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.

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.

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