Posted on 08/18/2007 11:25:10 AM PDT by tantiboh
Due to USA Today's copyright complaints, I couldn't link to the actual editorial, and I didn't think it wise to excerpt the actual piece, but here's the address:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/08/hollywoods-terr.html
The review is also discussed here:
http://www.romneyexperience.com/2007/08/14/new-defenses/
Excerpt: "Michael Medved reviews September Dawn, the upcoming flick about an episode of 19th century Mormon violence. Medved makes the very good point that Mormons generally take their public opinion licks pretty well, with no signs of rioting in the streets or driving explosives laden cars into crowds. Given this, Medved argues that Hollywood’s drive to portray Mormons as terrorists, while giving Islamic Jihadists a complete pass, is a little suspicious. This is not a Romney-focused argument, but it’s nice to see a vigorous defense of a minority religious community that is full of nothing if not good citizens."
Yeah, isn't it overwhelming and overkill when Hollywood elects to do one movie over almost a century on the original 9/11 act of terrorism in this country.
If my memory of history serves me correctly, wasn't allowed to remain as governor...in fact, I think he stepped down only a few months after the mass murder.
Mention the MMM and the anti-Mormon brigade starts firing shots. Here are some facts:
1. The wagon train pillaged their way through Utah making many enemies.
2. They left poisoned meat for the Indians, some of whom died.
3. They were considered murderers by the Indians, and no doubt by some of the Mormons.
4. An anthropologist who examined their bones concluded that they were killed by tomahawks not by bullets.
5. The Danites were never part of the Mormon church.
6. Half of Utah were sealed to Brigham Young. It means nothing if Lee was sealed to him.
7. A common source of lies is the speculation of people who project themselves onto historical figures.
8. Brigham Young’s message to the church in southern Utah was to give safe passage of the wagon train through the area. The message arrived by messenger too late to have an effect.
All three of you, Khnyny, tanty & resty have commented on the suspicious delayed release of the film.
I think the bigger question is the suspicious delayed release of a LDS/Salt Lake City HQ release of a book about the MMM!!! Three historian/academic type researcher-authors were given recent access to many LDS church archives, etc. on the matter & were given approval by LDS HQ to come out with a 2007 book on the MMM.
Wanna explain why if a movie about MMM delayed one year is suspicious but a LDS HQ approved book about MMM (a decision postponed for who knows how many years?) is ho-hum to you? If you can publicly question the motivations of the timing of the movie's release, then please show some consistency and open question the LDS HQ in SLC about why the delay to open up its archives to this issue!!!
A similar question is the "suspicious" absence of full-length movies made by LDS on this matter. LDS have done full-length movies on historical figures like Joseph Smith, etc.; but why the wait to address other historical figures like John D. Lee, LDS' militia, and the latter days of Brigham Young as governor? So Young's "crisis" situations as governor are 100% irrelevant to LDS film-makers?
Oh, sure. History shows that Young had absolutely "zero" tendencies to be authoritarian as territorial governor (let alone "prophet"). So the Utah militia felt no qualms at all about attacking a wagon train of 120-140 without running it by Young. Your "too late" apologetic applied to the final question of the wagon train members. The fact is they had already been under siege for a few days.
They left poisoned meat for the Indians, some of whom died.
Oh yeah. (We all know the natives had CSI Cedar City back then to make instanteous linkages between perpetrators & victims)
An anthropologist who examined their bones concluded that they were killed by tomahawks not by bullets.
Whoever came up with this (and I'm sure it wasn't you) was quite a desperado.
(1) Many shots are going to tear through flesh & organs but not even hit bones.
(2) They erected another monument at the site 7-8 yrs ago & they were still finding bones then!!! Further modern technology showed three specific areas where bones are buried. The LDS Church (claiming the victims' descendents don't want the bones dug up) won't allow these bones to be dug up. The point is that many bones haven't even been examined.
(3) If Native Americans were involved in the attack (and they were), then of course, not every victim is going to have a bullet wound if guns were not the Natives' weapon of choice in the attack.
(4) We all know that the LDS dressed up as Native Americans in the attack. (So tell me, if you decide to dress up as a Native American next Halloween, would you bring a gun or a tomahawk as a prop weapon?)
The Danites were never part of the Mormon church.
While I'm sure, if you could even come up with a complete Danite list, you could point to some who were non-members, the fact is that their activities could never have been allowed to continue under the tight control Young maintained of his territory. To assume that Young would allow such vigilante renegades to roam like an unaccountable gang is non-sensical when you study the "reform" years of LDS history in the 1850s.
The wagon train pillaged their way through Utah making many enemies.
Let's see. Of the 120 estimated victims, we have names of half of them & ages for about a-fourth of them. I believe of those names about one-fourth of them were 7,8, 9 year-olds. There were no doubt dozens of other children children killed (1 infant is named by family name) and we know many children under 7 were kidnapped and "adopted" by LDS families in Southern Utah...perhaps up to 20 of them. Then dozens of the victims were women.
So we probably had 70-85 of the 140 who were women & minors. (Were they the leading pillagers?)
And what kind of "pillaging" did they do? Pick an unauthorized dandelion? Shoot a squirrel for squirrel soup?
2. They left poisoned meat for the Indians, some of whom died.
3. They were considered murderers by the Indians, and no doubt by some of the Mormons.
I'm sure this was believed by many Mormons and Indians at the time. There may even have been some basis in reality. What is more likely is that rumors flew around SW Utah, whipping the people into a frenzy. It is likely that similar rumors contributed a lot to the attacks on Mormons in MO and IL.
There are some indications that disease, perhaps spread by an asymptomatic carrier with the wagon train, tended to follow in its path. Not surprisingly, the families and friends of those who fell sick tended to believe in poisoning. I've read accounts of supposed poisoning of springs, as well as of meat. Nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction what emigrants, who needed to cut every ounce of weight they could, were doing carrying massive amounts of poison.
The parallels to the Jews in the Middle Ages being blamed for outbreaks of plague are obviousl
“Romney’s pending candidacy was well known a year ago.”
Longer than that, I recall some commentator at the SLC Olympics opening ceremony commenting on Mitt having Presidential ambitions.
We don't dictate to others what they can or can't do, don't confused covenants with the Lord and your chaotic thinking!
The Danites were never part of the Mormon church.
How silly CF there are some LDS freepers but freepers are not a part of the Church, there are some LDS republicans and Democrats but neither organization belong to the Church!
We are not a tight butt like you Colofornian we always have had free agency and free will!
Wait, wait. You said the following:
“(1) Many shots are going to tear through flesh & organs but not even hit bones.”
“(4) We all know that the LDS dressed up as Native Americans in the attack. (So tell me, if you decide to dress up as a Native American next Halloween, would you bring a gun or a tomahawk as a prop weapon?)”
So... which was it? Were the victims shot or tomahawked? Your assertions seem to contradict each other.
~”What is more likely is that rumors flew around SW Utah...”~
Given the war footing in Utah at the time, what with the US Army about to march in, rumors, suspicion, and distrust abounded. This probably was one of the extenuating circumstances that explain the actions of the perpetrators.
It was not a good few months.
The obvious answer is both...and it's obvious because we know the M.O. even after the cover-up.
Question 1: Did most the victims die at short-range, execution-style (sounds like the Mormon mafia); or, did most of the victims die long-range?
Answer: The former. While it's true that the initial victims were ambushed by gunfire from a distance, the Arkansas travelers fought back & fought to a standstill. It was John D. Lee who promised them safe passageway, thus deceiving them to their deaths. At this point, the wagon train travelers gave up their weaponry and were killed at short range.
As for the seeming discrepancy of my points, Question #2: As to pt #4, which weapon was the weapon of availability to Native Americans? Answer: Not guns.
Does that mean Native Americans did not have access to guns? (No way. Even just watchin' Hollywood's Westerns, we know Natives DID get access to guns). But still, was it their most prominent weapon in 1857? No. Could they have had them at MMM? Maybe yes, maybe no (I don't think Utes or LDS or their descendents were talkin').
But still, my points stand. If you're choosin' a prop for Native American warrior attire, a gun would be fine but would not be "prototypical."
As for point #1, of course, there HAD to have been at least SOME guns used by Mormons (even if not every Mormon perpetrator wielded one). There's no way LDS head-hunters would take on a wagon train of 140--many of whom had guns both for hunting & protection--minus guns.
Not every mass murderer uses only one weapon, and when you're talkin' about literally dozens of mass murderers all operating simultaneously, you're talkin' about more weapons (likely) than there were murderers. So my take is that BOTH guns & other weapons were used; and that the LDS perpetrators involved were more likely to use guns, especially early on in the attack. I mean if you're killing defenseless women & children, it wouldn't have taken much force to kill them minus a gun.
Tantiboh is right. There were lots a rumors floatin' 'round Dixie (Mormontalk for Southern Utah) in those days.
In addition to the rumors of war Tanty's mentioning, among those rumors were ones of revenge against Arkansas folks because Parley Pratt, a family tie to Mitt Romney, had just been killed as an LDS missionary in Arkansas. (An Arkansas husband wasn't too happy that his wife was heading West with Pratt, who was adding her as wife #13...well, either wife #12 or #13...[who can keep track of all the Mormon wives, even bigamist ones being added to the polygamist lineup]).
Resty, could we please avoid such name-calling? (Or were you simply complimenting my male physique & decided to openly flirt w/me?)
I suppose that depends on how well-defined your gluteals are...
In my case, unfortunately, such a phrase would certainly be name-calling.
In addition to the rumors of war Tanty's mentioning, among those rumors were ones of revenge against Arkansas folks because Parley Pratt, a family tie to Mitt Romney, had just been killed as an LDS missionary in Arkansas. (An Arkansas husband wasn't too happy that his wife was heading West with Pratt, who was adding her as wife #13...well, either wife #12 or #13...[who can keep track of all the Mormon wives, even bigamist ones being added to the polygamist lineup]).
Excerpt Eleanor McLean and the Murder of Parley P. Pratt by Steven Pratt 1
That Mr. McLean put me by violence into the street at night, and locked the door against me, Captain Grey and Dr. Bush are witnesses; and I presume McLean himself would not deny that I then declared that I would no more be his wife however many years I might be compelled to appear as such for the sake of my children. 8
Even though she embraced Mormonism in November of 1851, she was not baptized until 24 May 1854, by William McBride. 9 Although he had given his written permission for her to be baptized and she continued to live with Hector, he forbade her to sing Mormon hymns or to read Mormon literature in his home. Eleanor did not comply fully with his rules, however, for she made it a practice to hold morning devotionals with her children while Hector was away, and sought all available means to stay in contact with the Church.
Parley Meets Eleanor
Parley Pratt, having been called by the First Presidency to preside over the Pacific Mission and to set up a gathering place for the Saints in San Jose, arrived in San Francisco on 2 July 1854. 10 Upon his arrival, he immediately went to San Jose, picked up his wife Elizabeth, who had come to California earlier, and returned to San Francisco, where they first rented a small house for $25 a month. When it proved to be inadequate, they moved to a larger home on Broadway Street which cost them $35 a month. 11 They had few funds and little to eat but were cared for by members of the branch, including Eleanor McLean.
She brought the Pratts food, bedding, and clothing and became a frequent visitor at their home, often arriving at dawn with gifts of meat, bread, fruit and other articles which sustained the Pratts until the next day. 12 This was a great help to Parley, because Elizabeth was sick most of the time and could do very little for herself or her husband. During her visits, Eleanor told Parley and Elizabeth of her home situation and asked Parley to help her solve her problems.
Parley did visit the McLean home a few times to try to reconcile Hector and Eleanor's differences, but succeeded only in making Hector more bitter. 13 Eleanor appears to have decided that there was no chance that her husband would join the Church, but she decided that her children should belong. So on 27 August 1854, she took her two oldest children, Fitzroy and Albert, to Union City, where Parley was holding a meeting, and had him baptize them into the Church. 14
Shortly after the two boys were baptized, Hector decided that the only way to save his family from the Mormons was to have his wife committed to an asylum; consequently he filed a charge of insanity against Eleanor. When Parley was informed of Hector's plan, he assigned a young missionary to try to stop Hector.
In my case, unfortunately, such a phrase would certainly be name-calling.
Anal retentive/tight butt - the term is often used to describe a person deemed to be overly obsessed with minor details.
Hey, nice recovery. (We know you were tryin' to get away w/a subtle flirt...now that it's been highlighted, ya don't wanna come across as some brazen woman magnetically attracted to me...so you retreat).
;) [Oh, that wasn't a wink, BTW]
This murder is sometimes put forward as an example of persecution of Mormons.
Given the general reaction of a southern man of the time to his wife taking off with anybody, that doesn't seem to be particularly fair. He would quite likely have killed him just as quick if he'd been Orthodox or Quaker.
As usual, there is more to the story than commonly told. The women in question had lost her children to her ex's custody, went to where they were staying with his parents in LA, and essentially (in today's terms) kidnapped them. The murder of Pratt was partly in response to this kidnapping. (I'm speaking from memory from a book I read several years ago, so the details may be somewhat off.) I've been unable to track down whether the murderer was ever charged or convicted in this case. Obviously there would have been a lot of sympathy for him among southern men on a jury.
I am old enough to be your mother!:) LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.