Nationally syndicated radio host and best-selling author Michael Medved wrote up an opinion piece yesterday on USAToday’s website titled “Hollywood’s terrorists: Mormon, not Muslim”. Medved took to task those involved with the upcoming film September Dawn, a portrayal (albeit jaded and misrepresented one) of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

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.

Kudos to U.S. News and World Report for acknowledging that the cover of a recent issue may have implied a connection between the LDS Church and polygamist/fundamentalist groups. Apparently the story itself was clear about the distinction, but the cover may have been unintentionally misleading:

While the article makes a distinction between that polygamous sect and mainstream Mormonism’s rejection of polygamy, the reference to Mormons on the cover does not make this distinction. It was not our intention to imply that mainstream Mormonism is a secret society, sect, or cult, and we regret any offense that the reference to Mormons on the cover may have caused.

Very gracious of the editors to acknowledge a minor implication like this. Exemplary work!

Via: Regret The Error

The style guide at the Mormon news Official website for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Inadvertently called by friends of other faiths, the “Mormon Church”).

As Mitt Romney continues to campaign for a presidential nomination, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is featured in the media with increasing frequency. While not all articles about the Church are accurate or well-researched, it is important to note that the overall quality of many of those articles is improving. One example of good journalism is a recent article in the New York Times that surveyed what members of the church though of the recent attention on the Mormon Church. Entitled “Romney’s Run has Mormons Wary of Scrutiny,” the article interviews several Latter-day Saints, some of whom see the possibility for bigotry and criticism and others who look forward to the opportunity to dispel myths.

While the article itself is neither favorable nor unfavorable towards the Church of Jesus Christ, it generally portrays the Church and its teachings accurately. The article uses the full name of the Church near the beginning, and consulted the Church’s official spokesperson for comments. Official church positions on issues such as abortion and stem-cell research are stated accurately, and the article notes that the Church differs from some other denominations in that it does not “preach politics from the pulpit.” The article also puts the Church’s membership in perspective — with over half of its 13 million members living outside the U.S., the Church avoids involvement with domestic politics.

Laurie Goodstein, the articles’ author, should be commended for writing an interesting and well-researched piece. While the article did not fully comply with the guidelines the Church has established for style and use, it avoided misrepresentations and cited good sources. It is especially gratifying to see a top-rate publication such as the New York Times improve its coverage of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Hopefully, other publications will also rise to that standard.

The article is here, and Laurie Goodstein may be reached by email here.

An op-ed piece in the New York Times today discussed Mitt Romney’s religion in the context of his bid for presidential nomination. While the article focused mainly on political strategy, it did highlight some of the differences between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity. The article, by op-ed contributor Kenneth Woodward, was respectful and accurate. Some of the points Woodward made about the Church include:

. . . Mormons speak of God, but they refer to a being who was once a man of “flesh and bone,” like us. They speak of salvation, but to them that means admittance to a “celestial kingdom” where a worthy couple can eventually become “gods” themselves. The Heavenly Father of whom they speak is married to a Heavenly Mother. And when they emphasize the importance of the family, they may be referring to their belief that marriage in a Mormon temple binds families together for all eternity.

This was generally a well-researched piece of good journalism. The only improvements that we would wish to see would be more precise use of the Church’s name. Woodward first referred to the Church as the “Mormon Church,” using the full name of the Church in a later paragraph. Additionally, towards the end of the piece, he used the title “Church of Latter-day Saints.” The style guide of the Church gives this guidance as to how to use its name:

• In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
• Please avoid the use of “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church” or “the Church of the Latter-day Saints.”
• When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged.

In the op-ed piece, the author also mentioned that some people “still confuse the Latter-day Saints with fundamentalist Mormon sects that continue to practice polygamy and child marriage . . ..” While we appreciate that Woodward articulated the difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other sects, the use of the term “fundamentalist Mormon” or “Mormon fundamentalists” can contribute to that confusion. The Church’s style guide provides additional guidance in this respect:

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”

The op-ed piece can be read here.

The Globe and Mail, Canada’s largest national newspaper, published a book review by Alissa York that contained several false or misleading statements regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The article, entitled, “Books of Mormon,” carried the subtitle: “One Latter-Day Saint is being tried for rape; another’s running for president.” While the latter comment, referring to Mitt Romney, is accurate, the former statement is false. The man Ms. York refers to being tried for rape, Warren Jeffs, is not and never has been a member of the Mormon Church. Referring to Jeffs a Latter-Day Saint is inaccurate. Ms. York also referred to “Mormon fundamentalists,” which is a misleading term. The sects she referred to were separate from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as a “Mormon fundamentalist.”

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.

The local press has been quite excited lately with the latest Utah Valley controversy: Dick Cheney’s planned commencement speech at the upcoming BYU graduation.

Hoping to garner some attention of her own, SLTrib columnist Rebecca Walsh decided to jump on the controversy bandwagon and fling mud.

Her article titled “Church shows true color – red” makes a plethora of unfounded accusations and unsubstantiated explanations. In a nutshell, Walsh claims that Cheney’s invite to speak at BYU flies in the face of previous statements of political neutrality.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got my own reservations about the Cheney visit. The fact of the matter is, however, that there is far too much speculation in this matter about who knows what. The First Presidency of the Church is on the board of trustees for BYU, yet we do not know the extent of their involvement in this specific invitation, or any of the background detail that would be necessary to lay blame on their doorstep as Walsh has chosen to do.

Walsh notes that the Church-owned university must surely be championing the GOP by extending this visit. However, one wonders where else Walsh might choose to fling her mud given the fact that the Church owns several other entities as well. Does Deseret Book offering one of Sean Hannity’s books on its shelves equate to a political endorsement by the Church? Does reporting favorably about Mitt Romney in the Deseret News indicate a revocation of previously asserted political neutrality?

Walsh has fallen far below the expected standards of journalism with this article. Her piece comes off as nothing more than another anti-Mormon hit piece that the Salt Lake Tribune has made itself famous for over the years.

Here’s a good letter to the editor in my hometown newspaper stating that Romney wouldn’t be likely to wear his religion (Mormonism) on his sleeve. The letter points out several theological, cultural, and personal reasons why Romney would successfully “separate the public sphere of his work from the personal sphere of his church.”

1. The Mormon church’s Articles of Faith profess a belief in “obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
2. The Church regularly affirms its political neutrality. Chapels and member lists cannot be used for political purposes.
3. The Church has “acquiesced to the will of the people on a number of occasions,” including stopping polygamy in 1890.
4. Romney’s past and current positions on gay rights, abortion, and universal health care would not likely agree with the mainstream of Mormon church members.
5. Many Church members have been politicians and it hasn’t seemed to be an issue.

While evangelical Christians contend that so-called doctrinal eccentricities of Mormonism — such as multiple books of scripture and modern-day prophets — will shape Romney’s political actions, there is little evidence to support such a theory. After all, Mormons have held high political offices from governor to U.S. senator with little religious controversy. Ezra Taft Benson, a Mormon apostle, was secretary of agriculture under Eisenhower. Mitt Romney’s father, George was governor of Michigan as well as a contender for the Republican nomination for president. Today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican, demonstrate that Mormon political voices can be diverse. In short, Romney will not be given a script on how Mormon politicians should act.

Article: Romney not likely to wear religion on his sleeve

Thanks to Brian Stucki for sending in this article.