Media

September Dawn: Making Some See Red

pO157.

Posted to Media on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 09:05:17 AM EST (promoted by 1fastdog). RSS.

September 11, 1857 - the first 9/11 and the first act of religious terrorism and mass murder in the United States. One hundred and twenty men, women and children of a westbound wagon train were savagely ambushed, and killed off - first under siege and then murdered under the perfidy of a false truce at Mountain Meadows, Utah. Who was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre is something that has been hotly contested ever since. On August 24, the film "September Dawn" will be released which bills that day as when "the truth will be revealed." Not everybody is happy with this version of the truth, especially members of the church blamed for the destruction and those who fear the film and discussion of his religion will damage the Romney campaign.

The basic events of September 11, 1857 are not challenged. Settlers passing through Utah to California were attacked by a band of Mormons disguised as Indians and allied Paiute tribesmen. The settlers repelled the attack but were left under siege. At the request of the Mormon attackers who promised they could guarantee their safe passage away from the battleground they disarmed, surrendered, and then were promptly murdered in cold blood. The only question is whether or not Mormon church leaders knew about and authorized the attack, or if it was the sole fault of local leaders as they claim.

While some reviewers gave the film poor ratings - with The Arizona Republic calling it "an unfocused botch" - others rave about the film's treatment of a long forgotten historical event. Director Christopher Cain said he was drawn to the project because the events of the Sept. 11, 1857, "so closely resembles the religious fanaticism the world is seeing today. People were killed in the name of God 150 years ago and they're still being killed in the name of God." Of course, comparisons of the actions of church members 150 years ago to the acts of muslim and other extremists today may not be accepted by all viewers. The content of the film is likely offensive to some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) as the movie depicts early church leader and putative prophet of God Brigham Young as responsible for the entire slaughter.

The official Mormon church account is that all of the above occurred without the knowledge or permission of Brigham Young, and it was simply caused by offended locals who were angry at the profanity and alleged rudeness of the passing wagon train during a time when tensions between Utah and the rest of the United States were running high. Although the church now admits some members were responsible in the massacre, it failed for years to even acknowledge that fact, originally blaming the attack on renegade local Indians. In the 1960s the church even secretly restored the membership benefits posthumously to one of the men convicted for his role in the crime. Interestingly, when a historian investigating the massacre learned of this and sought to publish the news she was threatened with excommunication. A monument to the massacre now sits on the land, which is church owned. At its dedication in 1999, church president Gordon Hinckley carefully explained that by placing a monument at the site and acquiring nearby land did not acknowledge any guilt on the part of church leaders by stating:

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

All of this occurs against a background of increased "Mormon Visibility" due to the campaign of former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) for President, and there are concerns that the film may stir up attention to his religious choice. The practices and tenets of his LDS religion has been found to not sit well with the evangelical wing of the Republican party and many mainstream Americans. Already 35% of voters have weighed in, declaring they would not vote for a Mormon.

Tags: written by pO157, edited by 1fastdog, Mitt Romney, Mountain Meadows Massacre, Mormon, LDS, Utah, 9-11, terrorism, religion, law, army, kolob (all tags)

This story: 14 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
5

Who cares?

pO157.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 12:07:34 PM EST

5.00 (astute, informative)

Look. The fact that the Mormons were involved in a major slaughter 'back in the day is not going to matter for their HQ's bottom line (although we probably would not know if it did because they are one of the few churches to not report what they do with their member's contributions -- although there are several indications).

Their members were relatively unfazed by the recent molecular biology evidence that suggests Joseph Smith's story of how North America was populated and who the American Indians are is complete bullshit.  Archaeological evidence has been telling people that same thing for decades. In addition, as anybody who ever lived in Western New York could tell you, there is little evidence for a major steel-era battle from the Book of Mormon involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers on either side killing each other on one obscure mountain outside of Rochester. The church has had [albeit on a much smaller scale than other religions] problems with alleged child abuse within its ranks. Their membership ignored excommunications of intellectuals and feminists simply for questioning the church doctrine and history. Nobody cares that their supposed Prophet of God was conned repeatedly conned into buying forged documents with church money by the "most prolific forger" in American History, murderer Mark Hoffman, in order to prevent their supposed damaging contents from coming to light.

Their history and origins are not the products they are selling. I could go on and on, but the point is this: If their members and potential converts do not care enough about the above to reconsider their religious choice, who thinks some movie is going to change anything?  All this movie is going to do is get some people's underwear in a bunch, and then it will be either forgotten a few weeks later or repeatedly dredged up as an example of supposed "ongoing persecution."

8

^ 5

Re: Who cares?

keta.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 04:16:20 PM EST

4.00 (interesting, informative)

Thanks for your informative post.

Anyone wanting to know more about the origin and modern-day workings of the Mormon Church would be well-served by reading Jon Krakauer's, Under the Banner of Heaven.

They might all be well-groomed, well-dressed, and polite to a fault, but from where I sit the Church of Latter Day Saints is nothing more than a cult, all the more spooky for their seeming "normality."  

10

^ 5

Re: Who cares?

thefadd.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:27:29 PM EST

none

They also believe every star in the sky is a planet populated by people.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

11

^ 10

Re: Who cares?

pO157.

Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:39:51 AM EST

none

Ah, yes, Kolob. Right. Well, if I had time to list every kookie thing I would still be writing. I think the general point was that this won't affect Romney because those who won't vote for him because of his religion already will do so without help from the movie and any member who has suspended reality enough to remain active isn't going to change because of said film, either.

And even if everybody left, it still doesn't matter because the leaders still control one of the largest portfolios of real estate, stocks, bonds and mutual funds, and property in the country. All of which is tax free.

1

2 questions

gerrymander.

Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 10:01:06 PM EST

none

"so closely resembles the religious fanaticism the world is seeing today."

First question: Does it really? Is it enough to to just blame "religious fanaticism," or should one try to examine the various political goals enmeshed with zealous religious messages? The early Utah Mormons has a fairly explicit inclusive political goal; they wanted a separate entity called "Deseret," which would be a very large territory or state within the Union. There wasn't any real talk about the entire US converting to Mormonism, and even the plans to keep Deseret Mormon were based on population pressure -- at the time of its proposal, Deseret encompassed the least-settled areas of the newly-acquired US Southwest. Contrast that with today, where fundamentalist Islam has no qualms about stating an ultimate political goal of subverting any government they can get their hands on.

Second question: If the religious fanaticism them does resemble the religious fanaticism today, why not make a movie about today's fanatics? There's no debate about whether people understand history correctly when they can look around themselves for a spot-check.

6

^ 1

Yes And No

uncarved block.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 01:46:44 PM EST

4.00 (interesting)

   I don't want to answer for the film maker, who may well be rather simple minded on the issues. (He certainly wouldn't be the first or the last when it comes to Mormons; they seem to have provoked overreaction, to the point of violence, from almost the very beginning.) But when you get to the question, "how are ordinary people able to go ahead and convince themselves it's OK to massacre others", you can't go to far without seeing that certainty has a lot to do with it. Certainty to the point of killing non-soldiers has, too often, come from religion or plain insanity (or both.) So I don't see too much trouble speculating that there are similar explanations behind the Taliban executing women in public, and killing over 100 people for "profanity and rudeness."
    Oh, and the problem with the Mormons wasn't so much that they went out in to the desert looking for a new start, but that they had started trying to create their promised land in Missouri and Illinois first. Dreamers and idealists had been setting off into the American wilderness to create utopias before, but not on so ambitious a scale. (Remember the backlash when the Rashneeshis took over Antelope, Oregon, with an eye toward the entire county?) Move too fast, annoy your neighbors, have an openly ambitious leader . . you're just asking for trouble. Openly talking about secession on the eve of an upcoming civil war didn't help much either . . .
    Why not make a movie about todays fanaticism? I'd like to see that, and all Cain would have to do is buy the rights to some films that were hits in Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and so on, and get them translated. Would any theater in the US show  them? Aye, there's the rub; is it political correctness or profit motive that would keep these films off the screen? At least with a film about Mormons you can tout the research and historical recreation. Sure makes an easier pitch the studio executives, eh?

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

2

^ 1

Re: 2 questions

Lou.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 06:59:40 AM EST

none

Does it really? Is it enough to to just blame "religious fanaticism," or should one try to examine the various political goals enmeshed with zealous religious messages?

Politics is the reason...fanaticism is the means.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

3

^ 2

Re: 2 questions

gerrymander.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:03:28 AM EST

none

Politics is the reason...fanaticism is the means.

No offense, but that doesn't answer the question, Lou. I can think of another set of American religious fanatics contemporaneous with the early Mormons, and these fanatics caused an outright war. Should we also be drawing parallels between the abolitionist Quakers and modern zealots, to the detriment of both?

9

^ 3

Gerry Rigged Logic

thefadd.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:21:50 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

Mormons:Quakers::Destruction of Twin Towers:Freeing Black People From Slavery

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

13

^ 9

Re: Gerry Rigged Logic

gerrymander.

Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:48:22 AM EST

none

Don't be glib, thefadd. "Freeing the black people from slavery" cost the lives of 10% of the male population in the United States at the time. That's a significant body count to be weighed against the morals of a bunch of pacifists. Yes, it was the right thing to do, but that's a scoring point for my argument -- that the aims of the religious zealotry are more important than the fact of being zealous.

14

^ 3

Also this

Lou.

Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:09:07 PM EST

5.00 (astute)

I think if you re-read my comment, you'll find I was mostly agreeing with you.  Be that as it may, I still find it odd that you would compare contemporaries such as the Mormons and the Quakers, putting them on almost equal terms.  The Mormons were a violent group (and maybe they had to be...who knows?) while the Quakers have always advocated peace.  Did the US government at the time use them to further their political goals...I would have to guess absolutely.  But this still supports my statement that politics is the goal, fanaticism is the means.  Except in this case instead of it being Mormon/Mormon it was US Gov't/Quakers.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

4

^ 3

Re: 2 questions

Lou.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:40:07 AM EST

none

I never realized that Quakers were so violent.  My bad.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

7

^ 1

Re: 2 questions

1fastdog.

Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 02:16:26 PM EST

none

"so closely resembles the religious fanaticism the world is seeing today."

First question: Does it really?

Apparently so, gerry. Almost every review I've read has brought up the connection in some way. The critic for The Arizona Republic makes the claim that the film is about Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists as much as being about Mormons:

Movies have a long history of being about something else.

That is, Godzilla is really about Hiroshima; King Kong is a thinly disguised parable of White America's racial fears; The Thing is undergirded by Cold War xenophobia.

Some of these allegorical subtexts are intentional, some merely come from the oneiric cultural subconscious that movies can become - our fears sublimated.

    September Dawn recounts the story of the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre, when a band of Mormons killed about 120 men, women and children from a wagon train passing through southern Utah.

But its makers couldn't make any clearer that the film is really about Islamist terrorism. The religious zealotry of the film's Mormon pioneers substitute for the same thing in Islamic fundamentalism.

To underline this implied parallel, the filmmakers have Mormons actually quoting the Koran in support of religious blood atonement.

And, of course, the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre took place on Sept. 11: On-screen text reminds us of the fact.

Now, whether or not that was the film's intention, I've no way of knowing. It certainly seems possible, though maybe the critics are just being lazy and targeting the obvious contemporary comparisons...

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

12

^ 7

Re: 2 questions

gerrymander.

Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:36:31 AM EST

none

Almost every review I've read has brought up the connection in some way.

Well, yeah, but they're comparing the director's interpretation to modern events. What I'm questioning is whether that interpretation is correct. (SInce the script has the Mormons quoting from the Koran, I'll venture the answer is "no." Why would religious zealots justify their actions with someone else's holy book?)

I agree that there's a valid artistic choice in the use of allegory to tell a story. That validity is strained when one intentionally uses a real event, but mischaracterizes it by the application of the allegorical intent.

Here's an example of what I mean: The Invasion of the Body Snatchers clearly falls into the category you describe. It was a fictional piece intended as an examination of the fear behind encroaching Communism in America. It works because the body snatchers don't exist. Now imagine a remake, only using black people instead of podlike aliens. That would be racist and insulting, right? Do you think the remake's director should get a pass if he explained that he wanted to use the very real phenomena of "white flight" as a way of telling the story? I say the answer to that should be "no!" It's still racist and insulting because the allegory is intended to show how the original characters have a justified fear.

This is a similar situation. If the allegory of September Dawn is about the evil done in religion's name, then it's deliberately insulting to Mormons unless the historical figures were, in fact, doing evil in the name of religion.

This story: 14 comments (3 from subqueue)
Post a Comment