September Dawn....mountain Meadows Massacre Movie

[mountainrider]

First Big Love, then a horrible "documentary" on PBS and now the hollyweirdos are at it again with their latest hitjob on Mitt Romney's candidacy for presidency. think about it........nobody has really given the MMM the time of day on a large scale for a century and a half and now a movie comes out about it a few months before the primaries begin? nicely done, lefties......

http://www.septemberdawn.net/

[Aphrodite]

What is the mountain meadows massacre??

[mountainrider]

What is the mountain meadows massacre??

read:

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...000176f620a____

[CrimsonKairos]

In fairness, I believe the movie has been in production for about two years. So it's not like Hollywood whipped up a movie when Romney announced his candidacy in Dec '06 or Jan '07.

However, it may not have been a secret that he was going to run and there may have been another reason to make the movie besides just "telling a gripping story."

In my opinion...Hollywood's not that smart. They just got dumb lucky, but I seriously don't think it'll affect Mitt's campaign.

[drjme]

Lol... you think this is a stab at a politicians candidacy?

How about a tool to create animosity against LDS members, an attack on the church, a tool to disillusion members who don't have a strong testimony, To label LDS's as extremists that we would ever have allowed such a monster to be a leader of the church. the timing maybe a hit at his candidacy, but the intentions of it are far worse:

quote:

"That the 1857 massacre occurred on a Sept. 11 only added to the significance Cain found in the event: At a time when fundamentalist extremism seems to dominate political dialogue around the world, revisiting murders that occurred for religious reasons, he thought, seemed timely. "You start asking yourself the question," said Cain, a soft-spoken and often dryly funny filmmaker of 62. "What makes a young kid - of any faith, in any part of the world - strap a bomb on his back and walk into a school, or a mosque, or get on a bus full of innocent people, and blow himself and them all up? You ask yourself that question, and as you do, you start looking around and all of a sudden, it's what religious fanaticism can turn into.""

Thats from the PDF attached to the website. unassumingly comparing mormon 'fundamentalist extremists' to

Suicide bombers?

persecution will increase...

[Elphaba]

First Big Love, then a horrible "documentary" on PBS and now the hollyweirdos are at it again with their latest hitjob on Mitt Romney's candidacy for presidency. think about it........nobody has really given the MMM the time of day on a large scale for a century and a half and now a movie comes out about it a few months before the primaries begin? nicely done, lefties......

http://www.septemberdawn.net/

September Dawn was written by a Born Again Christian who was riding along in her car one day and had a "vision" of a wagon train in the 1800s crossing the plains that was ambushed and killed. She claims she knew nothing about the MMM when she wrote the book. Right.

Additionally, if you've ever heard Jon Voight, who plays one of the murders, speak about his personal politics, he is as right wing as they come.

Why is it everytime somebody does something Mormons disagree with it's automatically assumed those "nasty, conniving liberals" did it to persecute the Church, and worse, it's going to work! Perspective, people!

BTW, I believe September Dawn will be a blip on the map and nobody will notice it. I think members of the Church are being overly sensitive to it as it's a poorly made movie and nobody's going to be interested in it.

As far as Romney's campaign, it will have no effect on it whatsoever, except to those who have already have a huge bias against him anyway. Those who are undecided will realize it happened long ago and has nothing to do with his politics today.

I don't doubt that a very few, ignorant morons will use the film as a decider, but they will be statistically insignificant. It's ridiculous to think they are going to bring Romney's campaign down.

Elphaba

[bunnzy]

I had never heard of this massacre. My eyes are being opened even more to the fact that although the gospel is perfect, the people are not.

This massacre, and the quote that relates it to suicide bombers makes me think of a documentary i watched this week on the Peoples Temple. I never knew about it until i watched the doco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

It is sad what religious extremism can do. I cry for the children.

[Elphaba]

I had never heard of this massacre. My eyes are being opened even more to the fact that although the gospel is perfect, the people are not.

This massacre, and the quote that relates it to suicide bombers makes me think of a documentary i watched this week on the Peoples Temple. I never knew about it until i watched the doco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

It is sad what religious extremism can do. I cry for the children.

I've studied the massacre quite a lot and the reasons it happened are extremely complex. Rather than try to explain it, I believe this account does a very good job.

Mountain Meadows Massacre

It's still not complete, and if I have the inclination later, I might add some of the puzzle pieces.

There are also some books you could read:

1. Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanite Brooks

2. Blood of the Prophets by Will Bagley

There is a new book coming out by Richard Turley, Glen Leonard and another author whose name I can't recall. They have connections with the Church and have spent literally years going through documents. It should be an exhaustive study on the massacre, and everyone into Mormon history can't wait to see it. Hopefully it will give us new insight into the massacre, which is the darkest period in Mormon history.

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

1. Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanit[a] Brooks

2. Blood of the Prophets by Will Bagley

When reading Bagley, keep yourself grounded and know that although his facts are good (other than the journal entry he deliberately altered to create fabricated evidence... "grain" to "allies"), some of his interpretation of the facts and conclusions aren't so good. I haven't seen any substantiated evidence for the rumor, but supposedly he responded to an ad in a paper to "pin it on Brigham." As I have only seen this rumor come from the LDS camp, take it for what it’s worth (we all know that we like to create myths and rumors).

There is a new book coming out by Richard Turley, Glen Leonard and another author whose name I can't recall.

Ronald Walker is the other person. Latest I got from Scott Lloyd is that volume 1 should be coming out the first of next year (hopefully there won't be any more delays). The first volume will take it up to the eve of the massacre.

Richard Turley gave a little dilly at the recent FAIR conference that should be up on the website soon. A brief overview of his presentation can be found in the last Church News. He basically went into the social/psychological aspects of what could have caused good people to commit such a horrific act.

[Elphaba]

When reading Bagley, keep yourself grounded and know that although his facts are good (other than the journal entry he deliberately altered to create fabricated evidence... "grain" to "allies"), some of his interpretation of the facts and conclusions aren't so good. I haven't seen any substantiated evidence for the rumor, but supposedly he responded to an ad in a paper to "pin it on Brigham." As I have only seen this rumor come from the LDS camp, take it for what it’s worth (we all know that we like to create myths and rumors).

Yes, I know. I hear the same things about him every time I recommend him, and I'm not saying they are wrong.

But every historian who has read him, once they are done citing these caveats, then goes on to say it is still a book worth reading. His newfound documentation is always lauded, and even Turley, on the LDS.org site, recommends him.

And, of course, he gets no support because of his vews about BY, so what do you expect? It's classic FARMs treatment to me, i.e., he could have BYs journal, in his own handwriting, admitting he ordered the massacre, and DCP would claim Bagley is a homosexual, then insist he didn't out him.

Having said that, I don't doubt all of the cautions are warranted; but I still think the good outweighs the bad, and if know you nothing about the MMM, it's a fine source.

--------------------------

I am eagerly awaiting Turley, Walker and Leonard's book. However, my confidence in Leonard was dulled a bit when I read the following in a Deseret News story.

"He also addressed a question many have asked the authors over the years. Because they accept Brigham Young as a prophet, could they accept information that indicted him as the instigator if they found it?

Leonard: "We kept our minds open to all the eventualities," he said, adding they initially overlooked the significant role that Isaac C. Haight played in ordering an LDS militia to carry out the massacre. Ultimately, "we put him in the responsible chair many have said Brigham Young occupied."

Initially overlooked him??? You'd have to be blind to overlook the significance of the role Isaac Haight played in the massacre. This stunned me when I read it. I'm sorry, but I thought, after all these gazillion years these men have been working on this book, it is absurd that they would suddenly have a lightbulb go off, and say "Wait! It was Haight!"

Just one reading of Brook's book is enough to know the Haight was a primary suspect. Therefore, I am worried about the spin that is coming. You know FARMs is going to give it positive reviews, no matter what. And hopefully it will deserve them.

But that silly little slipup, that the average person, especially Mormon, who knows nothing about MMM would never catch, has me very skeptical.

Wait! It's Haight!

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

This stunned me when I read it. I'm sorry, but I thought, after all these gazillion years these men have been working on this book, it is absurd that they would suddenly have a lightbulb go off, and say "Wait! It was Haight!"

LOL. Hopefully it was just a bit of a slip up (it wasn't in quotes after-all).

If I remember correctly, Scott recently went on a trip with Turley and Bagley to MMM, and there was some lively debate between the two. Man, what I wouldn't have done to be a fly on the wall.

And yes, you are correct that Bagley (after the little disclaimers are out of the way) did write a book well worth reading -- I think the first time I heard it recommended by someone LDS was when Gene Sessions gave it a qausi-thumbs-up. Speaking of which, I think the same talk that Sessions gives it an a-ok is one of the places where the “ad rumor” is put forth.

Edited to add:

Yup...

Another reason of course is the publication of Will Bagley's book. Will began work on his book well before the Hinckley initiative on the Meadows. He was employed by a former Mormon in California who, frankly, wanted to pin the Massacre on Brigham Young. He put an ad in the Salt Lake Tribune asking for applicants to write a new history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and in the course of interviewing several who applied (inaudible) except for Br. Bagley. Will was, by his own words to me--this is first hand words--the only one who said that he could and would pin it on Brigham Young. So Will was hired, he quit his job at Evans and went to work full-time writing a new history which was published by the University of Oklahoma Press last year.

New Light

[mountainrider]

In fairness, I believe the movie has been in production for about two years. So it's not like Hollywood whipped up a movie when Romney announced his candidacy in Dec '06 or Jan '07.

However, it may not have been a secret that he was going to run and there may have been another reason to make the movie besides just "telling a gripping story."

In my opinion...Hollywood's not that smart. They just got dumb lucky, but I seriously don't think it'll affect Mitt's campaign.

ummm, it has been known much before 06 or 07 that Romney was going to run, even if he didn't "officially" announce until later. i don't think it will affect the campaign that much either. It is kind of nice having the church in the spotlight, even if the facts are twisted about 1 event in our history. we are used to that, after all.

<div class='quotemain'>First Big Love, then a horrible "documentary" on PBS and now the hollyweirdos are at it again with their latest hitjob on Mitt Romney's candidacy for presidency. think about it........nobody has really given the MMM the time of day on a large scale for a century and a half and now a movie comes out about it a few months before the primaries begin? nicely done, lefties......

http://www.septemberdawn.net/

September Dawn was written by a Born Again Christian who was riding along in her car one day and had a "vision" of a wagon train in the 1800s crossing the plains that was ambushed and killed. She claims she knew nothing about the MMM when she wrote the book. Right.

Additionally, if you've ever heard Jon Voight, who plays one of the murders, speak about his personal politics, he is as right wing as they come.

hollyweirdos will do anything for a buck. There are plenty of left-wing goons who play patriotic Americans in movies, but are actually america-haters deep down inside. His personal politics really don't have much to do with it.

[Elphaba]

LOL. Hopefully it was just a bit of a slip up (it wasn't in quotes after-all).

In journalism, it's a condensed version of his actual words, but it is still his actual words, so it's still a quote.

"We kept our minds open to all the eventualities," he said, adding they initially overlooked the significant role that Isaac C. Haight played in ordering an LDS militia to carry out the massacre. Ultimately, "we put him in the responsible chair many have said Brigham Young occupied."

So you don't see this as an issue? Overlooking Haight, which seriously makes me laugh, isn't an issue?

If I remember correctly, Scott recently went on a trip with Turley and Bagley to MMM, and there was some lively debate between the two. Man, what I wouldn't have done to be a fly on the wall.

I heard about that too! Bagley wouldn't have had a chance. A debate would be great fun, yes?

And yes, you are correct that Bagley (after the little disclaimers are out of the way) did write a book well worth reading -- I think the first time I heard it recommended by someone LDS was when Gene Sessions gave it a qausi-thumbs-up. Speaking of which, I think the same talk that Sessions gives it an a-ok is one of the places where the “ad rumor” is put forth.

I used to be friends with Sessions. He was my history teacher at WSU. I was the editor-in-chief of the paper and would talk to him each chance I got--he was so funny. I find him a little hostile to Bagley also, but appreciate that he would admit how incendiary GAS' talks on his journey down south were. I find it very hard to get some historians to do that. (Aren't I a great namedropper! I doubt he'd remember me at all! )

Edited to add:

Yup...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Another reason of course is the publication of Will Bagley's book. Will began work on his book well before the Hinckley initiative on the Meadows. He was employed by a former Mormon in California who, frankly, wanted to pin the Massacre on Brigham Young. He put an ad in the Salt Lake Tribune asking for applicants to write a new history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and in the course of interviewing several who applied (inaudible) except for Br. Bagley. Will was, by his own words to me--this is first hand words--the only one who said that he could and would pin it on Brigham Young. So Will was hired, he quit his job at Evans and went to work full-time writing a new history which was published by the University of Oklahoma Press last year.

New Light

I should have mentioned in the last post that I believed the ad story. However, I don't think that automatically means he would be dishonest in his work. He was already a credible historian of of the west.

I think I have a soft spot in my heart for him because I have attended a lecture of his about the pioneers, who happen to be my heroes. He feels about them as I do. And everything I've heard him say has been spot on.

People are commissioned to write books all of the time. Being Bagley, seeing an ad to write about MMM, and believing it was a credible offer, there's no way in Hades he's going to turn that down. As far as Bagley pinning it on BY, his reasonong actually makes sense to me, though I am not saying I agree with him. I believe BY did have his nose in every pot in Utah. He knew what was going on everywhere. He sent GAS down south with specific instructions, and knew GAS would follow them. I do believe BY had an iron control over the territory and that everyone did what he told them to do. In that sense, I can see Bagley's rationale.

However, I don't agree that BY outright ordered the massacre. I do think he created the climate for it, and I believe he knew he was doing so. He would have been blind if he didn't realize that. But he I don't believe he said or intimated"Kill the Fancher party."

Bah! I'm off on a tangent.

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

I do believe BY had an iron control over the territory and that everyone did what he told them to do.

I just see how little control he had over one city (i.e. the looting, etc. that was occurring in Nauvoo), and wonder if he would be able to exercise even more control over an entire territory.

Even by granting him prophetic abilities, I don’t see him as having all that much of real control.

PS.

Stop name-dropping... you make me jealous! It's like when Blixa over at MD mentions that she knew Harold Schindler. I can't take it gall-dernit!

[Elphaba]

I do believe BY had an iron control over the territory and that everyone did what he told them to do.

I just see how little control he had over one city (i.e. the looting, etc. that was occurring in Nauvoo), and wonder if he would be able to exercise even more control over an entire territory.

Even by granting him prophetic abilities, I don’t see him as having all that much of real control.

Are you talking about before or after Joseph was murdered?

PS.

Stop name-dropping... you make me jealous! It's like when Blixa over at MD mentions that she knew Harold Schindler. I can't take it gall-dernit!

Bushman . . .Romney (back when he was human). . .

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

Are you talking about before or after Joseph was murdered?

I suppose both. Although the only one that would technically be applicable to my train of thought would be after. It seemed to be a never-ending problem in that poor city. Brigham didn't have much more success stopping it than Joseph did. Although it did seem to come to an end (for the most part) once Ford did his little truffle-shuffle and drafted up the little letter that "somehow" found its way into Brigham's hands (regarding the warrants and the feds not letting the Saints leave Nauvoo). But, the only reason for the cessation was most likely because people then became too busy building wagons and doing endowments, and no longer found the time to pillage.

Bushman . . .Romney (back when he was human). . .

Elphaba

Grrrrr... As long as you don't know my man-crush Terryl Givens, I suppose I'll get over it.

[Elphaba]

I suppose both. Although the only one that would technically be applicable to my train of thought would be after. It seemed to be a never-ending problem in that poor city. Brigham didn't have much more success stopping it than Joseph did. Although it did seem to come to an end (for the most part) once Ford did his little truffle-shuffle and drafted up the little letter that "somehow" found its way into Brigham's hands (regarding the warrants and the feds not letting the Saints leave Nauvoo). But, the only reason for the cessation was most likely because people then became too busy building wagons and doing endowments, and no longer found the time to pillage.

Okay, you got me. I am not as well-versed about this as you are. Could you explain the letter to me, or give me a link where I can read about it?

Grrrrrr... As long as you don't know my man-crush Terryl Givens, I suppose I'll get over it.

cch ucch chchc cuuucchc ccch uccchcchc ucch ucch cchchchhc chchch ucccc ucccchchchc chchchcch cough cough

hehehehehe

Elphie

[Doctor Steuss]

Okay, you got me. I am not as well-versed about this as you are. Could you explain the letter to me, or give me a link where I can read about it?

Puh-leeze. You know that you are my superior when it comes to this stuff. I don't have a link, but the governor admits it in Ford's History of Illinois. Basically he wrote a letter to Backenstos** knowing that it [the letter] would find its way into Brigham's hands. The letter had misleading info that more-or-less stated that because of outstanding warrants, the federal government would most likely try to keep the Saints from leaving Nauvoo. His reasoning for this was to help "push" the Saints along in their promise of an exodus... and it worked. Hundreds of Saints then began receiving endowments in the partially built temple almost around the clock. Pretty much every building in the city (including the temple) was then converted into workshops, and by the time spring rolled around, the Saints had built over twelve thousand wagons to get out of Dodge. This also spurred the little real-estate dilly where many were forced to sell their homes for cheep (i.e. John D. Lee's house going for $12.50).

At least that's the Steuss' Reader's Digest version of events.

cch ucch chchc cuuucchc ccch uccchcchc ucch ucch cchchchhc chchch ucccc ucccchchchc chchchcch cough cough

hehehehehe

Elphie

**Edited to add: Backenstos was the sheriff.

[pushka]

Oh oh....MMM....do I smell the scent of Deja Vu? Emma, I mean Elphie...watch what you say this time, don't want no bannings going on again!!! :)

[Elphaba]

Oh oh....MMM....do I smell the scent of Deja Vu? Emma, I mean Elphie...watch what you say this time, don't want no bannings going on again!!! :)

Aww Pushka, you're so sweet to worry about me.

But, please don't. I think if you'll take a minute to go back and read through this thread, you'll find my discussion partner and I have a mutual respect for one another that would never descend into dismissiveness or contempt. In fact, he has me stumped on an issue and I'm having to search and read up on it as we speak. But rather than questioning my intelligence (and education), he pretends I know more than he, which is hogwash. What a gentleman.

I never said anything before that was out of line regarding the MMM. (Well, except for my satirical breakdown.) I just said it to the wrong people. Since we all pretty much ignore each other now, I think things will be fine. If not, I promise I will be careful, just for you.

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

Oh oh....MMM....do I smell the scent of Deja Vu? Emma, I mean Elphie...watch what you say this time, don't want no bannings going on again!!! :)

Aww Pushka, you're so sweet to worry about me.

But, please don't. I think if you'll take a minute to go back and read through this thread, you'll find my discussion partner and I have a mutual respect for one another that would never descend into dismissiveness or contempt. In fact, he has me stumped on an issue and I'm having to search and read up on it as we speak. But rather than questioning my intelligence (and education), he pretends I know more than he, which is hogwash. What a gentleman.

I hereby dismiss the above post with a healthy dose of contempt.

[Dror]

Apparently Roger Ebert didn't like the movie:

Zero Stars from Ebert!!

Good for him.

Whether or not the movie's timing has anything to do with Romney's bid for the presidency I don't know, but please don't paint all us "lefties" with the same brush! I'm a Dem, but also (very!) pro-LDS.

On the one hand I'm kind of curious to see the movie. On the other hand, part of me doesn't care to see another piece of anti-Mormon propaganda.

Dror

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Oh oh....MMM....do I smell the scent of Deja Vu? Emma, I mean Elphie...watch what you say this time, don't want no bannings going on again!!! :)

Aww Pushka, you're so sweet to worry about me.

But, please don't. I think if you'll take a minute to go back and read through this thread, you'll find my discussion partner and I have a mutual respect for one another that would never descend into dismissiveness or contempt. In fact, he has me stumped on an issue and I'm having to search and read up on it as we speak. But rather than questioning my intelligence (and education), he pretends I know more than he, which is hogwash. What a gentleman.

I hereby dismiss the above post with a healthy dose of contempt.

What, you question my education? B)

Hmph!

E.

[Elphaba]

<snip>The letter had misleading info that more-or-less stated that because of outstanding warrants, the federal government would most likely try to keep the Saints from leaving Nauvoo. His reasoning for this was to help "push" the Saints along in their promise of an exodus... and it worked. Hundreds of Saints then began receiving endowments in the partially built temple almost around the clock.<snip>

Hi Stu,

I’ve been working on this a lot and have some thoughts. But first I’m trying to figure out this letter you’re talking about. I found one that may be it, but it’s not an exact match. I found it in one of my books and in an online source.

It’s a letter from Brother Sam Brannan, stating that the secretary of war and others of the cabinet were planning to prevent their moving west—alleging that it was against the law for an armed body to go from the U.S. to any other government; that it would not do to let them go to California or Oregon, but that they must be obliterated.

Hist. B. Young, MS., 305.

No mention is made of Backenstos, though both sources mention him elsewhere.

Do you think it possible this is the same letter? If not, have you heard of this letter?

Your "superior,"

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

<snip>The letter had misleading info that more-or-less stated that because of outstanding warrants, the federal government would most likely try to keep the Saints from leaving Nauvoo. His reasoning for this was to help "push" the Saints along in their promise of an exodus... and it worked. Hundreds of Saints then began receiving endowments in the partially built temple almost around the clock.<snip>

Hi Stu,

I’ve been working on this a lot and have some thoughts. But first I’m trying to figure out this letter you’re talking about. I found one that may be it, but it’s not an exact match. I found it in one of my books and in an online source.

It’s a letter from Brother Sam Brannan, stating that the secretary of war and others of the cabinet were planning to prevent their moving west—alleging that it was against the law for an armed body to go from the U.S. to any other government; that it would not do to let them go to California or Oregon, but that they must be obliterated.

Hist. B. Young, MS., 305.

No mention is made of Backenstos, though both sources mention him elsewhere.

Do you think it possible this is the same letter? If not, have you heard of this letter?

Your "superior,"

Elphaba

I have never heard of that letter. You are indeed my superior (seriously though, I'm just an infant when it comes to this stuff. You just have a habit of hitting me on good days when just the right info happens to be on my mind).

Hopefully this link works: On This Page (413), Ford admits to the letter.

Another source that you probably have access to (which must have been what was fresh on my mind when I gave the Reader's Digest Version as going back and re-reading it, I saw pretty much the same info that I posted) is Schindler's biography on OPR. In the Second Edition, it's on page 144.

This is why I love you. The mention of the letter was just a periferal thing, yet it's got you all curious and searching. You are a true Gem. -- You inspire me (really).

BTW, what's the dating of the letter from Brannan?