Mormon Church begins to fight against the "September Dawn" movie

From KSL-TV in Salt Lake City

February 6th, 2007 @ 9:36pm
John Hollenhorst Reporting

A movie that hasn't even been released yet is drawing strong reaction from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Internet previews of the film portray the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre and strongly suggest direct involvement by then church President Brigham Young.

The writer-director of "September Dawn" told us his portrayal is historically accurate. The church calls it a distortion, and some, but not all, historians agree. Some analysts predict the portrayal of 19th-century fanaticism will upset many in Utah and possibly hurt Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

The movie trailer portrays the massacre as religious terrorism, implying direct involvement of Brigham Young.

Terence Stamp as Brigham Young:

"I am the voice of God. And anyone who doesn't like it will be hewn down."

Ted Wilson, Political Analyst:
"Well I haven't seen the movie, but the trailer appears to me to be historical yellow journalism."

Political analyst Ted Wilson predicts the film will offend many in Utah.

Ted Wilson:
"Well I think it re-opens an old wound the church is very sensitive to."

Board members of the Utah Westerners were meeting so we showed them the trailer. One hundred fifty years after the fact, these eight historians and history buffs don't agree on Brigham Young's role in the massacre.

Will Bagley, Historian:
"Brigham Young was the man in charge, and that's where the orders originated."

John Eldredge, Historian:
"I do believe he found out about the massacre after the fact and probably was involved in some of the cover up."

In a show of hands only three of the eight agree that Young ordered the massacre, and one more said Young condoned it. All eight agreed he covered up the facts.

Writer-director Christopher Cain told us his film follows historical records closely. It portrays Young condoning, but not ordering, the massacre.

Christopher Cain:
"I would say one of his speeches said that he felt that there was a need to protect his people."

Q: By doing violence?"

A: "By doing violence."

The director says he was drawn to the subject by parallels with modern-day religious fanaticism.
But Cain says it has nothing to do with today's Mormons.

Christopher Cain:
"One hundred fifty years ago we condoned slavery in the country. Times have changed dramatically."

The film will likely premiere while Mitt Romney is on the campaign trail.

Ted Wilson:
"And it could be a difficult thing for him if it portrays Mormons in a weird, funny way."

Paul Felt, Utah Westerners:
"I just think at this time when people are still deciding about Mormons and whether they want to vote for a Mormon as president, that can't be very helpful."

The LDS Church issued a statement today which said,
"From what we know of this movie, it is a fictional portrayal before, during, and after the tragic events at Mountain Meadows in 1857. This film is a serious distortion of history."

It's scheduled to open May 4th in about a thousand theaters nationwide.


*My Thoughts*

The only historians interviewed for this piece were those in attendance at the Utah Westerners Meeting, all devout Mormons. Taking a poll of the eight members, only 3 believe that the prophet and founder of Salt Lake City, Brigham Young, was directly responsible for ordering the attack.

KSL is also owned by the LDS church.

Fair and balanced journalism? I hardly think so. Still, for what it's worth, they are at least taking this film seriously enough to write about it and start the "spin" early, because they know this movie will do little to boost the position of the LDS candidate for president, Mitt Romney, who has his hands full constantly fielding questions about what a 'devout' Mormon believes in. So far, he has been non-committal, and almost ashamed and embarrassed about some of the items brought up before him, most often questions about eternal progression. Listening to him talk, you'd think he was a newly baptised member, instead of a dyed-in-the-wool, multi-generational, Born-In-the-Covenant, Mormon. What are you afraid of dude? CTR!!

Samuel the Utahnite has an excellent site devoted to this topic and many others about Mormonism, having been a devout member for over 30 years.

Here's part of Gordon Hinckley's speech during the Mountain Meadows Memorial in 1999:

"That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day."

The line was inserted into his speech on the advice of attorneys for the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The statement, seemingly out of sync with Hinckley's desire to bring healing to nearly 150 years of bitterness, caused some in attendance to wonder if any progress had really been made at all. If the Mormon Church leadership of 1857 was not at least partially to blame for an estimated 120 people slain at Mountain Meadows, then whom should history hold responsible?

"What we've felt would put this resentment to rest would be an official apology from the church," says Scott Fancher of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation in Arkansas, a group of direct descendants of the victims. "Not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgement of neglect and of intentional obscuring of the truth."

Noted Mormon writer Levi Peterson has tried to explain the difficulty that Mormons and their church face in confronting the atrocity of Mountain Meadows.

"If good Mormons committed the massacre, if prayerful leaders ordered it, if apostles and a prophet knew about it and later sacrificed John D. Lee, then the sainthood of even the modern church seems tainted," he has written.. "Where is the moral superiority of Mormonism, where is the assurance that God has made Mormons his new chosen people?"

Here's some thoughts:

from LongGone2 on RfM:

It's the ongoing cover up that removes the historical perspective...
The church authorities continue to lie about their history; they continue to maul the facts; they continue to deny and tell huge lies about themselves and their history. That makes it a controversy and the controversy will make the whole thing "current" and interest in this odd cult peak with non-Mormons.

In regard to the Mormons, I can see the public controversy leading to increased reality disconnect or to increased attention to the difference between what the church tells them and what impartial commentary tells them. Either way, it's not good for the church even from the inside.

Only if you are a devout Mormon and have to believe that your leaders are God chosen and inspired, infallible and largely devoid of human weakness, does this movie present a problem to you.

from Samuel the Utahnite:

The Mormon Church] speak[s] in complete ignorance(since they haven't actually seen the film yet) and of course lie, by saying:

"From what we know of this movie, it is a fictional portrayal before, during and after the tragic events at Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857. This film is a serious distortion of history."

Now, I find it absolutely fascinating and damning, that the "OFFICIAL" Gordon B. Hinckley response would be those words, considering Hinckley went to Mountain Meadows on Sept 11, 1999, for the dedication of a rebuilt monument to supposedly bring closure and healing, and said:

"No one can explain what happened in these meadows 142 years ago. We may speculate, but we do not know. We do not understand it. We cannot comprehend it. We can only say that the past is long since gone."

and

"All who knew firsthand about what occurred here are long since gone. Let the book of the past be closed. Let peace come into our hearts."

Once again, the Prophet Hinckley pretending to not have a clue about something, that he knows everything about. Amazing how little the Mormon "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" really professes to know sometimes, isn't it?

{I have some questions for Gordon B. Hinckley}

Is the movie (which you haven't even seen yet) a "fictional portrayal" and "serious distortion of history", or something that you "can't explain", and "have no idea about what happened there 142 years ago", or are you "just speculating" again, but really "do not know?" Or is it that you "don't understand it", "cannot comprehend it" and only care that "the past is long since gone."

If you know the truth, Hinckley, (which he clearly does), now is the time to talk and confess your lies and sins!! You said you didn't know what happened, but now you suddenly do know exactly what did and didn't happen?

*More of My Thoughts*

People died. Somebody killed them. And if the church definitely didn't have ANYTHING to do with it, why would they have gone through so much trouble to cover it up, sweep it under the rug, close the book and put it behind them? Because they placed the blame on a Mormon member, John D. Lee, who was Brigham Young's right hand man, sealed to him for eternity in the temple (back when men were sealed to other men) and a faithful soldier in the Lord's Army. He wrote a complete confessional before he was executed before a firing squad (thus allowing the shedding of his own blood to atone for his sin, and allow him to be post-humously re-baptised and re-endowed into the church, and ensure his place in the CK). That book is titled The Life and Confessions of John D. Lee and is available online.

Seems to me like a case of O.J.-itis. The Church is not going to take responsibility, or admit fault because they know it could open up hundreds of lawsuits for wrongful death. But rather than spending the effort to allow the bones that were accidentally exhumed to be fully examined and once and for all determine the causes for each man woman and child's demise, possibly exhonnorating the church's implied involvement, they hurriedly insisted on burying the past and calling all accounts that don't agree with their version of events as "distortions of history". Well, since Gordon Hinckley himself stated that nobody knows what happened there at Mountain Meadows for certain, he certainly doesn't have a right to claim that someone else's attempt at explaining the events are complete fabrications and totally false. How would he know if it's false, since by his own admission, he doesn't know the truth?

Once again we see the use of 'warm fuzzy' to determine truth. This new movie is going to cause major headaches, not only for Mitt, but for devout Mormons everywhere, which is why it is up to the Church to try to limit its influence, and this interview is only the beginning. There will be much more fuss, and therefore much more publicity and attention, as the opening of this movie draws closer. Like "The DaVinci Code" for the Catholics, the Mormons will be 'spinning' this as unreliable fabrications of historical events to the point that the members will start to doubt if anything ever occured there at all.