ “Mountain Meadow Massacre” and discuss it. My grandfather taught us this; “I do not want you to look upon this event w/feelings of hate or revenge. I want you to look upon this event as a repetition of man’s inhumanity to man. We all have the potential to be evil and it is a choice we make. Look back through history and know ‘the evil of men live after them and the good oft interred with their bones’ . . . I don’t think “SD” is about “bad Mormons;” instead, its our continuing collective capacity for evil.
(To Bill McKeever)
Earlier, I believe Aaron mentioned that you were in the process of writing a review on September Dawn. How is that coming along and when do you estimate having it completed?
So, after reading all the stuff about the Mountain Meadows Mass., there’s one thing I’d like to comment. During this same period of time the United States Government Military, and many civilians were killing thousands of men, women and children of the native americans. So, my ancestors killed, but probably yours did too.
good point bill…
what i want to know is how this issue says ANYTHING about LDS doctrine. it’s completely irrelevant to the church today. so i guess my question is how this issue advances the purpose of this website-?
Bill,
if you took a picture of yourself, and distorted it, it would still be you–and you could probably make out your hair color, and other characteristics…but you might also call that “inaccurate”. depending on how much is distorted of course.
my point is that you can “distort” the facts in order to suit an agenda. so the question is whose agenda is aligned with truth, and whose is aligned with defamation?
the answer? well, it is a matter of opinion.
I think the importance of the Mountains Meadow Massacre, Amanda, is not simply (as you put it) “need i remind any of you that there is much history in EVERY religion that is condemnable.” I think you hung around evangelical communities long enough, you’d see quite a few of us who find ourselves incredibly contrite to all of the sins (like slavery) of our fathers (even late-commers like me to the faith), and finding all kinds of ways to try and distance ourselves from them. Sometimes as extreme as trying to come up with new names or seperate churches. It is our human condition. And the human condition will sometimes lead us to do evil, even in the Holy Name of our God. I think about Paul describing Peter in the book of Galatians. But Peter in his apostasy, at the rebuke of a brother, he snapped out of it, and that’s what I want my heart to be. Pliable before a brother’s rebuke. Even if I’ve appropriated my spirituality up to this point.
But what we’re talking about with Mountains Meadow and the LDS church is an entity which claims to infallibly speak for God, which has been indicted for committing a heinous crime in the name of the God it claims to speak for. Unlike evangelicals and the like who have said, “We have sinned”, the Mormon church has simply sluffed it off onto John D. Lee and said, “He’s the man responsible, we’re all still blameless.”
In regards to your point on, ” the question is whose agenda is aligned with truth”, I think there is some validity to that, but you have to consider everything from a much bigger perspective. It isn’t a question of who is aligning themselves with truth as if it were a club, with handshakes and membership cards, but with finding that your perspective is superior to another. You said that you read “unbiased” books in seminary on the subject. I would say there are no such thing as unbiased books. Everything works from a perspective. So I would be interested to find what books in particular you were reading. —
Amanda, I’d like to know how you would know a distortion if you saw it. I asked you what books you’ve read on the subject and all you pointed to was discussions in seminary??? If I read your response correctly, you haven’t done any serious research on this subject. Like many LDS, you defend what you can’t know to be true.
Alex, Aaron and I have been working on the review and he now has the final draft. Hopefully it will be posted very soon.
Catherine, Welcome to Mormon Coffee. Are you planning to attend the memorial service on Tuesday? I plan to be there, as well as in Cedar City on Monday for the MMMF dinner.
Amanda, my apologies. You did use the word “read” in your response to me. Glen has a point regarding your statement that what you read was unbiased. How did you come to the conclusion that what you read was “unbiased”? And again, what did you actually read?
Bill,
Thanks for the quick reply/update. I’m really looking forward to reading what you have to say about the MMM and September Dawn — your papers are always well-organized and equally well-supported, making them a joy to read.
… and while I’m thanking Bill for his contributions, I might as well go ahead and thank the rest of you here on this site: administrators, bloggers, etc. You guys and gals have definitely made it a whole lot easier for people like me to research Mormonism and to form an educated opinion based on that research.
(So, once again in a more pronounced fashion…)
THANK YOU!
Lets Check Mr. Bills “facts shall we?
“Many are unaware that until the Oklahoma bombing in 1995, more Americans died in the Mountain Meadows Massacre than in any other terrorist act on American soil. Even after our modern 9/11 it remains number three in American deaths. The exact number is not known, but it is generally believed that 120 men, women, and children heading to California were killed by Paiute Indians and local Mormons.”
I decided to let my google do the walking and see if any of these media blurbs where true. I decided to limit my search to massacres on American soil between July 4, 1776 and April 4, 1995. While nothing can justify the blood that was spilled at MM, and it certianly was a terrible event. It cleary was not what these blurbs make it out to be. (Yes I understand they are trying to make a link with a modern terrorist act thats fresh in our minds).
Heres what I found:
Wyoming Valley battle and massacre – July 3, 1778 – 178 Dead
Lawrence Massacre (Quantrill’s Raid) – August 21, 1863 – 185 to 200 Men and Boys Killed.
Battle of Baxter Springs – October 6, 1863 – 103 Black Troops
Battle of Fort Pillow- April 12, 1864 – 277-297 Killed
Battle of Bad Axe – August 1-2, 1832 – more than 150 killed
Goliad massacre – March 27, 1836 – 342 POWS Executed by Mexican Troops
Wounded Knee massacre – December 29, 1890 – 153 killed, 50 wounded 150 missing.
Colfax massacre – April 13, 1873 – 100 Dead
-source Wikipedia (List of Massacres)
Our review of September Dawn is up:
http://www.mrm.org/topics/reviews/september-dawn
GLEN said,
“But what we’re talking about with Mountains Meadow and the LDS church is an entity which claims to infallibly speak for God, which has been indicted for committing a heinous crime in the name of the God it claims to speak for.”
so the church has been indicted for this heinous crime??? let the record show that people here only seek to invalidate the mormon church based on the actions of a few more than 150 years ago. it’s completely unreasonable (to say the least).
besides, indicted by whom? people on this website who attend MMMF dinners? (obsessed?) hollywood filmmakers? evangelical screenwriters who singlehandedly blame brigham young and the foundation of the restored gospel for the mistakes of a few wicked mormons? indicted by the anti-mormon community? wow, that’s compelling.
glen, you go on to say,
“Unlike evangelicals and the like who have said, “We have sinned”, the Mormon church has simply sluffed it off onto John D. Lee and said, “He’s the man responsible, we’re all still blameless.”
oh yeah, and they erected a monument and dedicated it to the victims. oh, and teach it in seminary, and don’t object to the event actually occurring– the only objection of the church is that the blame lies with Brigham Young (which is obviously what they portray in this film–with ZERO evidence).
Bill, i truly resent your smug tone in replying to my sincere comments. i didn’t know that i was required to list all of my sources after i state opinions…no one on this site does that ALL of the time. if you want resources, you can ask nicely…right? or do you believe that i am unworthy of any consideration because you loathe my faith..? i’d be happy to give you references if you read them at your MMM dinner 🙂
Amanda, I don’t think my question was at all out of line, nor was I being “smug.” You’ve been allowed to make some pretty serious charges on this forum. I don’t think it is asking much for me to ask how you came to believe something was true, or in this case, a book you read was “unbiased.” I’m going to overlook your snarky comment in hope that you will help me understand why your position(s) should be taken seriously.
Also, this is the third time you’ve alluded to the participants at the MMM as being “wicked,” or evil. If that is true, why, in the case of John D. Lee, did Brigham Young give his approbation to marry plural wife Emma Batchelor on January 7, 1858? In his diary Lee later wrote, “In 1859 I was sealed to my eighteenth wife, Teressa Morse. I was sealed to her by order of Brigham Young.” Could it be Amanda, that Young did not take the position you take regarding Lee’s participation?
BILL
who is making serious charges here!!!? i think it is the movie, and this blog that make serious charges about Brigham Young and have not backed that up one bit…(the movie doesn’t count) i didn’t realize everyone was “allowing” me to respond to such ridiculous THEORIES regarding mormon history.
Lee later wrote, not Brigham Young later wrote. lee was excommunicated and then sentenced to death. i don’t care what lee later wrote… i haven’t the slightest interest in a diary in terms of historical proof…i mean, come on now. it’s a diary..and you therefore are comfortable making an insidious conclusion about Brigham Young because of your disdain for the restored gospel. that is hardly evidence that Brigham Young was in cahoots with these murderers. you have yet to give me a reason to take YOU seriously Bill.
setting all of your silly accusations aside, what difference does it REALLY make to you? [Comment trimmed by moderator]
the reason i refer to these participants as wicked, is because i’m giving the premise of this blog the benefit of the doubt. i’m only assuming they had bad intentions and murdered without reason–this notion still does not implicate Brigham Young.
besides, there is a lot of side-story that is sidestepped in this movie. other facts and considerations would have provided a LOT more context:
http://www.onlineutah.com/historylee.shtml
(since i have to provide a reference from now on, according to Bill-this isn’t the ONLY resource i can drum up)
P.S. i need you, bill, to remind me what references you asked for in such a kind and loving way…i’ve said a lot on this blog and i don’t feel like scrolling up to figure it out.
Bill, the burden of proof lays on YOUR shoulders, and anyone else making accusations. .
Amanda, Are you really trying to state that it is a silly accusation to say Young approved of Lee’s plural marriages to Batchelor and Morse? C’mon Amanda, anybody with even a minimum of research skills can prove or disprove whether or not Young approved of those marriages. Again I ask, why would Young do this considering that YOU insist Lee must have been a wicked man for his participation in the MMM?
You wrote: “i’m only assuming they had bad intentions and murdered without reason.” Amanda, a bad intention is a reason!! Do you really want us to believe that a group of otherwise devout Mormons killed 120 people without reason??? People do things based on what they do believe, not on what they don’t believe. Based on their actions,what can we conclude these people believed?