Why do TBMs Hate "September Dawn"?

[_Mister Scratch]

There is an intriguing thread underway, started by (of course) Smac, over on the aptly named MADboard, in which people are ripping into the film September Dawn. What's interesting about the thread is, first of all, that Smac is praising Michael Medved for trashing the film. Medved's criticsm is based primarily on his gripe that Hollywood films don't "stick to Muslims" in the same way that they are supposedly "sticking it" to LDS in September Dawn. (Medved is an equal-opportunity smear-meister, I guess, or one of those movie critics who believes that films should be made solely for the purpose of agitprop.)

Later in the thread, we get this posting from "Nephi":

Wow. 5 pages of almost no substance over a Hollywood movie? Since when did Hollywood start making 100% factual documentary films anyhow? I think what we all need to realize here is that this is just a movie by Hollywood, and NEVER has Hollywood made a 100% factual movie; they aren't bound to any sort of truth checking. They are bound to a budget, and a hope to make a profit.

What is a great example of this is Michel Moore's Fahrenheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine. Michel Moore does an excellent job in both these films making Mockumentaries, but in the end, much of his "data" was made up. Why? Because its Hollywood, and stuff is made up there.

Step forth September Dawn - based on REAL EVENTS. Did the massacre happen? You betcha. Do we know if Young ordered it? No we don't, and we never will. It has been argued to extinction since the incident occurred, but we will never know. Even when PBS had their documentary on the Mormons, they could not conclude who ordered it, or what exactly happened (and I sure trust PBS moreso for validity of facts than Hollywood).

I have to say, I largely agree with him, and have to wonder: What is it, exactly, that the TBMs are griping about? As you can probably guess, the dumb replies start rolling in:

I can agree with most of your comments to a point, however as you mentioned "September Dawn" has a very close relationship to "Fahrenheit 911" and "Bowling for Columbine" in that they had made up data , but not because it is entertainment from Hollywood. The reason was the producers had/have a political agenda to push on the public. All three moves were propaganda films made to try to poison the minds of the viewers against their opponents. In Moore's case it was the Republican Party in general and George W. Bush in particular. In the case of "September Dawn" it is the Anti-Mormon's who want to bash the Church and as a side political issue to try to derail Mitt Romney's Presidential bid. It has nothing to do with entertainment. And as for knowing if President Young ordered the massacre, I can categorically say that I know that he did not. And all people will know it at the judgement day, until then they can rely on the Spirit of the Lord to tell them the truth of the matter.

Does "Lightbearer" also feel that Church-produced films are designed to "poison the minds of the viewers" into thinking only positive things about the Church? Here is another exchange, involving Zakuska and Solarpowered:

When a made-for-tv story comes with the disclaimer "based on actuall events/facts" i'd expect it to actually be based on actual facts rather than made up story lines.

I guess I'm more jaded than you... When it says, "Based on actual events", I assume that it is "based" on something that actually happened, but other than a remote resemblence, they then proceded to create a work of fiction that is only remotely similar that what actually happened. (In other words, over the years I've learned a lot about recognizing weasel words that are used to cover a multitude of sins.)

So... What is it that the TBMs are objecting to? That the film is not by-the-letter "accurate"? That is does not interpret the historical facts exactly as they want it to? Do they object to artistic license writ-large, or what? I cannot help but feel that this is yet another instance of the desire on the part of these folks to totally and completely control the flow of information.

[_wenglund]

I am not interested in gossiping here about what may or may not have been said at MA&D about the topic in question. My only intent in contributing to this thread is to clarify that not all TBM's hate "September Dawn".

As a TBM, myself, I know little or nothing about the show, and I don't tend to hate things I don't know much about. I reserve that level of emotion (hate) to those extremely rare occasions when such emotions will be for mine and others' good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Bond...James Bond]

Alright I've been under a rock.....has this movie even come out yet?

[_Scottie]

It's all tied into the persecution complex. LDS pride themselves on being a "peculiar people", but when the rest of the world points out just exactly how peculiar they are, the members scream from the rooftops that they are being persecuted!!

It's really no different here. The producers have taken a premise, done a minimal amount of fact checking to gain a basic idea of what BY and the early settlers must have been like and made a movie. Did they take creative license, of course! Does it show their beloved prophet in a bad light? Absolutely. Does it expose a stain on Mormon history? You bet. In other words, the church is being persecuted, yet again.

The need for persecution in the LDS mindset is awfully big. And anywhere they can claim it, they will.

[_Mister Scratch]

I am not interested in gossiping here about what may or may not have been said at MA&D about the topic in question. My only intent in contributing to this thread is to clarify that not all TBM's hate "September Dawn".

As a TBM, myself, I know little or nothing about the show, and I don't tend to hate things I don't know much about. I reserve that level of emotion (hate) to those extremely rare occasions when such emotions will be for mine and others' good.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You deserve praise for your level-headedness on this issue, Wade. Unfortunately, many of your fellow MADites have already made up their minds on the issue of this film. See, for example, "Lightbearer"'s remarks from my OP:

In the case of "September Dawn" it is the Anti-Mormon's who want to bash the Church and as a side political issue to try to derail Mitt Romney's Presidential bid. It has nothing to do with entertainment. And as for knowing if President Young ordered the massacre, I can categorically say that I know that he did not. And all people will know it at the judgement day, until then they can rely on the Spirit of the Lord to tell them the truth of the matter.

(emphasis added)

His/her mind seems pretty made up, doesn't it? (There are many more instances of practicing LDS bashing away at this film, too, and I doubt that any of them have seen it.) Does this therefore mean that there is a tendency towards judgmentalism and prejudice amongst TBMs, Wade? I mean, how many threads has Smac started on this? I'm interested in hearing whether you think the pro-LDS stance on MAD towards the film is very fair....

[_Daniel Peterson]

Use of the term hate is characteristic Scratch hyperbole, designed to make your targeted victim look silly and/or evil while by purely rhetoric means lowering the actual threshold of evidence to justify your portrayal.

Believing members of the Church are concerned, as you understand full well, because preliminary reports about the film suggest that it is a black-and-white oversimplification of the events of 11 September 1857 in which Mormons are portrayed as one-dimensionally evil and, although the historical evidence to support the claim is not there, Brigham Young is depicted as having ordered the massacre. As you may also know, a very damning quotation is manufactured out of thin air and placed in Brigham Young's mouth in order to prove his guilt.

Having observed your tactics over the past year or two, I understand that such things don't bother you. Still, I think you're bright enough that you can probably, by an effort of will and sympathy, muster some comprehension of why others would be bothered.

[_Mister Scratch]

Use of the term hate is characteristic Scratch hyperbole, designed to make your targeted victim look silly and/or evil while by purely rhetoric means lowering the actual threshold of evidence to justify your portrayal.

No... It wasn't meant to be hyperbolic at all. That was simply my honest assessment of the sentiments I observed coming from Smac and "Lightbearer", among others. Let's not forget that these folks have not yet even seen the film.

Believing members of the Church are concerned, as you understand full well, because preliminary reports about the film suggest that it is a black-and-white oversimplification of the events of 11 September 1857 in which Mormons are portrayed as one-dimensionally evil and,

(emphasis added)

Again: as I asked of Wade, doesn't this therefore suggest that TBM assessments of the film are rather rash? Further, how do these "preliminary reports" merit the sort of concern being registered by Smac, Pahoran, Lightbearer, et. al.? Why not a "let's wait and see" attitude?

although the historical evidence to support the claim is not there, Brigham Young is depicted as having ordered the massacre. As you may also know, a very damning quotation is manufactured out of thin air and placed in Brigham Young's mouth in order to prove his guilt.

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

Having observed your tactics over the past year or two, I understand that such things don't bother you. Still, I think you're bright enough that you can probably, by an effort of will and sympathy, muster some comprehension of why others would be bothered.

No, I'm really kind of baffled. I don't think anyone who has not yet seen the film should feel all that bothered. As to "comprehen[ding] why others would be bothered," I can only speculate that it is a form of TBM judgmentalism and prejudice. What do you think?

[_Coggins7]

Scratch is quite capable of hating that which he knows about, that which he has only some bare acquaintance with, and that which he has no knowledge of whatever.

If this man ever, ever has anything substantive or intellectually grounded (as opposed to the continual bashing and slandering of individuals and institutions) to say about anything, I'll be dipped in the proverbial poop.

[_The Nehor]

From what I've read I don't plan on seeing it. Any historical movie that has one-dimensional good guys and one-dimensional bad guys is most likely bad cinema. It also sounds more like a Michael Moore propaganda film than a film I would go see for entertainment. From what I have read they also do not put in any context of the Utah War and they use Brigham Young quotes liberally that had nothing to do with MMM.

If I were making the film I'd put some interesting people in the wagon train that are likable along with a few jerks. I'd do the same with the Mormons. I'd put in some context of the Utah War. I'd probably have one of the LDS militia be very unsure of what they're doing and another who is sure they are doing the right thing. Sprinkle in a few flashbacks to Missouri and Illinois and you might have a good movie.

[_Coggins7]

It's all tied into the persecution complex. LDS pride themselves on being a "peculiar people", but when the rest of the world points out just exactly how peculiar they are, the members scream from the rooftops that they are being persecuted!!

This is just classic. The "rest of the world"? If the rest of the world is pointing at the Church and its teachings and mocking and jeering and saying we're weirdos, then I would say "consider the source".

Textbook pop culture philosophizing: If its popular, it must be true. If its different or divergent from what you see on Oprah or MTV, it must be weird, square, and uncool. In short, it must be "false" as the world defines "false" (that which doesn't support and justify our lifestyles and cultural assumptions).