Comments on: The Christianity and paganism of September Dawn http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/09/16/the-christian-and-paganism-of-september-dawn.htm Thoughts and Asides by Peculiar People Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:50:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: a random John http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/09/16/the-christian-and-paganism-of-september-dawn.htm/comment-page-1#comment-52601 a random John Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:01:27 +0000 http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/09/16/the-christian-and-paganism-of-september-dawn.htm#comment-52601 The thought occurs to me that a more astute writer with the same agenda discussing Brigham Young and the "Mormon God" would have included some reference to that Being being Adam in Brigham Young's opinion. Not sure if that would have been an anachronism in 1857. It certainly wasn't Brigham Young in any case. The thought occurs to me that a more astute writer with the same agenda discussing Brigham Young and the “Mormon God” would have included some reference to that Being being Adam in Brigham Young’s opinion. Not sure if that would have been an anachronism in 1857. It certainly wasn’t Brigham Young in any case.

]]> By: Left Field http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/09/16/the-christian-and-paganism-of-september-dawn.htm/comment-page-1#comment-52600 Left Field Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:35:43 +0000 http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/09/16/the-christian-and-paganism-of-september-dawn.htm#comment-52600 My impression is that much of the dialogue consists of the scriptwriters talking to the 21st century audience, rather than having the 19th century characters talking to each other. You give a couple examples that illustrate this. "My duty to the Mormon God" is not something anyone would say, even aside from identifying Brigham Young as "the Mormon God." By adding the adjective "Mormon", the scriptwriter is haranguing the modern audience, lest we ever be confused into thinking that when a Mormon mentions God, that it might be a reference to the "real" God. It is implausible that a churchgoing Mormon of any century would be unfamiliar with "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (It's in the Book of Mormon AND the Bible, for Pete's sake.) By having Jonathan stupidly befuddled by the source of this passage, the scriptwriter is not writing plausible dialogue, she's insisting that Mormons don't really believe in the Bible. The historical order to execute the massacre was "Do your duty." Wanting to make sure everyone puts the proper label on the murderers, the scriptwriter beats the audience over the head with the implausible line, "Mormons! Do your duty." When I heard this, I was amused, trying to imagine an African-American character in a similar situation uttering the line, "Negroes! Do your duty." One reviewer echoed the sentiments of many others when he referred to "dialogue that fairly reeks of printer's ink." I think the reeking dialogue is largely a result of the writers trying to score theological points with the audience, rather than letting the characters speak for themselves. My impression is that much of the dialogue consists of the scriptwriters talking to the 21st century audience, rather than having the 19th century characters talking to each other. You give a couple examples that illustrate this. “My duty to the Mormon God” is not something anyone would say, even aside from identifying Brigham Young as “the Mormon God.” By adding the adjective “Mormon”, the scriptwriter is haranguing the modern audience, lest we ever be confused into thinking that when a Mormon mentions God, that it might be a reference to the “real” God.

It is implausible that a churchgoing Mormon of any century would be unfamiliar with “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” (It’s in the Book of Mormon AND the Bible, for Pete’s sake.) By having Jonathan stupidly befuddled by the source of this passage, the scriptwriter is not writing plausible dialogue, she’s insisting that Mormons don’t really believe in the Bible.

The historical order to execute the massacre was “Do your duty.” Wanting to make sure everyone puts the proper label on the murderers, the scriptwriter beats the audience over the head with the implausible line, “Mormons! Do your duty.” When I heard this, I was amused, trying to imagine an African-American character in a similar situation uttering the line, “Negroes! Do your duty.”

One reviewer echoed the sentiments of many others when he referred to “dialogue that fairly reeks of printer’s ink.” I think the reeking dialogue is largely a result of the writers trying to score theological points with the audience, rather than letting the characters speak for themselves.

]]> By: Dan Ellsworth http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/09/16/the-christian-and-paganism-of-september-dawn.htm/comment-page-1#comment-52584 Dan Ellsworth Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:40:51 +0000 http://www.mormonmentality.org/2007/09/16/the-christian-and-paganism-of-september-dawn.htm#comment-52584 The movie sounds outrageous; I don't mind them showing the bat-crazy mentality of a lot of people in Southern Utah around that time, but to juxtapose it with a modern depiction of fluffy, smiley-faced mainstream Christianity is laughable. Unfortunately, I don't think we as a Church are sinless in this regard- I saw the Joseph Smith movie on Temple Square recently, and was surprised to learn that he was an even-tempered, monogamous man whose worst character flaw was occasional levity, which is not even a flaw, meaning he was practically perfect. I realize that in Hollywood, heroes and villains are often completely one-dimensional, but does that mean that we really can't stomach anything more complex than that? The movie sounds outrageous; I don’t mind them showing the bat-crazy mentality of a lot of people in Southern Utah around that time, but to juxtapose it with a modern depiction of fluffy, smiley-faced mainstream Christianity is laughable. Unfortunately, I don’t think we as a Church are sinless in this regard- I saw the Joseph Smith movie on Temple Square recently, and was surprised to learn that he was an even-tempered, monogamous man whose worst character flaw was occasional levity, which is not even a flaw, meaning he was practically perfect.
I realize that in Hollywood, heroes and villains are often completely one-dimensional, but does that mean that we really can’t stomach anything more complex than that?

]]>