Why do TBMs Hate "September Dawn"?

[_Mister Scratch]

Actually, at least one person there has, he says, attended a special screening. I can't remember who it is.

Huh. That's funny. I can't remember who it is, either. Let me know if and when you find out.

And others are reacting to comments made by critics (Medved and others) who have seen it.

Actually, that wasn't my impression at all. Rather, it seemed to me that the TBMs were using Medved as a vehicle for their own prejudices. E.g., "Hey, Medved thinks what we only assume, so we must be right!"

Are you saying that artistic license ought to be denied this filmmaker?

I am, as a matter of fact, very skeptical of docudramas. Many people learn their history from Oliver Stone and the like, and this is troubling.

Polygamy Porter is quite right in his post to you. A lot of LDS learn their Mormon history from thoroughly whitewashed books, TV shows, and films. Do you find that troubling? And let's not forget that these Church-sanctioned productions to not containing anything even remotely close to the disclaimer inherent in September Dawn's being a Hollywood feature, and thus an entertainment.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Actually, that wasn't my impression at all. Rather, it seemed to me that the TBMs were using Medved as a vehicle for their own prejudices. E.g., "Hey, Medved thinks what we only assume, so we must be right!"

You evidently need to monitor the MA&D Board with even more obsessive constancy, if that's possible. Smac alone has started several threads, if I'm not mistaken, about critical responses to the film.

Polygamy Porter is quite right in his post to you.

I'm simply shocked and astonished that you would lean in his direction rather than mine. I need my smelling salts.

A lot of LDS learn their Mormon history from thoroughly whitewashed books, TV shows, and films. Do you find that troubling?

Somewhat.

But I'm bothered less by accounts that omit materials that are, as I judge them, inessential, than I am by accounts that add fictional materials at crucial points.

It would be far less troublesome to me if an account of the last days of Lincoln, say, failed to present the complex politics of the personalities in his cabinet and didn't depict Mary Todd Lincoln's apparently severe psychological problems and Lincoln's possible chemical depression, than it would be if such an account manufactured a conversation in which Vice President Andrew Johnson encouraged John Wilkes Booth to assassinate the president.

[_Mister Scratch]

Let's not forget that these folks have not yet even seen the film.

Actually, at least one person there has, he says, attended a special screening. I can't remember who it is.

In other words, while Scratch didn't bother to see or know exactly whether the good folks at MA&D had seen the movie or not, he criticizing them for being critical about of a movie they supposedly hadn't seen or know exactly what it is about. How ironic.

No irony at all, Wade. In fact, I cited at least a few posts from folks who patently have not seen the film, and yet felt able to make a harsh criticism of it. One person, whom The Good Professor cannot even name, hardly undoes my assertion that the MAD TBMs are demonstrating gross prejudice and judgmentalism.

And others are reacting to comments made by critics (Medved and others) who have seen it.

So, while Scratch thinks it perfectly acceptible to base lenghty discussions here on what is being said by others at MA&D (this thread being a case in point), he objects to people at MA&D talking at length about what others (movie critics) have said elsewhere about the movie in question.

Actually, I disagree with DCP's interpretation of these "others"' comments. Whereas he sees them as "reacting" to critics, I see them (i.e., "the others") as merely "jumping on the Medved bandwagon," so to speak, since his views correspond with their preconceived and utterly uninformed notions about the film.

[_wenglund]

Speaking from my own experience, as a TBM, chapel Mormon -- until recently:

I didn't know anything about the MMM. Nothing. It could have been the U.S. Army attacking the innocent pioneers, for all I knew.

And this ignorance is in spite of going through the Utah public school system (including 4th grade Utah history), 45 years of attending church every week, graduating from seminary, taking a couple of LDS institute classes, serving a full-time LDS mission, earning a degree in History at the UofU (but I didn't take a Utah history class).

Now - you could say that it was my responsibility to search these things out, that this is generally known, if I was too stupid to know about this it is my own fault. True - I guess. But in all this Utah culture and education and a lifetime of (almost) perfect church attendance - why was this never mentioned, addressed, or discussed? Why does no one in my family know anything about it? Why do none of my friends know about it? Why does my colleague, raised in Enterpise Utah (right in the backyard of Mountain Meadows) not understand what happened there?

Also - I had many people whom I loved and trusted tell me not to read church history, and stay away from anti-Mormon literature. I followed this advice most of my life.

I just finished reading Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets. I think he does a good job documenting that Brigham Young did tacitly consent beforehand to the attack on the immigrants (he presents new evidence).

I think, in Mormon culture, even the slightest criticism or suggestion that our Mormon forefathers might have done something wrong is heresy!!

I am looking forward to seeing the film.

My experience in the Church, while somewhat longer than your's, wasn't much different. However, I first heard of MMM in the 6th grade while studying Utah history, particularly in relation to the indian wars. I also studied it somewhat following my mission, and intermittently while interacting with anti-Mormons over the year (it's a favorite wipping post of theirs) and members struggling with their testimonies over it.

And, I am not sure about the "Mormon Culture", but the D&C is chalk full of criticism of Church leaders and members. The History of the Church, and the Comprehensive History of the Church, also contains not a few unflattering accounts of leaders and members.

However, as I understand the three-fold mission of the Church (to bring us to Christ), I am not sure what value there would be in dwelling much, as a Church, on the MMM--which, regardless of what version of the story one choses to believe, runs counter to the three-fold mission. Seems to me that would be a project for someone or something with a different agenda in mind.

But, I hope you enjoy the movie.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

It would be far less troublesome to me if an account of the last days of Lincoln, say, failed to present the complex politics of the personalities in his cabinet and didn't depict Mary Todd Lincoln's apparently severe psychological problems and Lincoln's possible chemical depression, than it would be if such an account manufactured a conversation in which Vice President Andrew Johnson encouraged John Wilkes Booth to assassinate the president.

So, what shall we call this, then? Selective tolerance of artistic license? Censorship? What?

[_Coggins7]

Y

ou are aware that Mormonism has quite a few sects itself, right? Each one claiming true authority. I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about the different sects of Hinduism.

This is a false statement. Mormonism has not sects. It has cultic offshoots or branches, but these are completely and utterly outside of "Mormonism" Protestant Christianity has "sects"; divisions within itself in which there is disagreement but in which all are held to be legitimate forms of Protestant Christianity in a broader sense. This is not the case with the Church. That which is outside it, is outside it, period. The "sects" you mention are apostate offshoots that have no connection to the Church except in a historical sense. They are not members, and are not considered to be "Mormons".

Yeah, they all say the same thing about you.

If anything, the FLDS is the most true form of Mormonism. Just because it isn't the largest, but then we all know that the size of a religion has nothing to do with it's truthfulness, right?

The LDS church is just another offshoot from the FLDS. You should really think about joining the One True Church....not just some offshoot that BY took west where it could flourish.

OK, we've got another Mercury on our hands. Another teenager home alone. We're done Scottie.

[_wenglund]

Let's not forget that these folks have not yet even seen the film.

Actually, at least one person there has, he says, attended a special screening. I can't remember who it is.

In other words, while Scratch didn't bother to see or know exactly whether the good folks at MA&D had seen the movie or not, he criticizing them for being critical about of a movie they supposedly hadn't seen or know exactly what it is about. How ironic.

No irony at all, Wade. In fact, I cited at least a few posts from folks who patently have not seen the film, and yet felt able to make a harsh criticism of it. One person, whom The Good Professor cannot even name, hardly undoes my assertion that the MAD TBMs are demonstrating gross prejudice and judgmentalism.

And others are reacting to comments made by critics (Medved and others) who have seen it.

So, while Scratch thinks it perfectly acceptible to base lenghty discussions here on what is being said by others at MA&D (this thread being a case in point), he objects to people at MA&D talking at length about what others (movie critics) have said elsewhere about the movie in question.

Actually, I disagree with DCP's interpretation of these "others"' comments. Whereas he sees them as "reacting" to critics, I see them (I.e., "the others") as merely "jumping on the Medved bandwagon," so to speak, since his views correspond with their preconceived and utterly uninformed notions about the film.

Obviously, I see things differently on both accounts. However, that difference of opinion, as well as the issue, itself, let alone your gossiping about what people elsewhere may or may not have felt, hatewise, or said about whatever, is not of sufficient merit to me to quibble any more with you about it. I will leave you to that presumably very important work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Daniel Peterson]

So, what shall we call this, then? Selective tolerance of artistic license?

That wouldn't be far wrong. (I realize, of course, that you're trying to make me look bad. But you always are, so it can be discounted as constant background noise.)

Artistic license is always necessary in art. Events are telescoped together in historical films and plays, dialogue is invented, etc., etc. It's inevitable. But sometimes it's okay and sometimes it's beyond okay.

Does it trouble you that I'm unwilling to give a blank check to people writing historical fiction? (I can see why you would take it personally.)

Censorship?

Typically malicious Scratch hyperbole. I said that I find docudramas problematic. I said nothing about banning them, calling for government intervention, boycotting them, repudiating them en masse, or anything of the kind. And yet you still begin to fantasize that I might be calling for "censorship."

What a piece of work you are, Scratch Senior. The paranoia and personal malice never sleep.

[_The Nehor]

Come, now, Nehor. There are countless films in which one side or the other is drawn in a fairly "one-dimensional" fashion. For example, a decent number of critics attacked Spielberg for the one-dimensionality and sameness of his Germans in Saving Private Ryan, and yet I'd imagine that we can both agree that that was a pretty decent film.

Again, why come to these conclusions so early?

Who's to say that the film isn't this way? Could it be that there is a TBM-led smear campaign underway?

I came to these conclusions based upon film reviews.....non-TBM film reviews.