Category Archives: LDS History

More “September Dawn” silliness

LDS History, Main, Media

[UPDATED 03/03/07 – 1625 MDT]

I was wrong on one prediction below — “September Dawn” managed to break the $1 million mark for total gross to date (vs. a production budget of $11 million). However, it did nosedive in number of theaters (415, down from 872 last weekend), total gross for the 3-day weekend ($129,000 vs. $608,157, nearly an 80% drop — horrific for a movie in its 2nd weekend of release), and per theater gross for the 3-day weekend ($310/theater vs. $702/theater last weekend). Clearly, there’s no groundswell for this film. Maybe the distributors will have better luck selling the DVD.

[ORIGINAL POST]

OK, people are welcome to have their various opinions about “September Dawn” even though most critics think it’s wretched and there appear to be some real historical howlers in it. For example, from what I’ve read, there’s a sequence in which one of the characters is forced(!) to go through the temple endowment ceremony down in southern Utah, even though there were no temples down there until 20 years after the Mountain Meadows attack, and the only ‘endowment house’ in operation was hundreds of miles north, in Salt Lake City. Also, at that point, in order to attend the temple, you had to have the explicit approval of the LDS Church President (this continued until the early 20th century).

But I’ve run across this article in which the author suggests that the flood of poor reviews for “September Dawn” is due to — wait for it — quiet sabotage on the part of the LDS Church:

While the Mormon hierarchy denies any effort to directly or indirectly sabotage the film, it seems possible much of the criticism dealing with the film is derived from some common blueprint. Perhaps the suggestion is wrong — indeed, I sincerely hope that it is — but, while not being prone to embrace conspiratorial theories, I can understand those who question coincidence in matters of this nature. However, any effort to suppress speech in such a manner would not be in keeping with the thinking of friends of mine in the Mormon community. No matter how upset they might be with what they considered to be an unfair criticism of their religion, they are Americans first and Mormons second. As a consequence, they respect our freedoms, particularly freedom of expression. They would grit their teeth and let the film rise or fall on its artistic merits, secure in the knowledge that it is merely a film and their religion is more than strong enough to withstand any criticism — accurate and profound or unfair and derivative. And, again, no such criticism of the present day LDS Church was ever intended. Moreover, it concerns me that members of a great religion, such as Mormonism, may feel the need to sabotage a film in order to preserve their version of history.

The author, Ken Eliasberg, seems to seriously think that the LDS Church has somehow managed to convince critics as diverse, well-known and/or visible as Michael Medved (USA Today), Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), Dessen Thompson (Washington Post), Steve Heyden (Onion AV Club), Matt Zoeler Seitz (New York Times), Owen Gleiberman (Entertainment Weekly) and J. Hoberman (Village Voice) to give “September Dawn” the rather poor reviews it has received. Once again, I simply point people to the list at Rotten Tomatoes (which is back down to 15% “fresh” — which means 85% “rotten”).

Eliasberg’s key evidence, apparently, is his claim that several reviewers have used the term “ham-fisted”, suggesting (as per the quote above) “some common blueprint”. Eliasberg does not apparently realize that “ham-fisted” is not that uncommon a term for, well, reviews of ham-fisted movies. A Google search for [movie “ham-fisted” review] yields nearly over 100,000 hits. And they’re not all “September Dawn”.

Meanwhile, the movie itself is nose-diving at the box office, will likely be out of theaters altogether within another week or two, and may not even break the $1 million box office mark (it’s currently grossed $836,000 through Thursday). Based on the reviews I’ve read, I would say that Mr. Eliasberg got his wish that the movie “rise or fall on its artistic merits.”

I don’t mean to sound snippy, but this is, in a word, asinine. And, just possibly, ham-fisted. ..bruce..

P.S. Having written this, I’ve discovered that Carol Schutter, the co-author of the screenplay for “September Dawn”, appears to be the one making the claims of LDS Church conspiracy behind the film’s bad reviews, going so far as to issue a press release.

“September Dawn” flops

LDS History, Main, Media

[UPDATED 09/09/07 – 0752 MDT: Someone else has noticed possible parallels between the Utah War and the US invasion of Iraq. In the meantime, “September Dawn”has now vanished entirely from Denver theaters after just two weeks.]

[UPDATED 08/30/07 – 1742 CDT: The ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ score has rised to 16% (from 15%), and I’ve noted that change below. However, estimated daily grosses for Monday through Wednesday have been $64,000, $65,000, and $54,000 respectively, still for 857 theaters, which means that each theater is getting about 10 people/day to see it. I suspect this film will lose a lot of theaters this coming weekend.]

[UPDATED 08/28/07 – 2342 CDT: I’ve had to revise the box office figures down even more — all of the original weekend estimates (~$1 million, $635K, $615k) were too high.]

[UPDATED 08/27/07 – I’ve updated the box office figures [twice now] and made a few other edits.]

The film “September Dawn“, purporting to show the events of the horrific Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, appears to have crashed and burned, both with the public and with most movie critics. In limited release (857 theatres) and with heavy advertising (there was a full-page ad for it in Friday’s Rocky Mountain News), it still only managed an anemic $702/venue this past weekend, for an opening-weekend total of $601,857. Critics were not all that kind, either; the film has managed only a 16% ‘fresh’ rating at Rotten Tomatoes, while the (LDS Church-owned) Deseret News published a round-up of scathing comments by critics.

From what I can tell, the flop status is well-deserved. The director (and co-screenwriter), Christopher Cain, appears to have made the presentation so one-sided (evil Mormons!) as to induce incredulity even among film reviewers who have no reason to be sympathetic to Mormons. The polemics led Roger Ebert to state in the Chicago Sun-Times, “The Mormons are presented in no better light than Nazis and Japanese were in Hollywood’s World War II films. Wasn’t there a more thoughtful and insightful way to consider this historical event?”

Ebert’s last statement there points out the real missed opportunity. The Mountain Meadows Massacre happened and is an horrific blot on LDS history. Contrary to some claims by film critics (probably based on promotional materials from the film), the events have not been covered up until recently; the classic historical work on the subject, The Mountain Meadows Massacre, was written and published over half a century ago (1950) by Juanita Brooks, who was a BYU graduate and an active Latter-day Saint. Mormons have been wrestling with this event ever since.

In the hands of a skilled screenwriter and director, these events could have made for a very uncomfortable and thought-provoking film. Consider the historical events leading up to the massacre:

Continue reading “September Dawn” flops →

Succession in LDS Leadership

LDS History, LDS Organization, Main, Succession,

[UPDATED 01/27/08 2125 MST]

This entry is suddenly getting a lot of hits, due undoubtedly to the death earlier today of Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley. With the death of Pres. Hinckley, the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been dissolved; Pres. Thomas S. Monson and Pres. Henry B. Eyring return to the Council of the Twelve Apostles (which now actually has 14 apostles in it); and Pres. Monson resumes his role as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, taking over from Pres. Boyd K. Packer, who has been serving as Acting President of the Twelve.

The Quorum of the Twelve, under the leadership of Pres. Monson, now leads the LDS Church. At some point, most likely within the next week or two, the Quorum of the Twelve will move to reorganize the First Presidency, with Pres. Thomas S. Monson as President of the Church, along with two counselors of his choosing. There’s a good chance (based on tradition) that Pres. Monson will retain Elder Eyring as one of his counselors, but that’s Pres. Monson’s choice, not a requirement.

Also note that this means that a new member of the Quorum of the Twelve will be called, though possibly not until the LDS General Conference in April.

[UPDATED 10/06/07 1034 MDT – Elder Henry B. Eyring has been called and sustained as 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency, while Elder Quentin L. Cook has been called to the Quorum of the Twelve. See here.]

==================== [ORIGINAL POST] ==============================

Peggy Fletcher Stack over in the Salt Lake Tribune writes about the “wild speculation” (her phrase, not mine) regarding whom Pres. Hinckley will call to replace Pres. Faust as 2nd Counselor in the First Presidency. First, in my own experience, the speculation tends to be tame rather than wild, though (in fairness) it’s probably a bit more of a topic of discussion within Utah than outside of it. Second, Stack gives no substantive basis for the specific candidates she mentions; one could as easily list all of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve instead of the few she picks out. Stack does correctly note that counselors have on occasion been chosen from outside of the Quorum of the Twelve, though it’s been roughly half a century since that happened. However, she incorrectly states that the calling as a counselor in the First Presidency is a “lifetime calling”; when the President of the Church dies, his counselors are automatically released and revert back to their positions in (or outside of) the Quorum of the Twelve, and the new President of the Church is free to select whomever he wants as counselors. (I sent Peggy a note on this, and she replied that she inadvertently left out a conditional phrase; easy enough to do with deadlines.)

Those minor quibbles aside, Stack’s article clearly lays out the principles underlying succession at the highest level of the LDS Church. Once you are called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, you are on a very slow-moving track toward being President of the Church — but only if you live long enough (i.e., longer than those called before you). This has always struck me as a very elegant and corruption-free process. There is no voting, no jockeying for position, no way to leapfrog ahead of those called to the Quorum before you. It is, quite literally, in God’s hands.

Continue reading Succession in LDS Leadership →

Pres. James E. Faust (1920-2007)

LDS History, LDS Organization, Main

One of my most distinct LDS General Conference memories over the past 40 years surrounds Pres. Faust being called as a General Authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After having been sustained as an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve earlier in the conference, he got up to speak briefly. He opened his first-ever talk in General Conference by saying, “For 22 years, until last Thursday morning, I have been a lawyer. And since then I have been trying to repent.” Laughter rumbled through the Tabernacle.

Copyright (c) 2006 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

That was in October 1972,  just five years after I had joined the Church and while I was in the Language Training Mission, learning Spanish for my two years down in Central America. For the last 35 years, I have always enjoyed, listened carefully to, and learned from Pres. Faust’s remarks in General Conference and elsewhere. As a former Democratic state legislator and a former member of Pres. Kennedy’s Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law, he has served as a role model for those of us in the Church who believe that there are — or at least were — core principles within the Democratic Party worth defending and promoting.

I will miss his warm voice and unmistakable cadence, which I have listened to for nearly two-thirds of my entire life. My prayers are with his family and friends.  ..bruce..

Mormons and the Vietnam-Era Draft

LDS History, Main, Military, Politics

I see that the Boston Globe, as part of their campaign against Mitt Romney, is trying to paint a sinister portrait of the LDS Church working “hand-in-hand” with the Selective Service Board on draft deferments for LDS young men serving full-time missions during the Vietnam era.

What a load of hooey.

Not that the deferments didn’t happen; they did. I should know: I had one. My draft number (in the 1972 spring draft) was 4, an absolute guarantee that I would be drafted after my 2-year (fixed-term) mission was over. The only person on my dorm floor with a draft number under 100 was Glade Roper (now a judge in Texas), who spent the next few weeks calling me “Sarge”. I made my plans to enlist in the Navy when I came back, since I would no longer have a ministerial deferment at that point. As it turned out, I didn’t have to; the draft ended several months before I returned from Central America.

But this is why the Boston Globe story is a load of hooey: during the Vietnam Era, Mormons were almost certainly over-represented in the US Armed Forces. At a time when many universities were banning or discouraging military recruiters and eliminating their ROTC programs, BYU welcomed all such recruiters and had large and active Army and Air Force ROTC programs. Likewise, anti-war protests during the Vietnam Era were relatively rare and small at BYU. US-based Mormons as a rule were at this time fiercely patriotic, pro-military, and generally anti-Communist; they probably questioned the Vietnam War less than any other major religious group in the US, even when the LDS leaders themselves had long-standing concerns and issues.

By and large, Mormons were not draft-dodgers; instead they were volunteers. Yes, ministerial deferments were available for the standard two-year period of serving a mission, but many LDS young men turned around after those two years and either enlisted or were drafted. In fact, the only person I personally knew of who died in Vietnam was Paul Rose, the older brother of an LDS acquaintance in a neighboring ward (LDS congregation) in La Mesa, California.

I know nothing of Mitt Romney’s personal history with the draft and military service; as I’ve noted before, he’s not my choice for President, and I feel no particular need to defend him. But the Boston Globe’s insinuation that Latter-day Saints were collectively a bunch of draft dodgers is just silly.  ..bruce..

Mormonism and Democratic Politics: Are They Compatible?

LDS History, Main, Media, Politics

Richard Bushman is probably the great LDS historian of our generation, much as Leonard Arrington was of his. Under the auspices of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Bushman sat down with a group of journalists to try to explain, from a historical perspective, LDS interaction with society and politics. His comments, as always, are insightful, informed, and honest. A sample:

Joseph Smith was nominated as a protest candidate in February of 1844. Like other protest candidates, he began to warm to his work and got quite excited about it. He may have dreamed for a moment that through some strange concatenation of events, he would get elected. Every candidate has to dream such things.

His involvement in politics was manifested in a political platform of which he was very proud. He would bring it out whenever he had visitors and read from it. It is an interesting document because it represents a man whose world had been his own people, whose own project had been to create a kingdom of God, and who now had to turn his mind to politics.

He began by citing the Declaration of Independence, the famous passages about all men being equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, which of course could be a lead-in to religious rights. But he didn’t use it that way. Instead, in the very next sentence, he talked about the obvious contradiction: “Some two or three million people are held as slaves for life because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours.” His platform called for the elimination of slavery, proposing that the funds from the sale of Western lands, a major source of revenue along with the tariff in those days, be devoted to purchasing slaves from their masters in order to avoid the conflict that would otherwise ensue.

Josiah Quincy, soon to be mayor of Boston, visited Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844 when this platform was in circulation. Much later, Quincy wrote about that visit, saying that Joseph Smith’s proposal for ending slavery resembled one that Emerson made 11 years later in 1855.

As Quincy put it, writing retrospectively in the 1880s, “We, who can look back upon the terrible cost of the fratricidal war which put an end to slavery, now say that such a solution of the difficulty” – Joseph Smith’s and Emerson’s – “would have been worthy a Christian statesman. But if the retired scholar was in advance of his time when he advocated this disposition of the public property in 1855, what shall I say of the political and religious leader who had committed himself, in print, as well as in conversation, to the same course in 1844?”

I cite this example to illustrate the radical tone of Joseph Smith’s political thought, which seemed to carry over from his religious radicalism. It extended to prison reform and better treatment of seamen, big issues in the 1840s and 1850s. Smith seemed to identify with all of the underdogs in society. I think that was why he thought he might get elected – because the little people, the beat-up people, would rise and select him.

Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Meridian Magazine. ..bruce..

The Trek: Explanation and Status

"The Mormons" (PBS), LDS History, Main, The Trek

I’ve actually been tracking this over on my other blog (And Still I Persist) but felt it was more appropriate here at Adventures in Mormonism. The rest of this posting is a slightly updated version of my original post explaining why I’m walking 1305 miles by early October. Now I’ve got to go walk my 11 miles today. ..bfw..

A friend of mine used to say that if I wasn’t playing in a ‘big enough game’ (referring to life itself, not World of Warcraft or even The Lord of the Rings Online, which, uh, I actually am playing in), that I’d screw things up in order to make things more interesting. I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately, since — in my own opinion — I’ve been mostly coasting for the past year or more. On top of that, I’ve been unhappy with my general state of physical fitness, including my weight and blood pressure (both stubbornly high).

And thus was born the Trek: I plan to walk 1305 miles between April 1 and October 6 of this year.

Why 1305 miles and why those particular dates? Funny you should ask.

Continue reading The Trek: Explanation and Status →