Claiming they don’t have an axe to grind, the film’s producers show quite the opposite. Medved explains:

These explorations reach no definitive conclusions on Brigham Young’s complicity in the massacre, but the movie leaves no doubt at all — using fierce quotations by Young, but using those words wildly out of context. The film, for instance, downplays events preceding the Mountain Meadows rampage, including brutal persecution of Mormon settlements in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois, that led to the trek to Utah. Just before the incident the film portrays, the federal government sent troops West with orders to remove Brigham Young as governor of the territory, and the movie never acknowledges Young’s ultimate agreement to step down peacefully, avoiding the feared bloodbath between U.S. soldiers and Mormon militia.

To try to claim contemporary relevance for September Dawn, its director, Christopher Cain, and its veteran star, Jon Voight, both tell interviewers that the project recounts a pertinent story of “religious fanaticism” — emphasizing the eerie coincidence of the massacre’s date (Sept. 11) and showing martyred “prophet” Joseph Smith (portrayed as an arrogant, preening dandy shortly before his death at age 39 at the hands of a lynch mob), declaring himself a “New Mohammet” and threatening holy war against his enemies.

The film’s deliberately drawn analogy between Mountain Meadows and 9/11 raises the most puzzling question about this peculiar project: Why frame an indictment of violent religiosity by focusing on long-ago Mormon leaders rather than contemporary Muslims who perpetrate unspeakable brutalities every day?

The author of the article then goes on to opine as to why the film’s producers chose to highlight a portion of history from Mormon culture instead of another religion or segment of society:

In part, preference for Mormons over Muslims as targets of cinematic scorn stems from reasonable concerns for personal safety. Islamic communities have proved more than a mite touchy over media depictions of their faith: Consider the deadly worldwide riots over a dozen Danish cartoons, or the taking of more than 100 American hostages and bans in Muslim countries inspired by the respectful 1977 film Mohammad, Messenger of God (directed by a Syrian and financed in part by the Libyan government).

Mormons won’t respond with any comparable rage, no matter how badly September Dawn tarnishes the memory of their faith’s founders. In fact, the LDS Church has adopted an official policy of “no comment” regarding the film, and there have been no examples of young Mormons strapping dynamite to their bodies and blowing themselves up to protest perceived insults to their religion.
…
The measured response to public smears of Mormonism in effect rebuts the September Dawn suggestion that the church represents a relevant example of violent religious fanaticism. Despite the turbulence of their founding generation, Mormons have been conspicuously peaceful, patriotic, hard-working and neighborly for at least the past 117 years (since the church repudiated and banned polygamy).

Medved is to be applauded for his logic-based, prejudice-free article in portraying how biased and deceitful Hollywood can be. After all, their pursuit of the almighty dollar often leads them to inflate controversy, embellish history, choose one side of an argument, and lay it down as historical fact. The author’s conclusion is worthy of note:

This sort of prejudice seems not only unjust but also downright un-American — violating the cherished pluralistic traditions by which we judge religious communities not based on theological quirks or long-ago disputes, but on the decency of their present adherents. By that standard, the Mormons’ restrained response to even the most mean-spirited challenges to their beliefs says more about the present nature of their faith than anything in September Dawn.

Those wishing to do so may contact USA Today or Michael Medved directly.

The article opens, “Using the dictionary definition…one can only surmise that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is delusional.” It goes on to belittle Mitt Romney for his religious views, calling his candidacy less legitimate because of his extraordinary beliefs. He must have missed that all religions have a bit of the extraordinary.

The award goes to the readers, whose comments you can read by clicking “Read all … comments” (currently 41). Here are some of the good ones:

You sound like one of the many in 1960 who cried about the horrors that would happen in our country if a Catholic were elected as president. I’m sure you remember that Catholic’s name..John F. Kennedy.

I suppose you would never see a letter in the paper calling those who believe in, oh, let’s say Islam, to be “delusional”. It’s easy to snark when you’re sure the target won’t fight back.

Considering that most of the country believes in virgin birth, resurrection, that the earth was literally created in six days, and that Moses parted the Red Sea and walked through the middle, I don’t think that Romney’s religion is any more out there than any other religion’s beliefs.

While we don’t want to burn bridges to well-intentioned journalists who may report our beliefs incorrectly, there are many opportunities to offer a gentle corrective voice. Newspapers want to please and keep their readers. Our kind corrections will also help other readers distinguish truth from fiction.

The article purports to review three books that provide information about the Mormonism. However, all three books Ms. York selected are written by critics of the Church. Her book selections appear to have been influenced by her own forthcoming novel about a 19th century polygamist family rather than a desire to provide accurate background information on the LDS Church. There are a wide variety of books and resources available about Mormonism and its founders that would provide much more accurate information on the faith. A recent LDS Newsroom release suggested:

“The Church fully appreciates that journalists and online writers like to use a variety of sources for their stories and that this is usually necessary to produce balance and context. But we do believe that the Church itself should be one of those sources.”

The Globe and Mail can be reached by email at letters@globeandmail.com or by using this Web form.

1. Just in time for shoddy local journalism, the Church invited journalists to include the Church itself among the sources they use when writing. The Church Newsroom site has a variety of resources for learning about Church beliefs and practices. If journalists can’t find what they need on the site, they can contact Church public affairs directly.

There is much valuable material and good scholarship available about the Church on the Internet, but there is an enormous amount that ranges from the merely dubious to simple anti-Mormon polemics. In addition, all reporters face the challenge of deciding whether to define Latter-day Saints only in terms of their contrasts with other Christian faiths, or whether they should also include beliefs and practices by which Mormons define themselves.

These issues can best be resolved through substantive conversations. The Church fully appreciates that journalists and online writers like to use a variety of sources for their stories and that this is usually necessary to produce balance and context. But we do believe that the Church itself should be one of those sources.

For writers or producers who want to avoid “loose” reporting and best serve their audiences, the core beliefs that define Latter-day Saints are summarized clearly on this Web site. When there are additional questions or a need for clarification, we welcome a phone call or e-mail. (Source: An Invitation to Journalists)

2. In response to an anti-Mormon DVD released in Utah and surrounding states, the Church released the following statement:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has weathered such attacks throughout its history. At a time when the Church is growing strongly throughout the world, it’s not surprising that some groups try to curb that growth in such ways.

Groups opposed to the Church have a perfect right to distribute their materials in ways that are legal.

The issue is not one of rights. Rather, it is that one religious group chooses to target another with a DVD full of distortions of its doctrine and history, and misrepresentations so stark that they call into question the integrity of the producers. (Source: Response to DVD)

3. In response to controversy about Vice President Dick Cheney’s upcoming speaking appointment at BYU, the Church explains that it continues to be politically neutral. In fact, Senate Majority Leader and Democrat Harry Reid is scheduled to speak at BYU this fall.

Is it appropriate for a university — even one that espouses a policy of political neutrality — to have as featured speakers the holders of some of the highest offices in the land? Of course it is. And whoever the visitor — the vice president, the majority leader of the Senate or the chief justice of the Supreme Court (another scheduled fall speaker) — the university and the student body will listen, evaluate and react to them as intelligent citizens capable of making up their own minds about their messages. (Source: BYU Invitation to Vice President Stirs Debate)