September Dawn - Preview

My family was held captive by the mormons in a fenced city named Parowan south of Provo for 2 years.My Great great great grandfather had to dismantle his wagon get it over the fence and reassemble it under the cover of darkness.He and 2 of his daughters were able the join and recieve protection from a wagon train they knew was comming.They were lucky they knew their lives were at risk. September dawn was not the only example of this kind of incident.Maybe this move will lead to the release of more information about what this mormon cult is really responsible for.

Gosh Phil, Tonya, and you other anti-Mormons who have posted on here - how "Christian" of you. How about you apologize for the plethora of atrocities against the Mormons perpetrated by your ancestors?
This film, like so much other Hollywood tripe, was merely created to make someone some money from a tragedy not their own. I won't be seeing it.

All the above 'evidence' was taken from the testimony men who took an oath unto death (yup, that is a stonger oath than the one to tell the truth in court) to never tell the truth about the massacre. They were used as witnesses in a monkey court with jurors controled by the church. I noticed you didn't use any of John D. Lee's actual testimony. He was already going to hang out to dry on this one and he was pretty free to tell a lot of things like they were. Most of what he said implicates Brigham Young. But, I suppose you tossed his testimony out of your quest to reveal the truth for us because he was a liar. Good thing you helped us out with the steller characters witnesses of those who perpetrated and then covered the massacre, Knight, McMurdy, Johnson and Klinginsmith. If you hadn't left out Haight and Higbee, we could have had a smashing after party.

I had to laugh when I saw that on June 22nd "the truth will be revealed".

Actually, the truth will be revealed, now, on May 18th. Enclosed are excerpts from the trials of John D Lee. All excerpts except those from Klingensmith are from the 2nd trial and I refer you to this excellent website:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leetestimony.html#Klingon_Smith.

I use these excerpts to show that 1. Indians were involved in the massacre. 2. A messenger was sent to B Young asking his advise and his advise was let the emigrants go. These facts contradict the main points of the movie.

Samuel Knight testimony (came with a wagon to pick up the sick and wounded from the emigrant camp)

The first thing that I heard had occurred. I heard a gun fired.
Q: Where was that gun?
A: I don't know the locality exactly. It was behind me.
Q: Was it near you, or down where the emigrants were?
A: It was below.
Q: How far behind you?
A: I should judge nearly a quarter of a mile, the first gun I heard.
Q: What occurred then?
A: I looked around and saw the Indians rising up from behind the brush, and went to butchering these emigrants.
Q: Were any Indians around there?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Any around the wagons?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you see them take any part in the killing?
A: Yes, sir; they took some part in the killing. There were not more than one or two men there, John D. Lee and the men that drove the wagon.
Q: How many Indians?
A: I can't tell.
Q: Isn't it a matter of fact that about that time you wanted to got away from there, and to see as little as possible?
A: I paid just as little attention as I possibly could.
Q: Didn't you make an effort to see as little of it as you could?
A: I did, sir.
Q: That explains why you did not see all of it?
A: Yes, sir, I took all the pains I could to see as little as I could.
Q: Did not the Indians raise a yell, and make a rush for the wagon before you jumped out?
A: Yes, sir, or about that time.
Q: Were they not surrounding the wagons at the time you saw Lee strike?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: There were Indians all around and close to you at the time?
A: Yes, sir, there were Indians a round; quite a number all round there.
Q: Did they rush toward the people in the wagons with hostile inten­tions
A: Yes, sir, with apparently hostile intentions.
Q: You saw them kill a number of people - didn't they kill that woman?
A: It was my impression that John D. Lee killed her.


Samuel McMurdy, another wagon driver:
Q: No Indians at the time of the killing?
A: I could not say about that. I believe there were Indians around.
Q: Well, do you know?
A: I don't recollect.
Q: You do not recollect to have seen any Indians?
A: Yes, sir, I saw Indians around there, but at the precise moment of time I could not say.
Q: Did you see more than one or two Indians?
A: I saw a great many Indians there after the firing commenced.
Q: Where did those Indians come from?
A: I don't know.
Q: What were they doing?
A: I could not tell.
Q: Did you see them commit any acts of hostility?
A: I don't recollect. I don't doubt but they did, but I can't recollect of their doing anything of the kind.
Q: You pretend to say now that at the time the gun was fired, and from that time on, your excitement and fear were so great that you can't rec­ollect all that did happen?
A: Yes, sir, that's about true.

Testimony of Nephi Johnson (also with the wagons):

Q: Did you see John D. Lee kill any of them?
A. I saw him fire off, and saw a woman fall as I looked down to the wagons.
Q: What wagon was it?
A: I am not certain. I think it was the lead wagon.
Q: Tell what occurred?
A: I saw his gun fired, heard the report of the gun and saw it fired, and saw a person fall, and the gun was held in his hand
Q: Did it kill her?
A: I didn't go to see. The Indians rushed.
Q: What did you see him do next?
A: I looked down below to the men that were below, and then when I looked back again -
Q: Was the massacre going on then down lower?
A: Yes, sir, Indians and all along the line. I saw John D. Lee and some Indians pulling some per­sons out of the wagons.
Q: How many Indians were there that you could not stop; how many were there around the wagons?
A: There was quite a lot that went away with their goods.
Q: Fifty, seventy five, or one hundred?
A: Not that many.
Q: How many did you see that day altogether?
A: There was a great num­ber - over a hundred - there was a great number of them took horses and started off.

Jacob Hamblin's testimony (talked to Lee several days after the massacre)

Q: Calling your attention back to that conversation, I will ask you to tell the court and jury, in your own way, what Mr. Lee told you in regard to his personal participation in that killing, if he told you anything?
A: Well, I believe I told it here yesterday - that he spoke of white men being engaged in it, and that he made an attack at daylight; that he could not keep the Indians back. They were so mad because one of their men got killed, and another wounded, that he led the attack and got a bullet through his hat and another through his shirt. The talk was something like this: They went out there to watch the emigrants and see that they should not get their outfit from the outlying settlements; that the Indians made the attack at daylight, and one of them got killed and another wounded, and that raised their temper to such a pitch that they went for him and compelled him to lead the attack, which he did once or twice ­once anyway - and got the bullet through his hat and one through his shirt. The, emigrants were so strongly entrenched they could do nothing with them. And afterwards they were under the necessity of decoying them out with a flag of trace. And they came along in the Meadows to where the Indians were lying in ambush, and they rose up and massa­cred them. The emigrants were unarmed.

Testimony of Philip Klingensmith, former Bishop and ex-Mormon:
Q: Were there any Indians present at that massacre?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How many?
A: I could not tell you, but the hills were pretty full around there, and they done the massacring of the women, generally. I understood they were to accomplish it. I saw one man cut a little boy's throat with a knife just as I left the ranks to take charge of the children. I also saw others-a good many, but could not tell the names - but afterward I heard of them.

Testimony of Laban Morill (not at the massacre but at councils concerning the emigrants):

A: They seemed to think it would be best to kill the emigrants. Some of the emigrants swore that they had killed old Joseph Smith; there was quite a little excitement there.
Q: You have given us the names of two who were in favor of killing those emigrants - who were the others?
A: Those were my companions, Isaac C. Haight and Klingensmith. I recollect no others.
Q: You remember that council, and the agreement that they would not do anything until word came back from President Young?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Although you didn't see either of those messengers start, you under­stood messengers were sent each way
A: Yes, sir; to stay the opposition until that messenger returned.
Q: Was it mentioned in that Council that a messenger was to be sent to Pinto Creek to stay the thing until the other messenger got back?
A: Understand me, there was nothing said in that Council in regard to Pinto, only that the thing should be stayed. They took such measures to stay it as they thought proper. After the messenger, Mr. Haslem, returned I asked Mr. Haight about it, and he said he had sent word to let them pass, of course. That was the end of my experience in regard to it.

One thing I passed over at that Council; I inquired by what authority they were doing it, and they said by their own authority. Says I, has Dame got a letter here; is there anything from Mr. Dame of Parowan? They said no. I demanded a written letter or order from him before I would act; they said they had none.

Klingensmith (Bishop, ex-Mormon and at the massacre):
Witness: This question came up and there was some of the brethren opposed to such a proposition - and when it came to my turn, I opposed it. There were others that were opposed to it, too. Haight jumped up and broke up the meeting, and went outdoors. Then a proposition was made there. The question I asked them was this: what would be the consequences provided such a thing should take place.
Q: What did they propose to do?
A: They didn't propose to do anything particular when this thing was talked about.
Q: What was said?
A: I have stated all that I can remember.
Q: What was the substance of what was said?
A: It was their- the substance was for their destruction, and I opposed it.
Q: For their destruction by whom?
A: Their destruction was proposed by the Indians. I cannot say positively that the whites were going to do it from there. Then the meeting broke up, and on Monday morning, down below the old fort wall there was several of us met together, again.
Q: Who?
A: Isaac C. Haight, Higbee, myself, Joel White, and I don't recollect anyone else. The talk came up again about these emigrants coming. There they were not yet at Cedar. I got onto the same subject again, and opposed it, and asked questions about it, and said for my part I would like to see these people go through unmolested. Haight then replied, "you may go with Mr. White over to Pinto Creek [a small settlement close to Mountain Meadows] with a letter and tell the people there that these people shall [be allowed to] go through, and try and pacify the Indians - for that people to go through." That is all.

From these little excerpts it is obvious that the Indians participated in the massacre. It also seems likely the emigrants, or some of them, did something to raise the ire of the Indians. It also is evident that Brigham Young was opposed to molesting the emigrants.

Given these facts, and the situation at the Meadows immediately before the massacre, the white authorities had three options: 1. Leave, and let the Indians do their thing. 2. Fight the Indians 3. Do what they did. You can contemplate the results of all three options, none of which are very good. Taking option 1 may have been best, but the horrors of a prolonged siege have to be considered, and if the Indians had gotten the worst of it, they would have held it against the whites for not helping. Option 2 would have resulted in a long and bloody struggle with all the Indian tribes in the region and many more people dead. There is an option 4- pray to God that some miracle will happen- the miracle they needed was for Jacob Hamblin to act as peacemaker, but unfotunately, he was up north.

One other thing to remember:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

(Matt 6:14-15). Although there are some hurtful untruths in the movie, this is an opportunity for all of us to obtain forgiveness of our sins. No blood required.

Despite the fact that I believe the movie would be great if I saw it, I do not understand why such a bad slant must be put on the LDS church. It was never even covered up since there is an entire museum exhibit on it. I do believe that it was a shameful thing, but there are certainly other shameful things in the histories of other churches and not just the LDS church. There was tremendous persecution against the Mormons in times previous and during this time also. It was a group of radicals who did it, and it was a great misunderstanding. Let the past die.

WOW!!!! Can't believe this movie is finally here. We have been waiting a long time for it to be produced. Both my sister and myself are back ground preformers in this movie. I ws one of the sons of the Fancher family and my sister was Tamara Hopes sister. My sister died to save Tamara Hopes life. They were going to shot her but shot my sister instead. I am so excited to see this movie.

I think there's is "overwhelming evidence" that most people are completely ignorant of the persecutions of the nineteenth century Momons (i.e., Haan's Mill Massecre, Murders of prominent church leaders in cold blood, extermination order just to name a few) that preceded the Mountain Meadows Massecre. Has anyone apologized for that? I DON'T THINK SO! There weren't too many Christian souls that came to their aid when their familys were being driven from their homes. To make the assumption that the whole body of the LDS church is somehow behind the tragic actions of a few and needs to repent is so completely naive. Your time is wasted if you still cling to idea that the Church is this big boogeyman. Are you going to apologize for the sins of your ancesters whatever they may be?

An unflinching look the religious fanaticism that leaves the Mormon Church culpable for a monumental crime. I am proud of all those who participated for their boldness to tell the story so long suppressed by the Mormon Church.

As a Fancher party descendant, I am quite familiar with the story, but one aspect of the film surprised me, "Romeo's" brother loses his young mind in the massacre. Something primeval, and so core to human nature-- the fight or flight cope compulsions-- kicks in and he goes savage. He realizes he is in too deep to ever fly out, and there is no hope for him, so he goes blood manic.

While I too have struggled with all the "what made them do it?" questions, I'd never imagined this torturous possibility so vividly. It was so true to the soldier who nuts up in battle when he can't bend his mind around the horror. I wanted to reach through the screen, and back through time, to grab whatever real characters his reflected and pull them close and fly far, far away. This characterization grabbed a hold of me and demanded some compassion for victims of the church caught in hell on the other side.

Despite overwhelming evidence from both Mormon and outside sources, the LDS church remains hunkered down behind President Hinckley's denial of any church responsibility, "No one can explain what happened in these meadows 142 years ago. We may speculate, but we do not know. We do not understand it. We cannot comprehend it. We can only say that the past is long since gone. That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment on the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful and tragic day." The response to tough questions, including this film, is, "no comment."

I left the theater mystified at how so many LDS church members can look to this institution for spiritual leadership when it is unable, in the space of 150 years, to find an open measure of humility and humanity to demonstrate repentance, as an example to its people of how to take responsibility, and offer sincere apology when so painfully wrong.

My family & I viewed the movie in Hollywood on May 2nd. I felt the dirctors & actors did an excellent job perserving history by telling the story of Mountain Meadows and how the LDS church was involved. As a descendant I am very appreciative & hopful that people will watch the movie when it is available in theaters.

I have already read several reviews that say Jon Voight could win an Oscar for this film. I am really looking forward to seeing it in the theater... I just hope it comes to Salt Lake City!!!!

Jon Voight and Terence Stamp are incredible actors!!!!!! And I LOVE Taylor Handley from the "OC"!!!!!!!! I WILL BE FIRST IN LINE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!

This movie looks great! I can't wait to see it! Trent Ford is Gorgeous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!