<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mountain Meadows Massacre Movie</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bloggernacle.org/mountain-meadows-massacre-movie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/mountain-meadows-massacre-movie/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 19:45:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clark Goble</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/mountain-meadows-massacre-movie/#comment-3312</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark Goble</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:56:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=263#comment-3312</guid>
		<description>Just to note the Tanners &lt;i&gt;aren&#039;t&lt;/i&gt; involved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just to note the Tanners <i>aren&#8217;t</i> involved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john f.</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/mountain-meadows-massacre-movie/#comment-3308</link>
		<dc:creator>john f.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=263#comment-3308</guid>
		<description>Okay, Clark also expressed what I was trying to say in # 10 -- should have read all the comments before commenting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, Clark also expressed what I was trying to say in # 10 &#8212; should have read all the comments before commenting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john f.</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/mountain-meadows-massacre-movie/#comment-3307</link>
		<dc:creator>john f.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=263#comment-3307</guid>
		<description>I think it makes great subject matter for a movie. The problem is that the Church will not get a favorable treatment. That is, the facts about this are very much in dispute. Cain will not and cannot really portray that. From the article, it looks like the movie will show that BY very much did endorse, perhaps even direct, the massacre. That is not a fair depiction of the facts; even Juanita Brooks points out that we don&#039;t know something like that for sure.

We have President Hinckley&#039;s statement that he is sure that BY was opposed to it. The Church position is that BY sent a messenger with explicit instructions not to interfere with the wagon train. It does not seem that this view will come through in Cain&#039;s film.

Another thing that greatly troubles me based on what I read in the NYT article is that Cain has stated that &quot;I don&#039;t see any reason to soft-pedal anything.&quot; He goes on to explain that what he means by this is not that he is interested in showing not only the massacre but also the reason the &quot;Mormon&quot; settlers felt like a massacre was in order, i.e. the intense persecution of the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois, which included rape, beatings, pillaging, a genocidal extermination order issued by the state, and the forced expulsion of an entire religious group out of the country of the United States, not to mention the brutal treatment of Mormon missionaries in Arkansas. Rather, the article makes it seem that Cain is not interested in showing this side of the story at all, but rather wants to spend the entire picture showing the monstrous Mormons bashing people&#039;s heads in with rocks.

Cain&#039;s stated reason for making this movie equally gives reason to disturb us. He wants to show basically what Krakauer wanted to show: that religion breeds violence. This is something he wants to show through the movie, as articulated in the NYT article Clark has linked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it makes great subject matter for a movie. The problem is that the Church will not get a favorable treatment. That is, the facts about this are very much in dispute. Cain will not and cannot really portray that. From the article, it looks like the movie will show that BY very much did endorse, perhaps even direct, the massacre. That is not a fair depiction of the facts; even Juanita Brooks points out that we don&#8217;t know something like that for sure.</p>
<p>We have President Hinckley&#8217;s statement that he is sure that BY was opposed to it. The Church position is that BY sent a messenger with explicit instructions not to interfere with the wagon train. It does not seem that this view will come through in Cain&#8217;s film.</p>
<p>Another thing that greatly troubles me based on what I read in the NYT article is that Cain has stated that &#8220;I don&#8217;t see any reason to soft-pedal anything.&#8221; He goes on to explain that what he means by this is not that he is interested in showing not only the massacre but also the reason the &#8220;Mormon&#8221; settlers felt like a massacre was in order, i.e. the intense persecution of the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois, which included rape, beatings, pillaging, a genocidal extermination order issued by the state, and the forced expulsion of an entire religious group out of the country of the United States, not to mention the brutal treatment of Mormon missionaries in Arkansas. Rather, the article makes it seem that Cain is not interested in showing this side of the story at all, but rather wants to spend the entire picture showing the monstrous Mormons bashing people&#8217;s heads in with rocks.</p>
<p>Cain&#8217;s stated reason for making this movie equally gives reason to disturb us. He wants to show basically what Krakauer wanted to show: that religion breeds violence. This is something he wants to show through the movie, as articulated in the NYT article Clark has linked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen M (Ethesis)</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/mountain-meadows-massacre-movie/#comment-3194</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen M (Ethesis)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:33:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=263#comment-3194</guid>
		<description>http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/hauns_eom.htm

Well, interesting stuff, but I suspect if will sink quickly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/hauns_eom.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/hauns_eom.htm</a></p>
<p>Well, interesting stuff, but I suspect if will sink quickly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: a random John</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/mountain-meadows-massacre-movie/#comment-3169</link>
		<dc:creator>a random John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:13:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=263#comment-3169</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;The following is off-topic and potentially rude!  And a threadjack at this point&lt;/strong&gt;

Kleermaker,

Please don&#039;t take my nit-picking as a personal attack.  This is a nerdy compulsion that I have.  I would guess that the great majority of people have no idea that &quot;begging the question&quot; is a form of logical fallacy in which a part of a proof assumes the truth of the very question being proved.  The reason that they do not know that is that recently people have abused the term to mean &quot;raises the question.&quot;  In fact, I would think that most people would look at a proper usage of &quot;begs the question&quot; and claim that it is either wrong or nonsense.  Given that you claim to know the difference, may I ask why you deliberately selected &quot;begs&quot; rather than &quot;raises&quot;?

If those that know the correct meaning do nothing then it will be lost forever.  I really don&#039;t care to elighten anyone as to the proper meaning so much as to stop the popular usage.  Yes, I know that this is a fool&#039;s errand, but it is my calling in life!  All those in favor beg your right arm to the square.  All opposed by the same sign.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The following is off-topic and potentially rude!  And a threadjack at this point</strong></p>
<p>Kleermaker,</p>
<p>Please don&#8217;t take my nit-picking as a personal attack.  This is a nerdy compulsion that I have.  I would guess that the great majority of people have no idea that &#8220;begging the question&#8221; is a form of logical fallacy in which a part of a proof assumes the truth of the very question being proved.  The reason that they do not know that is that recently people have abused the term to mean &#8220;raises the question.&#8221;  In fact, I would think that most people would look at a proper usage of &#8220;begs the question&#8221; and claim that it is either wrong or nonsense.  Given that you claim to know the difference, may I ask why you deliberately selected &#8220;begs&#8221; rather than &#8220;raises&#8221;?</p>
<p>If those that know the correct meaning do nothing then it will be lost forever.  I really don&#8217;t care to elighten anyone as to the proper meaning so much as to stop the popular usage.  Yes, I know that this is a fool&#8217;s errand, but it is my calling in life!  All those in favor beg your right arm to the square.  All opposed by the same sign.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guy Murray</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernacle.org/mountain-meadows-massacre-movie/#comment-3168</link>
		<dc:creator>Guy Murray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2006 14:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=263#comment-3168</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sure this will somehow be construed to &quot;beg a question&quot; but I really mean it more as a statement/comment (just as a point of clarification).  This moive will no more be representiative of the Church&#039;s involvement in settling the western United States than is a western about a couple of gay cowboys representative of cowboy genre films.  Great points by harpingheather, Sarebear, and others &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun&#039;s_Mill_Massacre&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;about&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/hauns_eom.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Haun&#039;s &lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.farwesthistory.com/haunbro.asp&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Mill&lt;/a&gt;,  or the extermination order or even the Prophet&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/135&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Martyrdom&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sure this will somehow be construed to &#8220;beg a question&#8221; but I really mean it more as a statement/comment (just as a point of clarification).  This moive will no more be representiative of the Church&#8217;s involvement in settling the western United States than is a western about a couple of gay cowboys representative of cowboy genre films.  Great points by harpingheather, Sarebear, and others <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_Massacre" rel="nofollow">about</a> <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/hauns_eom.htm" rel="nofollow">Haun&#8217;s </a><a href="http://www.farwesthistory.com/haunbro.asp" rel="nofollow">Mill</a>,  or the extermination order or even the Prophet&#8217;s <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/135" rel="nofollow">Martyrdom</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

