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 Age, a newspaper based in Victoria, Australia, failed to do its homework in a recent article about the HBO series Big Love. The article’s author, Peter Mattessi, describes the polygamist family depicted in the series as devout Mormons, despite the disclaimers that appeared before many episodes that the Mormon Church banned polygamy in 1890. The article’s description is false, as the characters in the show are specifically not members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The article’s title, “Latter-day saints go marching in,” is equally erroneous.Mattessi clearly doesn’t know any such Latter-day Saints, as he reveals the “secret” he learned from the series: “Mormons can be good people too.” That may be true, but the characters in the show still aren’t Mormons. The article in The Age merely perpetuates tired stereotypes and promulgates misinformation.

The fault does not lie entirely with Mattessi or The Age. HBO has intentionally tried to portray the characters on Big Love as members of the Mormon Church because it makes the show more controversial and draws a bigger audience. The show recently stopped carrying the disclaimer that appeared before the episodes, despite requests from the LDS Church. The makers of the series have intentionally engaged in misinformation in order to sell their program. The article in The Age is a prime example of careless journalism and how fiction gets passed off as fact.

The editors of The Age may be contacted at feedback@theage.com.au.

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.

Ms. Gibbs’ article was generally accurate with respect to the beliefs of the LDS Church. One small comment that was misleading, however, was the claim that members of the Mormon church refer to members of other faiths as “gentiles.” While this term may have been used in decades past, it is certainly not what “non-Mormons are called.” The word “gentile” is a Biblical term referring to groups of people other than the Jews. This definition of the word would place all Christians in the “gentile” category, regardless of their membership in a particular denomination. Leaders of the Church of Jesus Chirst of Latter-day Saints have counseled members of the church to avoid even terms like “nonmember” or “non-Mormon” because they could be seen as demeaning or offensive.

In the article, Ms. Gibbs dredges up Slate editor Jacob Weisberg’s claims that Mormonism is “a modern hoax,” and that he could not vote for anyone who believed it. Under Mr. Weiberg’s criteria, citizens of the United States are free to believe what they want to, as long as they don’t intend to run for public office. This notion is plainly contrary to the constitutional principles upon which the United States was founded. LDS doctrine reaffirms the right of all people to believe as they wish, not just those who share its beliefs. The Eleventh Article of Faith states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Mr. Weisberg’s suspicion of religion does not render personally religious people unqualified for public office, regardless of their beliefs. Indeed, rather than disqualifying a candidate from office, one’s personal convictions could lead to many desireable attributes such as compassion, honesty, and integrity.

The TIME Magazine article can be read here.

There are currently 13 million Mormons, with another million added about every three years. While the National Council of Churches lists the Mormon church as the fourth fastest growing church in the U.S., the Church itself does not make “statistical comparisons with other churches and makes no claim to be the fastest-growing Christian denomination.” (Some critics mistakenly believe that the Church asserts itself to be the fastest growing church.)

The preoccupation with membership statistics comes by scriptural mandate: “And after they had been received unto baptism … their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God” (Moroni 6:4).

Not all Church members are “active,” but the Church does not remove names from its membership records because of inactivity. The baptismal covenant through which persons become Church members is “not [to] be lightly made and is not casually dismissed.” Church growth is fastest in Africa and South America, slower in Northern Europe.

The faithfulness of members is more important than statistics:

“Ultimately, the strength of the Church is really measured by the devotion and commitment of its members,” said Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “The Lord has never given us a mandate to be the biggest Church — in fact, He has said our numbers will be comparatively few — but He has asked that we commit ourselves to living and sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Source: Church Growth Statistics

. . . 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 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)

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.

George’s demonstrated response and investigative journalism is shoddy to say the least. Watch the video for yourself to see.

Romney stated the following in a previous interview:

Our belief is just like it says in the Bible, that the Messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives, and the Mount of Olives will be a place where there’s a great gathering, and so forth. It’s the same as the other Christian tradition.

To which George commented:

Actually, we checked in with a Mormon spokesman who said that’s not exactly true. They believe the New Jerusalem is here in the United States, in Missouri, and that’s where Jesus is going to come.”

“Actually,” George, do you really expect Mitt to give you a missionary discussion type response in the amount of time they provide for media interviews? A student of LDS theology will note that Mitt’s response is in full harmony with revealed doctrine, even though George’s journalistic diamond mine he uncovered is true as well.

Perhaps George could have read up a little more before unilaterally dictating what is and is not correct Mormon doctrine.

Besides, George, you didn’t even answer Kate’s question! Oh well, it’s not like it has anything to do with his political platform, anyways.