Mitt Romney? Wine not.

No, there isn’t a typo in the title to this post. I didn’t mean to type, “Mitt Romney? Why not?”

Actually, some might suggest there are two typos: wine instead of why, and a period instead of a question mark. No…the title is an accurate reflection of my intention and therefore contains no typos.

I meant the title to be understood this way:

“Mitt Romney for President? Why not? Because he believes in ‘wine not’ – that is ‘no wine for me.’”

May, 1968, France

Mitt Romney served as a Mormon missionary in France for 30 months. The fateful month of May in 1968 was toward the end of that stay. My readings of Romney’s time in France brought to mind two questions:

·       How could anyone live in France for 30 months without drinking a glass of wine with a Frenchman?

·       How could anyone live in France for 30 months, which culminated in the infamous May 1968 general strike, without being at least somewhat impressed with the anti-authoritarian mood of the protestors?

The French are passionate about their politics, their philosophy, and their wine. And yet, young Mitt Romney managed to spend 30 months there without being influenced by any of those three. As for the first two, there is really no excuse except to say that Romney’s worldview was so hardened into inflexibility, he couldn’t have been moved. And yet he wondered at the time why he had managed to win so few converts to his church. As for the third, the wine – there’s nothing in the Ten Commandments barring alcoholic consumption. In fact, wasn’t Noah (of Noah’s Ark fame) a vintner and wine drinker himself? And yet, Noah found favor with the Lord.

I doubt Mitt Romney had ever gone through an adolescent rebellion stage. That might explain a lot in terms of an oft-repeated accusation: That he’s out of touch with the average man.

On the science of practical conversion

I can see why Romney had problems converting the French to Mormonism. That is, I can see how his personal rigidity got in the way. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a one-way conversation. And that’s probably how many of Mitt’s potential converts among the French felt – that he was talking at them instead of to them.

In fact, I have to wonder if Romney had ever made any serious attempt to question his own faith. Did he ever talk to himself? If he did, then he’d have to have realized how strange the Mormon sales pitch would sound to an outsider:

·       “Well, you see, there was this guy named Joseph Smith who claimed an angel told him where a book of golden plates was buried; a book which he translated into English and claimed to be the most perfect book of scripture.”

·       “Well, you see, Mormons originally practiced polygamy which some would see as counter-productive to a fledgling group of religious separatists. I mean, it’s kind of hard to understand how allowing a few men to have many wives (which would mean, many men having no wives at all) would serve to grow our population. Some would see it that way, but I don’t because permission to polygamize was granted as a revelation from God. Just like a mandate to abandon that practice was yet another revelation from that same God.”

The science of practical conversion embraces:

·       A requirement that a believer question his own faith – not necessarily doubt, but question;

·       Enough courage to declare that the closely-held beliefs of your family, friends, and community are fraudulent (should one come to that conclusion); and yet not abandon nor treat them meanly;

·       An ability to interact with others, to the extent of being able to understand their own views;

·       An assessment of “how my religion feels about your religion” – beyond just saying, “Non-believers are going to Hell;”

·       A knack for breaking down complex doctrines into simple, easy-to-understand parts.

That last point brings me to this quote:

QUOTE: Plus, Romney was obsessed with numbers. “My favorite thing to do is to bathe in data,” he says now, “do analysis, reach conclusions, and then find a breakthrough. There is nothing as exciting as that ‘aha!’ moment—seeing something that looks insoluble and finding a way to make it work.”  :UNQUOTE: http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/mitt-romney/

From this, I can see how Romney failed as a proselytizer.  Religious truths don’t yield their meanings to Statistical Analysts – at least not to those SA’s who insist on only applying the methods of statistical analysis. Some other quality is needed, which Romney seems to lack. It’s that same something that prevented him from seeing how badly people would react to his refusal to make his income tax returns public. It’s that same something that fellow Mormon and GOP rival Jon Huntsman referred to when he said Romney was out-of-touch and unelectable.

As for the science of practical political conversion, Mitt Willard Romney has his work cut out for him. Will he bathe himself in data, trying to figure out why his numbers tanked in South Carolina? Will he himself refrain from attacking Newt Gingrich, knowing that his Super Pacs will do this for him – and quite well, I might add?

Will he, like Herman Cain, start telling people God told him to run for the presidency? In fact, a fair question from a reporter to candidate Romney would be: “Have you ever received any revelations from God? And if so, did He tell you to run for the presidency?”  God gives revelations to the president of the Mormon Church and to lesser personages as well. Surely God would have spoken to Mitt Romney on such an important topic.

Side Note: Let’s assume that God had spoken to Romney on at least this one important topic. A proper response would be: “What or if anything had been spoken by our Lord to me is something I wish to remain only between the two of us.”

Closing thoughts

·       I’m surprised, given Mitt Romney’s lifelong dedication to his church and his twelve years of leadership service as a bishop and “stake” president, that he doesn’t wax more poetically about it.  Instead, he has said precious little of that experience or his precepts.

·       I hope Romney doesn’t stonewall by refusing to discuss religion. That would only confirm how secretive and cultish Mormons are. There are ways to charmingly convey one’s love of faith without coming across as close-mindedly triumphal.

·       Even though some might deride Romney as a numbers cruncher in the mold of Robert McNamara, it’s not too late to change. I believe that if a man has an abundance of talent or has developed himself in one way, that can leave him woefully underdeveloped in others. Romney could explore those other areas. As I said, it’s not too late, and this campaign could well turn out to be what decisively motivates him.

·       Stop being so defensive about RomneyCare. He should claim what was good about that initiative, especially compassion for those less fortunate. But he could also admit how some could see this, in its ObamaCare incarnation, as excessively intrusive of Big Government. But…he should hasten to add that even Big Government has its place – for instance, in the realm of its regulatory function. He could (and should) urge that the health care industry be brought under the scope of the anti-trust laws on our books, which affect all other big businesses.

·       Stop being so defensive about how he earned his fortune or what he pays in taxes – neither of which are in violation of the law. Same goes for that part of his fortune which he keeps in the Cayman Islands.

Concerning that last point, Romney could turn the tables: “If my 15% tax rate bothers people, I personally wouldn’t have any problem paying more – if that’s the kind of change in tax law people want to see. I wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes, since I have successfully lived the American Dream and have exceeded my wildest expectations. But I hope that serious tax reform in this country is based on more than how much I’ve got or what my tax rate is. And I hope no one decides to confiscate the wealth I’ve already earned and paid taxes on – that sword cuts many ways.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Mitt Romney, just like the rest of us to one degree or another, is both a victim and beneficiary of the system we live in. I’ll say this much, though: He seems a lot better behaved than Newt Gingrich and more honest than Barack Obama” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mormon Massacre: Part 2 of 2

Note:     “Mormon Massacre: Part 1 of 2” was posted earlier, within the last hour.


As I’d written in Part 1 of 2:

As a campaign contribution to both Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, I wish to resurrect an old ghost from their past. Both men are Mormons who clearly want to become our next president. The old ghost is a movie that came out in 2007 – September Dawn – which is about an even older ghost.

Disclaimer: The following text has links which might no longer be active. However, I think you’ll get the general idea anyway.

Part 2 of 2:

Posted on Sept. 10, 2007

September Dawn Re-visited

My Motives

Why am I posting yet a second piece in defense, of all things, a movie? Aren't there bigger fish to fry? After all, if I'm in the midst of running for the office of US president, might there be other themes I could more profitably explore? I answer "yes" to both questions. However, you must admit, every once in a while something can grab a person's attention in inexplicable ways. The generally unfair treatment of this movie by the critics moved me in a way surprising even to myself.

I hate to see anyone maligned. So I suppose the critics jumped all over this flick for much the same reason. They obviously thought the Mormons were being beaten up. As you'll see, I disagree. Maybe because my mother was an actress, I sympathize with that profession. So my basic motive was to defend the actors' work and the film itself. I tend to support the underdog, so an indie film trying to make it in the face of overwhelming hostility also moved me.


Synopsis of September Dawn

By Robert W. Butler of the Kansas City Star:


QUOTE:

The facts aren't in dispute. In 1857 a wagon train of California-bound immigrants stopped in southern Utah to rest and resupply. The Mormons who had settled there a decade earlier were in a tizzy, expecting an invasion by U.S. troops who would replace their theocracy with federal law. Plus, they were still paranoid about the murder years earlier of their prophet, Joseph Smith, and the persecution that drove them from Illinois and Missouri.

Leaders of the Mormon militia persuaded local Indians to lay siege to the camp in Mountain Meadow; after several days the Mormons rode up under a white flag, telling the battle-weary immigrants to lay down their arms. Then the Mormons murdered approximately 130 men, women and children, sparing only those too young to testify against them.

:UNQUOTE.


Let's Play a Little Game

I invite you to try a little experiment: After you see September Dawn, go on the internet to read some of the reviews posted by movie critics. You'll wonder how these people sleep at night or what drugs they're on.

When I read the material by nineteen different sources (listed at end of this blog), I ended up respecting only one of them: Ben Arnoldy, staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor. And Ben's piece isn't a review of the movie itself, but is instead a sober commentary entitled, "In response to the new movie, the church sheds light on the 1857 Mountain Meadows massacre." [I wonder: If it weren't for this movie, perhaps the church wouldn't be as motivated to shed light.]


Brief Excerpts

If you read this before seeing September Dawn, see if the following characterizations are at all accurate (these critics' full reviews are linked at the end of this blog):

Butler: stridently anti-Mormon / cliché-heavy melodrama / blatant propaganda / tepid / silly melodrama.

Chang: precocious little polygamist / didactic presentation / massacre porn / demonizing.

Covert: unsparing depiction of the bloodbath / rife with scandalized references to polygamy / venomous religious tract printed on celluloid.

Ebert: goofy beard.

Hanke: wild-eyed anti-Mormon propaganda / Snidely Whiplash mustache twirling.

Hoberman: ham-fisted lyricism of political ads and pharmaceutical commercials / hackneyed dialogue.

Hyden: [Mormons as] backwoods yahoos / campy flashback.

Kaltenbach: melodrama of the most lurid kind / emotional screed.

Mathews: worst historical drama ever made / disturbingly awful / trivializes / downright insulting.

Nilsen: Mormons are fair game / grotesquely over-the-top ham actor / mono-dimensional characters / dialogue that fairly reeks of printer's ink.

Olsen: trying hard to twist those events / steamroll over much of the nuance / needlessly interject a love story / bang the "Mormon's are freaky" drum.

Rocchi: it's not well made / stiff, flat language / wrapped in so much blood and grisly violence / shoddily made / evil goatee / ominous set of whiskers / [camera shots] from crazy angles.

Rowin: downright laughable / sloppy, platitudinous filmmaking / nearly delusional / kitsch / fatuous / shallow.

Schager: year's first honest-to-goodness exploitation flick / cartoonish demonization / hokey Romeo and Juliet romance / arch-villain goatee.

Seitz: maudlin / grotesque western.

Seymour: bombastic / lead-weight dialogue / point is hammered so loudly / heavy-handed excessiveness / overbearing

Smith: September Dawn succeeds completely at failure / more Sept. 11 porn / you'll sleep through it.

Topel: Voight hams it up / [Dean Cain] doesn't give it much oomph / the result ends up looking ridiculous / camera moves are jerky.


Point/Counterpoint

The Points below are quotes from the movie reviews linked at the end of this essay; the Counterpoints are my responses.

POINT (Butler):

The Mountain Meadow Massacre was one of the Old West's most disturbing incidents and should be rich material for a gripping film.


COUNTERPOINT:

True enough. So why, in well over 50 years of filmmaking, hasn't a single movie been made on this tragedy other than a documentary made in 2003 by Brian Patrick: Burying the Past?


POINT (Chang):

Limited commercial prospects will depend on the film's ability to exploit Mormon outrage - the louder, the better - with its angry and contentious view of a still-disputed tragedy.


COUNTERPOINT:

"Limited commercial prospects?" I don't think they're so limited. By word of mouth and by internet, people will hear about this film. They will hear from others who have seen it and who will make no bones about how wrong the critics are.


POINT (Chang & Covert):

Chang: ...carefully emphasizing that the Utah slayings took place on Sept. 11, 1857.

Covert: ...the fact that the massacre took place on Sept. 11 is driven home forcefully.


COUNTERPOINT:

"emphasizing?" "driven home forcefully?" There was exactly one reference: Just before the massacre, the screen goes black and shows this in white lettering: "Sept. 11, 1857."


POINT (Chang):

Voight's persuasively complex performance.


COUNTERPOINT:

Most of the critics panned Voight's performance, but I thought he did a great job...so I agree with "persuasively complex performance."


POINT (Covert):

...graphic, unsparing depiction of the bloodbath.


COUNTERPOINT:
It was decidedly not graphic at all. What on earth is Covert talking about?


POINT (Covert):

The film is rife with scandalized references to polygamy.


COUNTERPOINT:

"rife?" The references were few in number, didn't beat us over the head, and couldn't possibly be characterized as scandalized.


POINT (Covert):

The only decent Mormon is his older brother Jonathan...


COUNTERPOINT:

Not really...John D. Lee (played in Best Supporting Actor fashion by John Gries) was shown as torn by what he was ordered to do. And Micah had such regret, he asked his brother to kill him. Sounds pretty decent to me.


POINT (Ebert):
In my opinion, when anybody believes their religion gives them the right to kill other people, they are fanatics.


COUNTERPOINT:

I think Roger Ebert blew it here: Instead of "kill," I think the word he wanted was "murder." There is a difference. By the way, I think you'll find it illuminating to read Ebert's entire review, in which he manages to spend ten paragraphs saying little about the movie itself. I wish, though, I could figure out why Ebert bothers to characterize Voigt's beard as "goofy." I found that to be very strange.


POINT (Hanke):

I must give [Terence] Stamp his due, though. He at least plays his impossibly written role with low-key - almost sepulchral-toned - dementia.


COUNTERPOINT:

Several critics thought Terence Stamp played Brigham Young as he had played General Zod in Superman II. I thought Stamp was at least competent, though his screen time was limited. "Impossibly written role?" Let's see: The lines were few, but I don't see how they were "impossibly written." His speech was mostly in answer to an interrogation, showed him preaching (using Brigham Young's real-life impossibly spoken lines?), and in a brief meeting with church leaders.


POINT (Hanke):

The film's other attempts to demonize Mormonism (really, what else can you call this?) are equally as unsubtle (in the manner most closely associated with Dr. Goebbels)...


COUNTERPOINT:

I consider this a cheap attempt to characterize the filmmakers as Nazi-type propagandists (really, what else can you call this?). If Hanke thinks movies which quote Mormon leaders' actual words are "demonizing," I would counter that they are "educating." I hope people are inspired enough by this movie to learn a bit more about the Mormon faith, to the point of being able to ask Mitt Romney: "What are your personal feelings on the separation of church and state, and the doctrine of blood atonement?"

Those are better questions than asking Mitt what he thinks of this movie or if there was ever a "Barbie" in his life.


POINT (Hanke):

The massacre itself can best be described as half-baked Peckinpah (like the ending of The Wild Bunch minus 60 gallons of blood). The scene reaches a high point of absurdity when a major character dies of a gunshot that magically doesn't leave a bullet hole in her dress.


COUNTERPOINT:

There's no comparison at all to the ending of The Wild Bunch (which I've seen six times). Hanke's way off base, as is his comment about no "bullet hole in her dress." It's really quite simple: The bullet entered her body off camera (and therefore out of our view) and ricocheted within. The bullet didn't have to leave her body (at the point where we could see the blood stain her dress), but could have caused enough trauma without leaving her body to cause the bleeding we saw.


POINT (Hyden):

...Ford falls for the fetching Tamara Hope and a bucking bronco only he is able to ride, though not necessarily in that order of importance.


COUNTERPOINT:

"not necessarily in that order of importance?" To whom or what? To Ford or to the story the film is trying to tell? What an odd way to end that sentence. Or maybe it's just another example of a critic being cute.


POINT (Hyden):

[This movie has a] complete lack of empathy for early Mormons...


COUNTERPOINT:

Not so. References were made to the persecutions suffered by the Mormons and to their fear of US Army intervention.


POINT (Kaltenbach):

Hope, ethereally blond and always dressed in virginal white...


COUNTERPOINT:

Not always in white. Maybe Kaltenbach fell asleep during parts of this movie.


POINT (Kaltenbach):

The film finds great irony, or symbolism, or divine providence, in the fact that the massacre happened on Sept. 11.


COUNTERPOINT:

Like I said earlier, exactly one reference was made to 9/11.


POINT (Mathews):

...in placing a glib romantic fable at its center, it trivializes one of America's ugliest and least understood events.


COUNTERPOINT:

It doesn't "trivialize" it; it "personalizes" it.


POINT (Mathews):

The love story, though, is downright insulting. We're to believe that a look can expunge a lifetime of radical religious thought from Jonathan....I wasn't raised by religious fanatics, but I'm guessing that the beliefs they press on their children are strong enough to sustain them through their first kiss.


COUNTERPOINT:

The movie makes clear that Jonathan was different and says why. He was moved against Mormon realities because of how his mother died: Killed (while his father looked on) by order of a Mormon apostle who had taken her away from his father to become one of his wives. We might also wonder how beliefs are "pressed" on children in a polygamous family. Jonathan's dad had 18 wives and myriad responsibilities as a church official, mayor, and general of the militia. Maybe it was easy to overlook one "odd" child in the midst of such a busy household.


POINT (Nilsen):

But [the film's makers] couldn't make any clearer that the film is really about Islamist terrorism.


COUNTERPOINT:

That's odd, in light of another sentence written a few paragraphs later: "...the filmmakers...simply use the [Mormon] church as a stand-in for their real enemy - self-righteous certainty as justification for pogrom. So, which is it: The first sentence or the second? I lean toward the second, while finding the first nonsensical.


POINT (Nilsen):

But the film makes no mention of any LDS [Mormon] religious tenets...


COUNTERPOINT:

Oh? Looks like this critic also snoozed through parts of the film. Blood atonement as a doctrine (referred to several times) is central to what leads to the massacre. Also, obedience to church authority is stressed. And that bit about a vigilante group (the Danites) was interesting in how it chose to enforce morality.


POINT (Nilsen):

Worse, more time is eaten up with a sub-subplot in which the young hero is shown to be a horse whisperer.


COUNTERPOINT:

"sub-subplot?" Give me a break - it was more like an episode which served to introduce the theme of love at first sight, conversationally, between the young lovers. I thought the part where Jonathan turns his back on a horse he's trying to tame was telling. Jonathan was sent by his suspicious father to spy on the wagon train. The paranoia underscoring the need to spy was countered nicely by the confident courage to turn his back (as a sign of good faith) on a potential foe.

A similar theme was struck in Seraphim Falls in which a hunted man gives his gun to his enemy saying in so many words, "If you think I've done you wrong, then kill me."


POINT (Nilsen):

Historically, [Brigham] Young's role in the massacre, if any, has never been determined and probably never will be. But in the film, he is complicit.


COUNTERPOINT:

The film can't prove that Young ordered the massacre, but it does adopt the plausible position that he did so. I see that position as a counterbalance to the decades in which the Mormon Church sought to cover up this episode. In movieland, as well as in the world of faith, there are such things as Devil's Advocates.


POINT (Olsen versus Rowin):

Olsen: ...in particular, Terence Stamp's performance as Brigham Young [has] a strange, unnerving conviction about [it], and give[s] the film an oddly engaging pull.

Rowin: Everyone involved goes overboard, including an embarrassed Terence Stamp as Young...


COUNTERPOINT:

I guess these two critics disagree about Stamp's performance.


POINT (Schager):

..Bishop Jacob Samuelson (Jon Voight) rails on about how the visitors are abominations (one of the women wears a gun!)...


COUNTERPOINT:

Yet another snoozing critic! The problem the Bishop had: one of the women was wearing "male attire" - pants instead of a dress. And this was stated outright by the Bishop.


POINT (Schager):

Also, it's virtually impossible to take seriously a film whose main contentions can be wholly gleaned from its characters' facial hair - of which Voight's bushy arch-villain goatee is surely the cheesiest.


COUNTERPOINT:

"wholly gleaned from its characters' facial hair?" This guy must have seen another movie - wonder what it was. If not, then I'd have to characterize his review as cheesy.


POINT (Seymour):

On the morning of Sept. 11, 1857, about 120 unarmed men, women and children who had stopped in Utah on their way from Arkansas to California were brutally murdered by a raiding party whose ties to the Mormon Church remain in dispute to the present day.


COUNTERPOINT:

Try again, Seymour. What is in dispute is the extent, if any, that Mormon Church leadership was responsible for the massacre. It's well known that the raiding party consisted of Mormons who, by virtue of being Mormons, had "ties" to the Mormon Church.


POINT (Seymour):

It's plausible that "September Dawn" is overbearing enough to re-open spirited, honest debate about these events. But it's more likely such debate will be delayed while the audience clears the pounding and the soap scum from its ears.


COUNTERPOINT:

What does Seymour mean "re-open?" I'm sure the general American public has not even heard of this historic event and, therefore, had no chance for an initial debate. That sentence ending with "soap scum from its ears" is another example of being cute. Since it's possible that a Mormon might become president and that this homegrown American religion might snowball into a dominant position, I think the time for cute critics has passed.


Lapdog Media

I don't have much respect for the modern American journalistic institution, which is ever respectful of its corporate masters. Don't be too sure that lapdog tendencies are solely the province of syndicated columnists; perhaps the disease has spread to movie critics (of all people...but why not? The public is heavily influenced by such innocuous sources). Thank heaven for the internet; for instance, the critical reviews of September Dawn posted by We-the-People at http://movies.yahoo.com/. I found this one to be of special interest (by jim_ashurst on Aug. 24, 2007):


QUOTE:

I've been to Mountain Meadows. I've read 3 books on the subject. My own Mormon ancestors were involved with the wagon train, but not the massacre. If you think this story was concocted only to embarrass the Mormons, look up Mountain Meadows Massacre on the net, or read "Blood of the Prophets" by Will Bagley.

This may not be the greatest movie ever made in terms of the cinematic arts, but it is not an unwarranted attack on the Mormons. What I wish people would take from this movie is to question how far they can be misled. Those old Mormons were good people, but they were isolated and led by fanatics. Those were mostly good men who were led into committing an awful deed. Had you been one of them, would you have stood up against it? That's the question this movie ought to lead you to.

:UNQUOTE.


Thanks, Jim. You have served us better than these professional critics.


LINKS:

Arnoldy, Ben: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0824/p02s01-ussc.html

Butler, Robert W: http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/v-print/story/244084.html

Chang, Justin: http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_review&reviewid=VE1117934474&categoryid=31


Covert, Colin:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/movies/reviews/4719566.html

Ebert, Roger: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070823/REVIEWS/70823001/1023&templ

Hanke, Ken: http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/september_dawn

Hoberman, J: http://www.villagevoice.com/generic/show_print.php?id=77557&page=&issue=0734&printcd+MzU2

Hyden, Steven: http://www.avclub.com/content/cinema/september_dawn

Kaltenbach, Chris: http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/bal-to.september24aug24,0,1683668.story

Mathews, Jack: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2007/08/24/2007-08-24_westward_woe_in_1857_utah.html

Nilsen, Richard: http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articles/0622dawn0622.html

Olsen, Mark: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-0824_dawnaug24,1,1230502.story

Rocchi, James: http://www.cinematical.com/2007/08/24/review-september-dawn/

Rowin, Michael: http://www.indiewire.com/movies/2007/08/review_brigham.html
Schager, Nick: http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=2925

Seitz, Matt: http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/movies/24dawn.html?ref=movies&pagewanted=print

Seymour, Gene: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etmov25342528aug24,0,3099997,print.story

Smith, Kyle: http://www.nypost.com/seven/08242007/entertainment/movies/pulpit_massacre_has_whiff_of_p.htm
Topel, Fred: http://www.hollywood.com/review/September_Dawn/4751095


PRESENTED FOR YOUR PLEASURE AND CONVENIENCE BY:

Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractor’s Party

“I wouldn’t mind a Mormon in the White House, but I'd prefer a Mor-Woman – yeah, like that will ever happen.”

Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mormon Massacre: Part 1 of 2

Note: “Mormon Massacre: Part 2 of 2” will follow shortly.

Part I of 2:

As a campaign contribution to both Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, I wish to resurrect an old ghost from their past. Both men are Mormons who clearly want to become our next president. The old ghost is a movie that came out in 2007 – September Dawn – which is about an even older ghost.

QUOTE [source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dawn ]

September Dawn is a 2007 Canadian film by Christopher Cain, released on August 24, 2007. It sets a fictional love story against a controversial historical interpretation of the Mountain Meadows massacre. During the massacre a wagon train of emigrants was attacked by a group of Mormon militiamen and members of the Paiute tribe; around 120 men, women, and children were murdered.

:UNQUOTE.

This movie was released around the time Mitt Romney ran for president last time. As I’d written back then, I couldn’t help but notice how the professional movie critics gangbanged September Dawn. Roger Ebert had even given it zero stars! So naturally, I smelled a rat. This time around, there are two Mormons wanting to be POTUS. So I thought it only fitting to recommend that you rent September Dawn, watch it, and see if you smell the same rat I did four years ago.

Disclaimer: The following text has links which might no longer be active. However, I think you’ll get the general idea anyway.

Posted on Aug. 28, 2007

September Dawn: A Great Movie

Conclusion:

September Dawn is a brilliant movie. Don't be deceived by the likes of Roger Ebert, who slandered himself by giving this recently-released film a zero-star rating. Go see this important and timely work, or rent it on DVD.

Pre-Conclusions

Circumstances of my Viewings

On Sunday (Aug. 26), I went to the Webster Place multi-plex to see the 10:40 a.m. showing of September Dawn. I was one of (maybe) five people in the audience, viewing this because I have a fondness for indie features. I hadn't read anything about it, except that it concerned a massacre by Mormons in 1857. That was enough to intrigue me.

I see a lot of movies (as a hobby), so I wanted to post my favorable reaction here on Zaadz. But first, I wanted to check out what the reviewers had to say. I was shocked at the almost universal condemnation of the critics, especially by Ebert's zero-star rating and his comments.

So, of course, I went to see it again - last night actually. This time, there were 20 people in the audience for the 7 p.m. showing. Conclusion? I liked it better the second time, and regard it as an important source of information which nobody should miss.

The Mitt Romney connection

Seeing this movie will motivate many to do a little research about not only this particular historical incident but also about Mormonism in particular. Since Mitt Romney, who wants to be our president, is a Mormon, that should serve to ratchet up the importance of what this movie implies.

Mitt Romney says he won't be seeing September Dawn, according to the Associated Press article entitled Romney shrugs off Mormon history film. Now, consider this (also in that same article): "Romney's ancestors include Parley Pratt, a prominent Mormon murdered in Arkansas several months before the massacre at Mountain Meadows on Sept. 11, 1857." Umm, excuse me for saying this, but this article gravely understates who Parley Pratt was: He was an original member of the Mormons' Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

So there we have it: Mitt Romney is descended from an Apostle, no less. This might go a long way toward explaining the avalanche of negative reviews by film critics and why the film was made in Canada as an indie feature.

The Critics Speak (for themselves? or for whom?)

I did a google-search of critical reviews of September Dawn. It didn't take long for something to "dawn" on me: It's bad enough that our news media are controlled by corporate interests, but it seems that this control extends even to movie critics.

I'm not a paranoid person, but my suspicions can be aroused. For instance, I noticed a lot of the critics used the adverb ham-fisted in their reviews. What makes this especially interesting is that ham-fisted is not the usual way of expressing the defined concept. We Americans use the term ham-handed; ham-fisted is used in Britain. So what am I to think? Do these critics plagiarize each other? Or are they being given a script (written by a Brit?!), which of course they are "free" to modify?

Maybe too many of these critics were too lazy to stray too far from the script. After googling, I came up with six critics who used the word ham-fisted: Bob Mondello, J. Hoberman, Justin Chang, F. Lovece, Mark Olsen, and Ty Burr [see note below, on Ty Burr]...and then I stopped googling. Enough is enough. What to think?

Even reviewers who weren't completely caustic in their criticism couldn't resist peppering their text with enough negatives to turn off any potential moviegoer. Here, I'll cite Justin Chang (who himself used the word ham-fisted):

"Audiences may rightly recoil from the graphically staged finale, with its almost fetishistic focus on the guttings of women and children, all shot in slow-mo and edited together in a flurry of impressionistic dissolves. It's not torture porn; it's massacre porn."

One minor detail: Mr. Chang (writing for Variety...hmm, sounds pretty mainstream corporate to me) is dead wrong. The finale wasn't graphic at all; in fact, I'd rate it less-than-medium on any Richter Scale of movie violence. And "guttings" being focused on? Oh, stop. Mr. Chang, you're embarrassing yourself.

Or maybe embarrassment can be risked if there's an over-riding agenda at stake. Naturally, I don't have the resources to ferret out who might be behind any alleged agenda. But the circumstantial indicators are awfully strong that an agenda is being followed.

As for the director, Christopher Cain: he's retired, so his career isn't at stake. It would be interesting, though, to see if any of September Dawn's fine actors ever find meaningful work again.

The Actual, Historical Event: The Mountain Meadows Massacre

The movie makes clear its view that Mormon leader Brigham Young knew in advance and approved of this massacre. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But...in the movie, he declares martial law in preparation for an "invasion" by U.S. Army forces. I find it hard to believe that he "didn't know" even though he was top dog in a theocracy and had just declared martial law.

This movie will make you think, but not because it shovels a mountain of information at you. In fact, there's just enough (and only "just enough") material quoted from historical documents to make you wonder. And that's good - we should wonder.

My Earlier Posting

I invite you to look at my brief essay which I'd posted on March 4, 2007 at:

http://bpa-cinc.zaadz.com/blog/2007/3/mitt_romney_for_president

From that link, I'll quote the following, which should definitely give you pause:

QUOTE: "I am going to tell you how God came to be God," declared Joseph Smith [founder of the Mormon faith] in his "King Follett Discourse" of 1844..."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form [What color, asks Steven Searle?]...We have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." ... fifth president of Latter Day Saints Church Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be." UNQUOTE (source: Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House?)

Clarification: I have no problem with such a view, which I regard as a crude precursor to certain Buddhist truths.

NOTE: This is an update: It has been brought to my attention that Ty Burr's review did not, in fact, use either the word ham-fisted or ham-handed. The error is mine.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“History does repeat itself – in terms of opinion-makers (in this case, movie critics) perjuring themselves.”

Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mitt Romney’s Mormon speech

Introduction:

There’s an old saying: “Careful what you say…it could come back to bite you in the ass.” In that spirit, I offer my take on a speech delivered by Mitt Romney back on November 6, 2007. That speech was important then (since Romney was a POTUS candidate). And it’s important now, since I’m confident Mitt will give it another go in 2012. [NOTE: I had posted much of this essay on-line in December of 2007.]

Now for some ass-biting…

Introducing Mitt Romney:

Mitt Romney could have said: "When I place my hand on the Book of Mormon and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God."

But no, he didn't say this. On November 6, after being introduced by (former) president George H.W. Bush, Romney didn't utter that sentence. Instead of "Book of Mormon" (which he holds to be superior to the Bible), he said "Bible."

Didn't the founder of the Mormon faith, Joseph Smith, say: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book?" ["any other book" includes the Bible, which Mormons believe contains (at least) errors of translation.]

So why did Mitt Romney say "Bible" instead of Book of Mormon? If I were Mitt, I would have praised this "most correct of any book on earth" and proudly said "that book is what will swear me in." Of course, the religiously tolerant America which Romney praises in his speech would understand, wouldn't it?

I've already made clear how I feel about which book will serve to swear me in as your next president: The Lotus Sutra.

"...my highest promise to God"

So Mitt Romney thinks that the presidential oath of office should become his "highest promise to God." I'm sure a lot of evangelicals must have shuddered when he said that. Well, those who actually bothered to really think about what Mitt was saying should have shuddered. Any Christian's "highest promise to God" goes something like this:

"I promise to do, by the grace of God and of Jesus Christ our Savior, anything within my power and ability to convert non-believers to the saving graces of Christ our Lord."

That's the highest promise to God, thank you very much.

Of course, such a promise doesn't necessarily conflict with the oath of the presidency, which states:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Of course, if Mitt Romney were truly to defend the Constitution of the United States, he would loudly proclaim his intention of rejoining Maine to Massachusetts, and West Virginia to Virginia, since Maine and West Virginia are unconstitutionally-created states. I argued this point here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/illegal-states-of-maine-west-virginia.html

In addition, Romney would never hold the rights of the unborn (who have no rights under the Constitution) to be superior to those of abortion-seeking women (who do have constitutionally-protected rights). Not if he really wanted to defend the Constitution. I presented my 14^th amendment argument in support of Choice here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-unborn-citizens.html

Somehow, I don't imagine that Mitt Romney, or any of my Dem/Pub opponents, would really support the Constitution to the extent I just described. They have, shall we say, other agenda.

A Buddhist's highest promise

As for my highest spiritual promise, it goes something like this:

"I vow to guide as many people to the practice of Buddhism as possible, so they might become Buddhas."

Unlike Romney, I am willing to talk about my religion, while being careful to add that I am not a spokesman for any particular Buddhist sect. In fact, I proudly declare:

"I am a Buddhist, who is a member of a sect containing just one member (that would be me)." [So, obviously, I am not seeking to promote one organized religion at the expense of others. Perhaps that's what the evangelicals fear most about Romney's Mormons.]

As an American, I believe in the market place of ideas, so I would be keen to share my ideas about Buddhism for public consumption. And why not? Just because a man attains the presidency doesn't mean he gives up his First Amendment rights to free speech. Or his right to practice his religion (and, yes, spreading the word about Buddhism is part of practicing my religion).

My view would be: My fellow citizens elected me to be their president, so my intention is to go down in history as this country's greatest President who also happened to be its greatest friend to the rest of the world. I can be both: A Buddhist and this greatest President.

Reflections on Romney's speech

The Points below are quotes from Romney's speech; Counterpoints are my comments to those Points.



POINT:

Mr. President [Bush], your generation rose ... to vanquish the Soviet Union.



COUNTERPOINT:

I wonder how Russian President Vladimir Putin felt when he read those words. And, make no mistake about this, he has read those words. In the process of writing a speech about religion, Romney rather carelessly uses language which might rile a rival. [Perhaps Putin might be thinking, "Vanquished, eh? We'll show you."]

Here's food for thought: We might want to actually thank Russia, for without their competitive presence (and their nukes), the American Oligarchs might have even more boldly advanced their notions of world domination.



POINT:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.



COUNTERPOINT:

Actually, what freedom really requires is an open-minded and ethical public which participates actively in the affairs of state. Under my administration, I hope to usher in an era of genuine democracy. And, no, we don't have that now - we have (barely) a "constitutional republic" (whatever that means). My goal is to create a political environment in which citizens crave to participate as a labor of love, instead of one in which many can't even be bothered to vote.



POINT:

A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.



COUNTERPOINT:

Wouldn't that depend on the faith? Suppose a candidate believes that human sacrifice is appropriate religious practice - shouldn't we reject such a candidate for having such a faith? Of course, the sarcasts among us might claim that the War Machine routinely demands human sacrifice. But I'll leave that alone for now.



POINT:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.



COUNTERPOINT:

I'm sure Mitt Romney meant to say, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of a God..." He must have meant to say "a God," since Mormons believe that more than one God exists. [As a Buddhist, I have no problem with numerous Gods, because I think of them as Bodhisattvas who are on the path of practice, seeking to become Buddhas (of which there are also many in number).]

Witness these comments, concerning Mormon Gods:

QUOTE:

"I am going to tell you how God came to be God," declared Joseph Smith [founder of the Mormon faith] in his "King Follett Discourse" of 1844..."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form...We have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." And (from fifth president of [Mormon] Latter Day Saints Church Lorenzo Snow): "As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be."

:UNQUOTE.

I am also sure that Mitt has been asked another "fundamental question": Do you believe in the supremacy of the Bible? He does not deal with that question in his speech, though clearly he must believe the Book of Mormon to be superior to the Bible.



POINT:

[Our nation's founders] discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom.



COUNTERPOINT:

Maybe what they had really discovered was "the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of individual interior space against statist intrusion."



POINT:

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.



COUNTERPOINT:

Why should we accept Mitt Romney's assurances? He speaks as a member of a group which had suffered persecution and had developed a closed-mouth siege mentality. Mitt himself refuses to release his income tax returns, which (by the way) I defend as his right. However, I have been reflecting lately on certain issues:



• What kind of connections does Mitt Romney have, which indeed might be far more valuable than mere monetary assets? He is, after all, a descendant of a Mormon apostle.


• What kind of (possibly hidden) financial arrangements are possible in a secretive group which had a leader like Brigham Young who had 27 wives and 56 children? What kind of financial underpinning could support such large families? Have those types of creative financing survived to this day? [Don't hold your breath, waiting for lame-stream media to ask such questions.]



POINT:

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God....We should acknowledge the Creator.

 COUNTERPOINT:

Obviously Mitt Romney has never encountered Buddhism, which doesn't believe in a God or a Creator. Ironically enough, though, I think of Mormons as being the most Buddhistic among the Western "Christian" believers.



POINT:

Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.



COUNTERPOINT:

I would be quite satisfied, instead, with judges who would busy themselves with interpreting the law and would just leave it at that.



POINT:

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost [my underscore and emphasis], but also to every child of God.



COUNTERPOINT:

"to our fellow Americans foremost" - there's a certain selfishness in such a phrase, which will appeal to those who say, "You're either for us or you're against us."



POINTS:


• I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.


• ...the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights...



COUNTERPOINT:

I find it interesting that Romney invokes Martin Luther King, abolition, and civil rights in this speech (in Texas yet!). We might look back on this speech of November 6, 2007, as being the (intentional) "blunder" that sank Romney's 2008 candidacy, simply because in it he reminded voters in the Deep South of his liberal background.



Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

"Religious debate is important in a presidential campaign, simply because I believe it's high time that the nonsense espoused behind closed doors in some of our churches desperately needs broad public scrutiny" - Steven Searle

Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com