Another Review Of September Bomb

[jwhitlock]

Bill McKeever and Aaron Shafovaloff have jumped into the fray and put out their own review of September Dawn, which you can read here.

Some of my impressions about the review:

They really glossed over the fact that the movie was poorly made, from a film making standpoint, instead wanting to concentrate on seeing whether it was "historically accurate". Any guesses as to which way they headed?

The Mormons in Utah are portrayed as bloodthirsty in 1857; the review goes to some length to try to support this stereotype.

Bishop Samuelson's prayer is acknowledged as fictional in the review, but great pains are made to support it as conceptually accurate of the attitudes of Mormons at that time.

The reviewers acknowledge that Brigham Young didn't actually say he was the "voice of God", but make great efforts, through other quotes, to imply that it's accurate, because that's what he (and others) really thought of himself.

The reviewers have no qualms about taking the usual JD and other passages out of context in order to support the film in its portrayal of BY, such as the quote about BY cutting the throats of miserable scoundrels in Utah.

The reviewers feel that Will Bagley's book is excellent. That speaks for itself.

A great deal of effort is made in the review to still try to tie BY in to the massacre and pin responsibility on him.

Finally, most revealing were the reviewers' true feelings about members of the Church today, perhaps meant to be taken in the context of the "proven" bloodthirstiness of the 1857 members of the Church:

Having read numerous blog comments by Latter-day Saints, it is probably safe to say that many of Christopher Cain's critics have never bothered to crack open even one book on the subject. The vehemence (and ignorance) expressed by some Mormons tend to show that blind obedience and loyalty to the leadership of the LDS Church exhibited in 1857 is still very much alive today.

Bill and Aaron are enlightening, indeed.

[Zakuska]

Captains Alexander Fancher and John T. Baker explain to the bishop that they need to re-supply the train before crossing the desert into California. They are told by the Mormons that there will be no supplies, but Samuelson states that they can stay at a place called Mountain Meadow for a period of no more than two weeks, at which time they will have to move on. The refusal to sell the train supplies is accurate given the fact that the Mormons were expecting the arrival of over 2,000 soldiers led by General Albert Sidney Johnston. President Buchanan was under the impression that a rebellion against the US government was underway in Utah and he wanted Young removed as territorial governor. Expecting a siege, the Mormons were instructed not to sell supplies to any emigrants passing through the territory.

The film gives the impression that the emigrants were fairly ignorant regarding Mormon teaching (outside of polygamy) and their founder Joseph Smith. The travelers are portrayed as a very thankful and pious group, but it is not hard to imagine that several of them probably viewed the Mormons with contempt, if for nothing more than their refusal to sell them material needed to continue their journey.

Looks like Bill and Ted have misread history again.

The only supplies that where refused where for the cattle.

Young states in the film, “until this moment I have protected emigrants who have passed through this territory, now I will loose the Indians upon them, and if any miserable scoundrel comes here to our Zion, cut his throat.” The italicized portion is a direct quote made by Young on July 8, 1855 (Journal of Discourses 2:311). However, Young also stated he would no longer restrain the Indians from attacking wagon trains passing through Utah territory. Will Bagley, in his excellent book, Blood of the Prophets, notes that on August 16, 1857 (one month prior to the massacre) Young declared, “If the United States send their army here and war commences, the travel must stop; your trains must not cross this continent back and forth. To accomplish this I need only say a word to the [tribes,] for the Indians will use them up unless I continually strive to restrain them. I will say no more to the Indians, let them alone, but do as you please. And what is that? It is to use them up, and they will do it” (Blood of the Prophets, p. 91. Citing Dimick Huntington’s Journal).

Yes and its also cherry picked mid-sentence and taken out of context. The same discourse he says... "Are we going to fight? No. Unless the compel us to fight or be slain".

[LifeOnaPlate]

I suppose they're missing their own "blind obedience" to the anti-Mormon party line.

The Mormons can do no good, and never have.

It's hard to see with that huge beam sticking out of the eye, yessir.

[bluebell]

it really doesn't matter. It makes me so angry sometimes, but when it does i try to remind myself that it really doesn't matter.

If these people have good intentions and are humble, then the Spirit will be able to show them the truth eventually and we will all be hugging in 'heaven' someday.

If these people have good intentions but are proud and hard hearted-then they are doing more harm to themselves then our words or righteous indignation ever could and God will judge them fairly for it and they will regret and have sorrow over their words and actions enough just knowing what they turned their backs on and fought against.

And if these people have bad intentions-then we will probably some day mourn their loss in our godly family and wish it could have been different but we will recongize they are happy with the limited blessings they have been given and hopefully we can be happy with them.

God knows my heart and God knows the hearts of the prophets and what these people think about mormonism or the mormon church matters not one ounce, in the eternal scheme of things.

[jwhitlock]

I continue to be amazed that anti-Mormons can't write better copy that is more generally appealing and balanced seeming.

Bill and Aaron seem to think that it is absolutely necessary to minimize and gloss over the film's very glaring faults, while making great effort to support and find any tenuous tie available for its very glaring inaccuracies.

The fact that the film was just about universally panned and poorly produced isn't worth hardly a mention.

Yet the documented inaccuracies and fictional fantasies need to be held up and supported at all cost because they make the Church and its leaders and its members look bad.

Just acknowledging that the film was a bomb would have helped their review tremendously - and yet they can't. To acknowledge that anything anti-Mormon is so flawed seems to be fatal (in their minds) to their cause. This is borne out over and over and over in anti-Mormon writings.

To their credit, they do seem to give some space to "inaccuracies" in the film. However, these are so minor, and explained away so easily, that it is apparent that the only reason they are mentioned is to try to give some semblence of "balance" to the review. Much larger issues are ignored.

Again, most enlightening are McKeever and Shafovoloff's remarks at the end indicating what they really think about members of the Church today. It's certainly something to keep in mind when looking at what they're saying.

[jwhitlock]

it really doesn't matter. It makes me so angry sometimes, but when it does i try to remind myself that it really doesn't matter.

It is very important to keep this in mind.

It is an amazing thing that the Church and the restored gospel of Jesus Christ continue to prosper and to roll forth despite the significant amount of opposition and vitriol targeted against them. What a testimony to the hand of God being evident in directing His work!

You are absolutely right - in the end, what is in our own hearts is what will matter before God, and not what was in the hearts of those who were overcome by the world.

The restored gospel is here to stay! I'm glad that I am on the side of the Lord and His Church.

[bluebell]

I continue to be amazed that anti-Mormons can't write better copy that is more generally appealing and balanced seeming.

Bill and Aaron seem to think that it is absolutely necessary to minimize and gloss over the film's very glaring faults, while making great effort to support and find any tenuous tie available for its very glaring inaccuracies.

The fact that the film was just about universally panned and poorly produced isn't worth hardly a mention.

Yet the documented inaccuracies and fictional fantasies need to be held up and supported at all cost because they make the Church and its leaders and its members look bad.

Just acknowledging that the film was a bomb would have helped their review tremendously - and yet they can't. To acknowledge that anything anti-Mormon is so flawed seems to be fatal (in their minds) to their cause. This is borne out over and over and over in anti-Mormon writings.

To their credit, they do seem to give some space to "inaccuracies" in the film. However, these are so minor, and explained away so easily, that it is apparent that the only reason they are mentioned is to try to give some semblence of "balance" to the review. Much larger issues are ignored.

Again, most enlightening are McKeever and Shafovoloff's remarks at the end indicating what they really think about members of the Church today. It's certainly something to keep in mind when looking at what they're saying.

I agree that they shoot themselves in the foot when they refuse to acknoweldge anything good in mormonism or the mormon people.

And it also shows that they have little, if any, charity-which is sad for people who call themselves Christian. And i really mean sad-not trying to be snarky.

[MorningStar]

That's a shocker.

[LifeOnaPlate]

jwhit makes a great point. September Dawn is like a giant sieve, seperating the completly blinded haters of the Church from the more sane objectors to the Church. If you read a positive review from a professed "Christian" you can usually set that person down as a "blind obeyer" of anything anti-Mormon, no matter how poorly done.

And as Brother Brigham said:

"Let the wicked rage and the people mock on, for now is their day, and it will soon be overâ?¦for we are determined, in the name of Israel's God, not to rest until we have revolutionized the world with truth; and if you persecute us, we will do it the quicker," (Brigham Young, 2:318).

[Bernard Gui]

Hey Aaron...of course you are reading this. Why not come on and

defend your positive review of SD?

Bernard

[maklelan]

Hey Aaron...of course you are reading this. Why not come on and

defend your positive review of SD?

Bernard

Has he ever defended any of the rancid anti-Mormon breastmilk that he has vomited up onto this board?

[LifeOnaPlate]

As Shaf told me when I asked why he ignored our questions on the MAD board:

For the most part, I just don't take many of the questions seriously enough to take the time to write the answers all out.

[bluebell]

As Shaf told me when I asked why he ignored our questions on the MAD board:

"For the most part, I just don't take many of the questions seriously enough to take the time to write the answers all out."

of course he does. If he didn't-he wouldn't frequent this board. People don't spend time on things they don't care about.

He said that becasue he was trying to provoke while being to insecure in his beliefs concerning the LDS faith to actually engage a group of us.

And not that i blame him.

[LifeOnaPlate]

of course he does. If he didn't-he wouldn't frequent this board. People don't spend time on things they don't care about.

He said that becasue he was trying to provoke while being to insecure in his beliefs concerning the LDS faith to actually engage a group of us.

And not that i blame him.

I believe what Shaf "doesn't take seriously enough" is Mormons. Not their questions, at all, but the fact that they are Mormons. He's not interested at all in doing anything here but decrying the LDS Church. It's harder to do that when the Mormons keep bringing up valid points.

[bluebell]

He's not interested at all in doing anything here but decrying the LDS Church. It's harder to do that when the Mormons keep bringing up valid points.

I would guess that this is the number one reason he's not interested in answering our questions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bill McKeever and Aaron Shafovaloff have jumped into the fray and put out their own review of September Dawn, which you can read here.

Is Bill McKeever the same as Hickpreacher?? I have often thought so.Ok maybe not Hick was from Denver. My favorite part of MRM is there little shpeel on are we bigots? If you look in the dictonary under bigot you would see a link to MRM. HA!!

[Doctor Steuss]

Maklelan,

In case I haven't told you lately, I love you.

Brilliant!

Side note:

Let me know when the next issue of Studia Antiqua comes out.

[jwhitlock]

I believe what Shaf "doesn't take seriously enough" is Mormons. Not their questions, at all, but the fact that they are Mormons. He's not interested at all in doing anything here but decrying the LDS Church. It's harder to do that when the Mormons keep bringing up valid points.

It's must easier to justify your denigration of a religious faith if you can characterize its adherents as unread, unintelligent, misguided, blind followers, gullible, etc., etc., etc.

Once you admit that there are intelligent people - in large numbers, in the case of the LDS Church - who follow that faith, you've got a problem. Most of your characterizations of that faith go out the window.

Perhaps that's why the MMM and analysis of motives in it is so interesting. One learns about the mischaracterizations of LDS attitudes and characteristics in 1857 that are perpetuated by today's critics. And then one learns that the same mischaracterizations are being applied to LDS today.

So, who do I believe? My lying eyes, and my faulty perceptions of the literally thousands of Latter-day Saints I have come in contact with? Or the "enlightened" critic, interested only in tearing down?

Critics of the Church in this manner are on shaky ground, indeed.

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

In case I haven't told you lately, I love you.

Brilliant!

Side note:

Let me know when the next issue of Studia Antiqua comes out.

It should be November. We've got some good stuff. One article on Zoroastrianism is from a classmate of mine who starts at Oxford next month. We'll be putting issues online at this website:

http://kennedy.byu.edu/academic/ANES/sane.php

Thanks for the support!

[Wiki Wonka]

Looks like Bill and Ted have misread history again.

The only supplies that where refused where for the cattle.

Yes and its also cherry picked mid-sentence and taken out of context. The same discourse he says... "Are we going to fight? No. Unless the compel us to fight or be slain".

It not just "cherry picked." The quote is incorrect for the reference.

What they said:

Young states in the film, â??until this moment I have protected emigrants who have passed through this territory, now I will loose the Indians upon them, and if any miserable scoundrel comes here to our Zion, cut his throat.â? The italicized portion is a direct quote made by Young on July 8, 1855 (Journal of Discourses 2:311).

What JoD says:

To diverge a little, in regard to those who have persecuted this people and driven them to the mountains, I intend to meet them on their own grounds. It was asked this morning how we could obtain redress for our wrongs; I will tell you how it could be done, we could take the same law they have taken, viz., mobocracy, and if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats. (All the people said, Amen.)

Journal of Discourses 2:311

This is blatant ignorance of the source of the quote, not cherry picking. I've searched, and the phrase "loose the Indians" doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the Journal of Discourses.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It not just "cherry picked." The quote is incorrect for the reference.

What they said:

Young states in the film, â??until this moment I have protected emigrants who have passed through this territory, now I will loose the Indians upon them, and if any miserable scoundrel comes here to our Zion, cut his throat.â? The italicized portion is a direct quote made by Young on July 8, 1855 (Journal of Discourses 2:311).

What JoD says:

To diverge a little, in regard to those who have persecuted this people and driven them to the mountains, I intend to meet them on their own grounds. It was asked this morning how we could obtain redress for our wrongs; I will tell you how it could be done, we could take the same law they have taken, viz., mobocracy, and if any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats. (All the people said, Amen.)

Journal of Discourses 2:311

This is blatant ignorance of the source of the quote, not cherry picking. I've searched, and the phrase "loose the Indians" doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the Journal of Discourses.

Imagine that, some one would lies about a passage in the JoD to get a point across. Shame on them!

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's called "quote mining," and Brother Brigham knew all about it.

In my conversation, I shall talk and act as I please. Still I am always aware, when speaking in public, that there are those present who are disposed to find fault with this people, and to try to raise a prejudice against them; and they will pick up isolated words and sentences, and put them together to suit themselves, and send forth a garbled version to prejudice the world against us. Such a course I never care anything about; for I have frequently said, spoken words are but wind, and when they are spoken are gone; consequently I take liberties in speaking which I do not allow when I commit my sentiments to writing. (Journal of Discourses 2:179)

[Marmonboy]

See, he WAS a prophet!

It's too bad that Bro. Brigham didn't realize that others were writing down those liberties in speaking he was making, and that they would come back later to bite him (and us) in the rear.

[LifeOnaPlate]

See, he WAS a prophet!

It's too bad that Bro. Brigham didn't realize that others were writing down those liberties in speaking he was making, and that they would come back later to bite him (and us) in the rear.

While reading his discourses I'd say separating the wheat from the chaff is very, very easy, and makes it all worthwhile.

[Wiki Wonka]

It's called "quote mining," and Brother Brigham knew all about it.

I guess while they were mining that quote, the vein must have run out...

What a disadvantage when the honest folks have to depend upon actual quotes that were actually recorded, while critics can make up anything they want, slap a bogus citation on it that nobody will check, call it credible, and all like-minded thinkers will buy it hook, line and sinker without question. Then, it gets made into a movie...