Mormons Have you see September Dawn?

Question

What do you think about the movie is it true?
How Many more have to die? The early Mormon church taught Blood Atomement.
The Church needs to admit the role in massare.

Answer 1

I have been really curious to see it, as I live in Utah and was once an active Mormon. I know a lot about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but I cannot speak to the facts as presented in the film, as it's ALWAYS checked out at the video store, and it isn't a title I'd want to watch more than once, so I don't want to buy it. Sooner or later, I will be able to watch it.

I can tell you from living in Zion that there are two types of faithful LDS people--the people who take complete responsibility for the massacre, and those who would like to sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened. Actually, there's a third type--the ones who don't know anything about it. The LDS Church has tried to rectify that. When the memorial was unveiled several years ago, LDS church leaders were in attendance, and they have encouraged people to learn about it. People, however, and I believe this is not just in the LDS church but in all organized faiths, only listen to their leaders when they like what they say. (Many, many Mormons vote Republican because they think "that's the way the church leaders vote" when in actuality, there are more than a few Democrats in high leadership positions, and the leadership addresses voting regularly--they state unequivocally that it is the responsibility of every single member to read up on issues and candidates, and then vote with their conscience, but people just ignore them--it's easier to just be a member of the herd because sheep don't have to think.) Regardless of what the leaders say, most people fall into the third category--they know something bad happened, but they are really hazy on the details, and not tremendously interested in finding out about it. The ones who want to sweep it under the rug just make fools of themselves as they try to explain and justify it away. The first group stand up and state it was wrong and that the LDS Church needs to take full responsibility for its role in the massacre.

One of the problems is that one man took responsibility for planning it, and he refused to implicate leaders like Brigham Young. What is known is that before the massacre, Young had told the faithful that since they had been driven from their homes and had to come west, and since the US government was still giving them trouble, they should not trade with gentiles (non-Mormons) on westward bound trips. That in and of itself is pretty harsh, considering the fact that this (Salt Lake City) was pretty much the last big settlement until you reached Sacramento. Not being able to buy supplies here from the Mormons was hard, as most wagon trains that went the northern route had counted on topping off supplies here. The only saving grace is that there were gentiles living among the Mormons even then, and they would and did trade with wagon trains. A lot of Mormons also disobeyed Young and traded anyway, not for the money, but simply because they knew how hard it was to get here, and that the desert and mountains on the way to California could easily kill people (remember the Donner party? It wasn't that they didn't load up supplies carefully, it's that they underestimated the time it would take them to cross the Salt Flats, which set them back considerably on their time table, and left them trapped when the early snows came), and that the good, loving, Christian thing to do was help people on their trips. That disobedience may have raised eyebrows with the neighbors, but it probably saved a lot of lives.

Anyway, one man took responsibility for it. He refused to implicate church leaders. He also said that he basically tempted, forced and cajoled the other Mormons who participated in it into doing it. The Native Americans didn't care one way or another--the Baker-Fancher party had a lot of really good cattle and expensive horses, and they were promised their pick of the livestock if they would help out. The children who were taken from the group and assimilated into local homes were not old enough to be able to tell properly who was really a Paiute and who was in disguise, so it's hard to tell who did what. All of that is sort of academic now, however, since the simple fact is that we know what happened--it doesn't really matter what the heritage of a man is when he turns a gun on an innocent woman or man, does it? They were slaughtered, and their bodies left to rot in the sun. Two years later, when US Army officers were sent to investigate, they testified that there were plants growing that had huge clumps of long hair entangled in them--as the women's bodies decomposed in the sun, their long hair blew off and caught in nearby plants. The Army party gathered all the remains they could find and buried them. The man who organized the whole thing was excommunicated, along with at least one other Mormon, and the organizer was executed, but actually, when it comes to Blood Atonement, Brigham Young said that the man's sins were so great that not even blood atonement could cleanse him completely.

Unfortunately, the real truth of what happened in that peaceful meadow is known only to certain individuals, and none of them told the entire truth before leaving this Earth, which means that we, now, more than a century later, can never know the actual, true story. There were people who wrote about it in letters and personal journals, but no one knows for sure if the information available is the COMPLETE story. The children who were given a reprieve and taken away were able to give some testimony, but it was thought best not to force them to recall such a traumatic experience, so no one is positive about their stories, either. One thing I do believe firmly is that they did meet with justice, and that the judgement they faced was more stern and more terrible than anything they could have possibly faced in this life. I would rather take my punishment in full for something here on Earth, even if it meant being executed, than have to stand before God and attempt to explain my behavior to Him.

Also, just so you know, the actual concept of Blood Atonement, as it was originally taught and before it was corrupted, applied to Mormons themselves. It held that there are some sins so grievous that Christ's atonement just doesn't cut it, and that the only way a Mormon could cleanse his soul of those crimes was by having his own blood shed. It later was applied to other people who weren't Mormon. The Church stated a long time ago (like 30 years, I think) that it is not a correct doctrine, and should not be followed. It is still followed and believed to be correct by some people, and by the Mormon fundamentalists (who are technically not Mormon--they are excommunicated promptly for other practices if it happens that they were ever members of the actual LDS church).

Additionally, just so you know, the LDS leadership admits freely that Mormons participated. What they do not admit, because there is nothing to back it up, is whether or not Brigham Young had any role in it. It is completely unknown whether or not he ordered it, or if the Mormons down in Southern Utah who did it had the idea on their own, or borrowed it from other angry Mormons. Considering how the LDS church has changed in the course of its history, and how it continues to change, I think that if they could say for sure that men in positions of high leadership were definitely responsible, they would probably admit it. Short of someone finding genuine documents from Brigham Young or one of his counselors admitting that it was ordered and the order executed, I doubt that they will ever take "institutional" responsibility for it. And honestly, just in general, what kind of idiot (other than Hitler) writes down that they gave those kind of orders? Massacres are usually discussed in back rooms, among people who take secrecy seriously, so it's hard to know where all the blame lies.

Answer 2

I love the logic here. To keep an open mind is to watch the movie. To have a closed mind is to not watch the movie. What if I am Mormon and have already read heaps on the Mountain Meadows Massacre? What if I know what happened is tragic and I realize, oh my goodness, there are humans in the LDS church--people who make horrible mistakes just like people have in other religions? Why do I need to financially support a film that has gotten horrific reviews for quality alone and that most critics in online newspapers agree portrayed the Mormons in an unnaturally demonic way, such as nations do to the enemy at wartime? Maybe if the director had tried to present this tragedy in a more balanced and historically accurate way and if the film work were not so infamously shoddy, I would give it the time of day. As a Mormon, I do not need to be coddled in the worldview of my church all the time. I can look at the warts in our history and can be saddened by it. I am not afraid of fact, but that doesn't mean I have to line up to view a poorly made hatchet job. REPLY to Kelly Kapowski: No worries. I don't get offended easily. Having grown up among Mormons, I don't believe that so many crazy fanatics could produce as many good-spirited, level-headed people as have influenced me in my church environment. I just think it is a shame that an atrocity such as this gets to overshadow all the good the LDS church has done that was also "committed" in the name of their religion. It's not so much that the movie was made that bothers me (history has a right to be known), but that it painted past Mormons in such an ugly way. I'm not even active in the church right now for personal reasons, but am compelled to defend it because I know how hard the Mormons, generally, try to do good to each other and to neighbors not of the faith.

Answer 3

If the best parts of a movie are in the trailer, I won't bother seeing this. Yes there was a massacre, the local Mormons were at fault. The church leaders could have done a better job of disclosing the facts. The church has accepted responsibility. Read this months Ensign. There is an extensive article.

Answer 4

I watched the movie. While there are parts that aren't correct, there are others that are accurate.
There is alot of deep LDS doctrine talked about in the movie such as blood atonement, being a god or goddess and having your own planet. I think many people will not understand what they are talking about unless they are LDS, former LDS ,or know alot about the doctrines of the church.

Answer 5

What I want to know is if the mormon church ever publicly apologized for the incident. Acknowledging that it happened, and apologizing for it are two completely different things.

Answer 6

Yeah, what happened was something that is very sad, but we don't try to hide it, our current prophet has bulit a monument for the site, putting the names of those, who they know of, on the monument. I've looked into this a lot and found a good article by a man who is on a historian society and has studied a lot about this topic.
here's the link: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html

and no I haven't seen the movie, I don;t think its oput yet here, and i think that guy that plays Young is a bad actor, what's his name....anyway, he was good in the movie Holes.

Answer 7

Never heard of it. But I'm in Australia and there are a lot of movies in America that we never get to see.

Answer 8

Ooh, I'd like to hear the reactions to this one!

Answer 9

The mormon church is just another crazy cult, it's like scientology but with more members.

If Romney were to be elected president, then we are all screwed.