Why do TBMs Hate "September Dawn"?

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

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.

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.

Again, why come to these conclusions so early?

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.

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

[_Scottie]

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".

Riiiiight....cause I certainly don't see any LDS pointing at Scientologists, or Wiccan's, or JW's or any other "non-mainstream" religion and saying how "weird" they are, huh? Consider the source indeed...

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.

No...if it has beliefs and a history like Mormonism does, then it must be weird, square, and uncool. But mostly weird.

In short, it must be "false" as the world defines "false" (that which doesn't support and justify our lifestyles and cultural assumptions).

It has nothing to do with lifestyle. Let me ask you...do you eat beef? I'm sure that the only reason you have rejected Hinduism as the one true religion is because you want to eat your Big Mac, isn't it!!!

[_Coggins7]

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...

Hmmm...kind of like businessmen, corporate executives, soldiers, military leaders, Christians, Catholic Priests, the CIA, America etc, are have been endlessly and routinely portrayed in Hollywood for the last 25 years or so, with increasing frequency and repetitiveness to the point that, in most films, one can usually predict the moral relationship a character will have with respect to the film's general theme and to other characters simply by an inspection of the role that character plays. Is he a Mormon, Catholic Priest, Evangelical preacher, Vietnam veteran, military officer, corporate executive? Then the black or dysfunctional hats are worn (see Deep Blue for a prime example of what happens when hard core leftists really have free run with a screenplay).

Is the character Gay, a crusading left wing trial lawyer, blue collar union organizer, an idealistic environmentalist, (or a righteous and murderous environmentalist (think Silent Running)? Then the white hats are worn.

We could go on and on with this interesting topic. Suffice it to say, there was nothing to expect from Hollywood with respect to this subject matter, but distortion and ideological primping.

That's entertainment!

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

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

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.

I can only speculate that it is a form of TBM judgmentalism and prejudice. What do you think?

I disagree, though perhaps I ought to defer to you as a master of judgmentalism and prejudice.

[_Some Schmo]

It sounds as though the film makers took just as much liberty with actual recorded history as the church does. Why this should bother any Mormon, I don't know. All's fair in love, war, and revisionist history, I'd say.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

Riiiiight....cause I certainly don't see any LDS pointing at Scientologists, or Wiccan's, or JW's or any other "non-mainstream" religion and saying how "weird" they are, huh? Consider the source indeed...

I haven't seen too many doing that. I don't do that. I do think that, for example, Wicca is a great example of Boomer shallow self absorption mixed with the traditional Boomer generation penchant for novelty for its own sake, but weird? Well, yes, in some ways from my own viewpoint. But you are pitting mass, popular majority opinion (notoriously fair and intellectually rigorous of course) against a small, minority religious movement. In that case, the question is not whether some Mormons think Wiccans or JWs are weird. Some may. They only question is upon what basis are those in the great and spacious building making their judgments?

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.

No...if it has beliefs and a history like Mormonism does, then it must be weird, square, and uncool. But mostly weird.

In short, it must be "false" as the world defines "false" (that which doesn't support and justify our lifestyles and cultural assumptions).

It has nothing to do with lifestyle. Let me ask you...do you eat beef? I'm sure that the only reason you have rejected Hinduism as the one true religion is because you want to eat your Big Mac, isn't it!!!

The rejection of the Gospel always has very, very much to do with lifestyle. Purely intellectual critiques are, for most, incidental to this.

I have never consciously rejected Hinduism as the one true religion (a difficult thing to do in any case, as "Hinduism" implies a truly vast plethora of sects, cults, and individual spiritual paths that are all highly syncretistic in nature. I don't know that any particular Hindu would make that kind of a claim, at least in the way a Christian would make it). Its never actually come up before.

And, just in passing, what is your point?

[_Coggins7]

It sounds as though the film makers took just as much liberty with actual recorded history as the church does. Why this should bother any Mormon, I don't know. All's fair in love, war, and revisionist history, I'd say.

Duuuuuuh....which way did he go George?

[_Some Schmo]

Duuuuuuh....which way did he go George?

That might just be the most intelligent thing you've ever written. Good job!

[_Scottie]

I haven't seen too many doing that. I don't do that. I do think that, for example, Wicca is a great example of Boomer shallow self absorption mixed with the traditional Boomer generation penchant for novelty for its own sake, but weird? Well, yes, in some ways from my own viewpoint. But you are pitting mass, popular majority opinion (notoriously fair and intellectually rigorous of course) against a small, minority religious movement. In that case, the question is not whether some Mormons think Wiccans or JWs are weird. Some may. They only question is upon what basis are those in the great and spacious building making their judgments?

Ahhh...I get it. Mormons are righteously judging all these other "weird" religions where the rest of the world is unrighteously judging Mormonism. Thanks for clearing that up.

The rejection of the Gospel always has very, very much to do with lifestyle. Purely intellectual critiques are, for most, incidental to this.

So are you are in the camp of "people only leave the church cause they want to sin"? It ALWAYS has to do with lifestyle? I don't think I've ever seen a more ridiculous post. I honestly don't know how to respond to something so asinine. Perhaps I have misinterpreted what you mean here. Could you explain further?

I have never consciously rejected Hinduism as the one true religion (a difficult thing to do in any case, as "Hinduism" implies a truly vast plethora of sects, cults, and individual spiritual paths that are all highly syncretistic in nature. I don't know that any particular Hindu would make that kind of a claim, at least in the way a Christian would make it). Its never actually come up before.

You 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.

And, just in passing, what is your point?

My point was that you seem to claim that the sole reason people reject the gospel is because they don't want to change their lifestyle. I was trying to turn it around. From a Hindu point of view, the only reason someone would reject Hinduism is because they like to eat Big Macs. There couldn't POSSBILY be any other reason. I didn't think it was that hard of a point to grasp.

[Gadianton]

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.

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. Again, how ironic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-