I ran across this very interesting article about SEPTEMBER DAWN, the controversial new movie that explores Brigham Young’s role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

LOS ANGELES - As the new year dawned, Jon Krakauer’s “Under the Banner of Heaven” - about a “divinely ordered” double murder in 1984 by two members of a breakaway Mormon sect - was fresh off the best-seller list. Warren Jeffs, the polygamist prophet of this splinter group, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was on FBI wanted lists. And the world’s first-ever “Mormonsploitation Retrospective” (”Passion! Polygamy! Pamphlets!”) of vintage fear-mongering anti-Mormon movies had just finished at the fringy Pioneer Theater in New York’s East Village.

In public relations terms, this is not the easiest time to have the words “Latter,” “Day” and “Saints” anywhere close together in your name. And the going may get rougher after the filmmaker Christopher Cain finishes his new movie about one of the darkest moments in Mormon history, the Mountain Meadows massacre of 1857, in which 137 pioneers from Arkansas were killed in Utah by a raiding party whose ties to the Mormon church are still in dispute.

The movie will be highly controversial mostly because of its depiction of Brigham Young as a tyrannical fundamentalist leader, which I TRULY believe he was.

In the past, the LDS Church has tried to tone down his image, and created furor by painting a picture of him as a “monogamist.” In the Relief Society Manual of 1998, only one wife is mentioned. After the backlash started, the official church stance was:

‘Those who believe that this is a historical account of Brigham Young, or an all-inclusive book of his teachings, or something to learn more about Brigham Young the man, the statesman, the great colonizer and so on - that was never the intent,'’ said Ronald L. Knighton, managing director of the church’s Curriculum Department.

Rather, the focus was the gospel of Jesus Christ ‘’as taught through the mouth and sermons of that great president of the church,'’ he said.

This is but one example of how the Church has tried to whitewash its history, but my focus today is actually Brigham Young. If possible, he was actually much more “colorful” than Joseph Smith Jr., and much MORE of a PR nightmare.

Interestingly enough, the Church has chosen to alter many of Brigham Young’s quotes, to make them less offensive, thusly–say it with me now–TAKING THEM OUT OF CONTEXT. I get accused of that all the time. Frankly, I don’t alter the quotes. They do. There is a VERY big difference.

From the article I linked above:

‘’I'd say that about 10 percent of the quotes are overtly lifted out of context, with about another 10 percent that are more subtly altered. In addition, about 5 percent have been abbreviated to avoid offense regarding race, nationality, gender and so on,'’ Priddis said.

Bagley is perhaps the most vociferous in his disdain for the new manual, which he sees as a misguided attempt ‘’to pass Brigham Young off as a 20th century Mormon,'’ as ‘’this defanged creature.'’

The same text does not mention Brigham Young’s Adam/God doctrine, one of the more controversial of his teachings.

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later …. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; … Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation” (April 9, 1852, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, pages 50-51).

Here’s another interesting article about the MMM.

Some of my favorite Brigham Young quotes (NOT taken out of context–just quoted):

“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.
“I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them….

“And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.
“It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit…. There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man.” (Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 53-54); also published in the Mormon Church’s Deseret News, 1856, page 235)

And my personal favorite:

“Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved… and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and that he cannot attain to it without the shedding his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, ’shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?’

“All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant….

“I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance… if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the Devil… I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them….

“This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it…. if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.” (Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 219-220)

“This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it..”

Sorta puts the whole MMM thing into perspective, huh?

And terribly, terribly funny. And it has nothing to do with Mormons. LOVE that Will Ferrell, and the world’s youngest alcoholic landlord.

Apparently, the Rev. Al Sharpton, who steps into “it” quite a bit, has done it again. The same man who railed about Don Imus and his infamous “nappy-headed hos” comment, said of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, “As for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation.”

Well, now. Hypocrisy at its finest? I do not condone Imus’s remarks, and in fact found them in poor taste and frankly, downright disgusting, but is this comment really all that different?

It’s a complex situation, to be sure. After all, Mormons have, for years, claimed to have the ONLY TRUE THING. And this Church claiming to have the only conduit to God’s ear has, for years, discriminated against African-Americans.

It was not until 1978 that black men could even hold the LDS priesthood. I suppose I understand why Al Sharpton thinks the Mormon God is different from his God.

We were taught that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence, and thus were cursed with black skin.

What I found must interesting when researching this, is that Apostle LeGrand Richards, when interviewed about the change in the ban, said that while God never said that blacks were less than savory, Native Americans WERE!

RICHARDS: Well, we don’t want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will. You know, Paul said “Now we see in part and we know in part; we see through a glass darkly. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away, then we will see as we are seen, and know as we are known.” Now the Church’s attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don’t we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven’t anything like that on the colored thing.

How nice, that if they are just faithful to the Mormon Church, they can become white. Let’s trade one bigotry for another.

As for explaining the ban, I found a FAIR article (taken from a speech) from 2002, that had THIS astounding passage:

3 Nephi 2:15-16.

15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; 16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

There are Blacks here today who are members of the Church. Why have we not turned White? But there are Blacks who have joined the Church, married White spouse, and their children became lighter than their Black parents. Then those kids grew up to marry those that believe as they do, which most are White, so they married White, and their kids became even lighter, and so on. Makes you think a bit, doesn’t it?

Is this man NOT saying that the promises of the Book of Mormon, that dark people will become “white and delightsome,” seems to be coming true?

For the critics, please note I have included links to the entire articles so you can read and judge for yourself and not accuse me of taking it out of context.

Some other choice quotes about blacks and the Mormon Church.

Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie summarized the doctrine as follows:

“The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, …but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their First Estate [the pre-existence].” Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 - 528, 1966 edition

Typifying the attitude of Mormon leaders was Mormon Apostle Mark E. Petersen, who said, in an address at Brigham Young University on “Race Problems as They Affect The Church” (August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 307):

“Now, we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves.”

This last two quotes are from Richard Packham’s Web site, but they can be verified from many other sources. I only CHOSE this Web site because I know it to be matter of fact, honest, and easy to read.

So, I guess I understand Al’s feelings about Mormonism, but I don’t really appreciate his intimation that HIS God was just going to out-of-hand dismiss any Mormons. Frankly, the God that created our world, if he/she does exist, surely loves ALL of his creations, Mormon/Catholic/Baptist, whatever they may be. Right?

Or is that concept just too simple for bigoted religious folk?

I’m kind of flabberghasted by this story, to be quite honest. I mean, I know Utah County should be cordoned off and warning signs put up warding off unwary people. But this just cements the fact we should commence building the Great Wall of Utah County.

Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan’s minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.

In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants “hate American people” and “are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won’t do.”

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to “destroy Christian America” and replace it with “a godless new world order — and that is not extremism, that is fact,” Larsen said.

At the end of his speech, Larsen began to cry, saying illegal immigrants were trying to bring about the destruction of the U.S. “by self invasion.”

Wow. Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working with Democrats to Destroy Christian America. Whoulda thunk it.

I don’t know what scares me more. That Larsen really believes the crap he is spouting, or that people down there actually AGREED with him.

Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as “Joe,” said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil. Another, who declined to give her name to the Daily Herald, said illegal immigrants should not be allowed because “they are not going to become Republicans and stop flying the flag upside down. … If they want to be Americans, they should learn to speak English and fly their flag like we do.”

Uh… okay. (Warning: Stay away from Utah County.)

The new PBS documentary, The Mormons, is getting some interesting reaction in both the ex-Mormon and Mormon camps. I’m not sure anyone else is watching, quite honestly. But the formers and the currents are watching with GREAT interest. I only watched half, so am holding off on a complete critique, but I thought it was an honest, open and fair look at a controversial religion.

That, of course, will be argued vocifierously by people on both sides of the fence. I have heard from some ex-Mormons who called it a “fluff” piece because it was not more hard-hitting, and some Mormons, who are angry because a lot of time was spent on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and on polygamy. The active Mormons who are angry feel vilifed. Why? PBS and filmmaker Whitney didn’t have anything to do with either. It’s a very important part of Mormon history. They are angry because both ex- anti- and current-but-not-believing Mormons were featured.

What kind of a documentary would it have been without a balance? A Mormon one. You can see those at Temple Square. But they are not open and honest. They are public relations films.

And the ex-Mormons who are angry? What did you expect? It wasn’t ever aimed at being a hatchet job on the Mormon religion. No documentary filmmaker would last long without being fair and balanced.

Overall, from what I am hearing, Whitney did a fair and decent job.

I think to those who say only the Mormon side should have been represented, or vice versa, haven’t you ever heard the saying, “There are two sides to every story?”

Each side is going to tell a story biased to their slant. Only by garnering all the stories together, can you piece together what happened. There is good and bad about Mormonism. The Mormons was honest about that. What more can you ask?