Posted on 06/10/2007 7:24:29 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Sally Denton uses today's Los Angeles Times op-ed page as a launching pad for the movie based on her book, "American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows, September 1857," and as a means to propagate more anti-Mormon bigotry at the expense of Mitt Romney. Denton insists that Romney has to respond about the nature of his faith if he expects to win the nomination for the Presidency -- and uses a lot of 19th-century examples to "prove" her case:
MITT ROMNEY'S Mormonism threatens his presidential candidacy in the same way that John F. Kennedy's Catholicism did when he ran for president in 1960. Overt and covert references to Romney's religion — subtle whispering as well as unabashed inquiries about the controversial sect he belongs to — plague his campaign. None of his responses so far have silenced the skeptics.
Recent polls indicate that from 25% to 35% of registered voters have said they would not consider voting for a Mormon for president, and conventional wisdom from the pundits suggests that Romney's biggest hurdle is his faith. Everyone seems eager to make his Mormonism an issue, from blue state secularists to red state evangelicals who view the religion as a non-Christian cult.
All of which raises the question: Are we religious bigots if we refuse to vote for a believing Mormon? Or is it perfectly sensible and responsible to be suspicious of a candidate whose creed seems outside the mainstream or tinged with fanaticism?
Ironically, Romney is the only candidate in the race (from either party) who has expressed discomfort with the idea of religion infecting the national dialogue. While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
First, Denton is hardly an unbiased pundit in this regard. She's flogging a book and a movie about an atrocity committed by Mormons 150 years ago. For Denton, 1857 is relevant to 2007, but for most Americans. The suggestion that Romney needs to answer for Brigham Young would be as silly as saying that Democrats have to answer for Stephen Douglas or that Lutherans today have to answer for the anti-Semitic rants of Martin Luther.
Denton first off would have people believe that all Mormons are "tinged with fanaticism," but does nothing to advance that case. She discusses the beginnings of their church in great detail, but her history lessons appear to end at 1857. In the only mentions of any connection to the present, she uses the HBO series Big Love and Warren Jeffs, neither of which has any connection to the modern Mormon church or to Romney's faith. Both the fictional account in Big Love and the unfortunately non-fiction and despicable Jeffs involve polygamist cults -- and in the TV series, are showed as in mortal opposition to the Mormons.
Denton includes this helpful instruction at the half-way point:
It's not a church's eccentric past that makes a candidate's religion relevant today, but its contemporary doctrines. (And it's worth noting that polygamy and blood atonement, among other practices, are no longer condoned by the official Mormon church hierarchy.)
So what contemporary doctrines does Romney need to explain? Denton never says. Instead, she spends her time writing about how Joseph Smith once declared his intention to run for President -- in 1844. She discusses how John C. Fremont's candidacy died on the rumor that he was Catholic -- in 1856. She mentions 1960, in which John Kennedy dealt with anti-Catholic bigotry, but only barely notes that he prevailed over it -- and that was almost 50 years ago.
Denton then frames the question that she feels Romney has to answer:
Do you, like the prophet you follow, believe in a theocratic nation state? All the rest is pyrotechnics.
Unfortunately for Denton, Romney has answered this question every time it gets asked. And somewhat incoherently, Denton appears to forget that she herself acknowledges this near the beginning of the column:
While his GOP rivals have been pandering to the evangelical arm of the party, Romney actually committed himself (during the first Republican debate) to the inviolable separation of church and state.
Romney has no need to enter into the field of religious apologetics in his campaign for the presidency, no more than does Harry Reid in order to run the Senate. He certainly has no guilt to expiate on behalf of a massacre committed almost a century before his birth, and for people like Warren Jeffs who do not have any connection to the Mormon church. In other words, Denton has taken up space at the LA Times to exercise her bigotry and to not-so-coincidentally sell a few books and movie tickets. She and the LA Times should be ashamed.
UPDATE: One commenter suggests that people opposed Keith Ellison on the basis of his religion. Er, not quite. We opposed him on the basis of his association with the notoriously anti-Semitic group Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan, and his association with CAIR, which has supported terrorist groups like Hamas. If Romney had spoken at Warren Jeffs' compound for political donations, then the analogy would be apt. Ellison's problem isn't his religion but the company he keeps, politically, a fact that he and his apologists like to wrap in a false cloak of religious antagonism.
Name one of those “lies” the Tanner’s are making a living from. Just one. Any one will do.
BTW, anyone can go to the Tanner’s home and bookstore. They are very modest people with a very modest income that they work very hard at making (they are hard working, honest people). Tanner’s morality would match up to yours or Mitt Romney’s any day. AND they are Christian.
Good people like this should not have to be slimed by the likes of those who will do and say anything in order to get flipping Mitt nominated. It is very disturbing.
There should be consultants from BOTH sides offering historical facts. This movie is not another exercise in Mormon propaganda, now is it. Are you upset that the movie producers didn’t hire Bonneville Communications and their tradmarked “Heartfelt” approach to truth dissemination?
I think Reaganesque sum Tanners very well!
Having Sandra Tanner as a consultant on a movie about Mormons would be like having David Duke as a consultant on a movie about Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1848135/posts?page=60#60
I’ve asked you to list one lie. Can you do it?
Yes they do, but then serious Catholics, Evangelicals and Jews all have similar attitudes, and not without good reason. When raising a family, similarity of convictions is quite helpful.
Keep up the good work, cc. You’re doing a great job for your side.
Not every non mormon sings their praises like you or Ed Decker.
Lawrence Foster, an associate professor of American history at Georgia Institute of Technology, a scholar who is non-Mormon and who has spent a decade in intensive work on Mormonsim, has said of the Tanners:
“Until they are prepared to abide by accepted standards of scholarly behavior and common courtesy, they can expect little sympathy from serious historians,” and “the Tanners’ own work falls short of history.” Foster also stated, “The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writings, and beliefs.” Foster gives the Tanners credit for publishing old LDS documents, “but criticizes them for using unauthorized materials which have been acquired leaving much to be desired, ethically speaking.” The Tanners often publish “scholarly works of living individuals without their permission, because the end (destroying Mormonism) justifies the means.” Foster continues, “The Tanners seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgement are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same—negative.”
Foster also quoted another Tanner critic who said:
“Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide that [larger] perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history.” (”Career Apostates,”dialogue,summer 1984,pp.35-60)
you say some of the kookiest things CC each Church is entitled on how they understand the Word of God!
At least I don’t lie.
Jon Voight said he had no idea who that was.
Just to be clear, she was not involved.
But the Tanners do!
Any idea who that "other" critic was?
This is typical LDS tactic. Can't discuss the issues of a movie about MMM, so they first accuse producers of getting infromation from Saundra Tanner (not verified whatsoever), and then continue an assualt on the integrity of the Tanners. For just once can you guys actually support your positions without attacking the credibility of someone else or calling someone a bigot?
Really, I'm starting to wonder.
Jerald Tanner died last year.
Still waiting resty....
....one lie?
Any lie?
It’s very easy to call names, but it is more difficult to prove it. You up to the task?
LOL! Cha Ching! That had to hurt.
I know but the creeps spirit lives on!:)
Nope, there is plenty more though. I know they are your heros for starting lighthouse ministries, but you really should research their history as much as you do your former Church’s history.
Is this an example of the “truth” we will find on LDS.org?
Do you care to discuss it? Do you even recognize the lie that is told here about Zina Diantha Huntington Young?
http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5511-1,00.html
Nice change of subject. NOT
Any comment?
Should we let the inmates run the jail? Should we let Mormons be the only ones to disseminate information about their own history?
Is this what is to be expected?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.