Church Offers Official Apology For MMM

[cdowis]

I have read every sermon delivered by Young on the subject in full. the doctrine in brief is that there are certain sins for which which the blood of Christ does not operate and that the blood of the sinner must be sacrificed in lieu of Christ's blood. This is to be undertaken by elders of the Church upon a voluntary victim, who is an LDS priesthood holders. On some occasions Young stipulated that this law was not in full force, but presupposed a theocratic kingdom not yet instituted.

Have I got anything wrong? Maybe I'm missing something?

Basically I see it as the theological basis for capital punishment. It is to be carried out by legal means, and not a church action. Those who murder and then go for prison time rather than accepting execution are compounding the crime.

[maxrep12]

max, the idea was in apologizing for something you didn't do. Besides, I don't think "regret" is really an apology. "I"m sorry we did it" is an apology. "I'm sorry it happened" isn't. As usual, in the press, headlines don't always convey the content. But if those who are really into the victimization mode want to read it as an apology, they can.

I didn't say anything about an apology, or victimization. You might be picturing another forum members post. Your first post on the thread seemed to indicate a lack of compassion that at least the church's statement carried. I'm sure you have compassion for the 120 members of the wagon train party, it just didn't come through at all.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I just read the church statement, and I believe it was very appropriate and timely. Of course, I wish it would have come earlier. It is sad that it took so long for a simple apology. I think it will be adequate for most descendants, and will help bring closure to many still suffering.

Nice, from your comments one might get the impression the Church had never said anything about the incident; which is false.

[peeps]

I actually found the full text of the comments to be quite touching.

[smac97]

The full text of Elder Eyring's remarks:

Dear Friendsâ??

I speak today, by assignment, on behalf of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In so doing, I express their appreciation for the invitation to participate on this program.

It is important and appropriate that we meet together on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We gather as relatives of the massacre victims and perpetrators and as unrelated but interested and sympathetic parties. We gather to remember and to honor those whose lives were taken prematurely and wrongly in this once lush and pastoral valley.

We believe it is our obligation to understand and learn from the past. For this reason, the Church responded favorably several years ago to the request of three experienced and able historians, Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Jr., and Glen M. Leonard, to cooperate with their researching of a book about the awful event that occurred here a century and a half ago. The book they are writing is nearly complete and will be published in coming months by Oxford University Press under the title Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

Although they are Church employees, the authors have retained full editorial control and have drawn their own conclusions from the exhaustive body of historical material they assembled. They have been given full access to all relevant materials held by the Church. Two of the significant conclusions they have reached are (1) that the message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late, and (2) that the responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the Church acting under their direction.

Although no event in history can fully be known, the work of these three authors has enabled us to know more than we ever have known about this unspeakable episode. The truth, as we have come to know it, saddens us deeply. The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse, abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.

We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time.

A separate expression of regret is owed to the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local Church leaders and members.

We know, too, that many of those who carried out the massacre were haunted all their lives by what they did and saw on that unforgettable day. They and their relatives have also suffered under a heavy burden of guilt. No doubt Divine Justice will impose appropriate punishment upon those responsible for the massacre. Nevertheless, our continued prayer for their relatives is that knowledge of a God who is both just and merciful will bring a measure of peace to their souls.

In 1999, President Gordon B. Hinckley returned and joined with many of you in dedicating the monument that stands near our place of assembly today. The Church has worked with descendant groups since then to maintain the monument and surrounding property and continues to improve and preserve these premises and to make them attractive and accessible to all who visit. We are committed to do so in the future.

Having reflected and commented on both the past and future of this hallowed meadow, we conclude by expressing our love and desire for reconciliation to all who have in any way been affected by what occurred at Mountain Meadows 150 years ago today. May the God of Heaven, whose sons and daughters we all are, bless us to honor those who died here by extending to one another the pure love and spirit of forgiveness which His Only Begotten Son personified, is our prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[soren]

Wrong? Simply the conclusions you jumped to in your previous post.

Your conclusion was that BY was not sorry for the lives lost. That's your conclusion, not supported by any specific statement to that effect from BY.

Young's statement at the site of the MMM is my support. The source for it is the personal journal of Wilford Woodruff.

Your conclusion was that BY had "a deep spiritual madness and disregard for the value of life under the gospel". That's your conclusion, not supported by what BY did say concerning the lives of others.

Sinner's blood is totally unable to clease from sin, precisely because it is sinful. That is why we need Christ. To tell a man in a condition of grave sin that Christ's blood will not help him and that he must rely on his own is to steer him directly away from the only means of salvation unto a completely false hope. To give such advice to a man and then kill him in that confidence is to betray the gospel altogether. Even if it really were a "theory," as a theory it is a dark blasphemy.

Your conclusion was that anyone who didn't see it your way "has no grasp of reality at all." Kind of arrogant to hold your faulty conclusions as absolute truth and to pass judgment, not only on Brigham Young, but anyone who doesn't agree with you.

I don't say everyone who disagrees with me is mad on just any old subject that I have strong feelings about. I don't for instance, go around saying people are mad if they think God and man have the same nature. But certain things are so obvious that to not see them is to be mad, and this is one of those things.

You conclude that BY's comments are doctrine. They're not. Your understanding of LDS doctrine and what constitutes it is faulty.

You are, indeed, missing something.

I did not say Young's comments were doctrine. I said they were insane. I know that Latter-day Saints do not consider any statment by an LDS prophet to be doctrine, but hold to a number of restrictions. Most importantly, a doctrine is not official until the first presidency signs off on it. I would venture to suggest however, that a rigid application of that distinction is anachronistic in interpreting Young, since he claimed that everything he said was of scriptural authority, barring stenographic errors.

[Zakuska]

That's not an apology. It's a statement of regret with the finger of blame pointed solely at those directly responsible for the attack. It only sounds like an apology if you don't read too carefully. Of course, a statement of regret is more than Brigham Young ever issued. Rather, when he visited the site of the massacre he removed a monument that said "Vengeance is mine and I will repay," and said that it ought to read, "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little."

Quick note: I don't at all believe that Young ordered the attack; the case for that is rotten. But I have no suspicion that he was sorry about the lives lost. And anyone who does not see in Young's teaching on blood atonement a deep spiritual madness and disregard for the value of life under the gospel, and who does not recognize that the spiritual fruit of such thinking could only be atrocity and death has no grasp of reality at all.

Sounds to me like someone needs to study up on the blood atonement doctrine.

[soren]

Sounds to me like someone needs to study up on the blood atonement doctrine.

Most Mormons, I would say.

[soren]

Basically I see it as the theological basis for capital punishment. It is to be carried out by legal means, and not a church action. Those who murder and then go for prison time rather than accepting execution are compounding the crime.

It is not capital punishment. It is human sacrifice. Do but note Young's words:

There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood split upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them. (JOD 4:pp51-57)

Ascent of smoke? Sin offering? Denial of Christ's blood as applicable for the sinnner's redemption? The thoelogical basis for capital punishment is justice and security for the state, the necessity of cleansing a man with human blood other than Christ's is a much bigger claim than that. It is not I who misunderstand Young here, but LDS apologists who misrepresent him to make his teachings sound more defensible.

[jwhitlock]

Young's statement at the site of the MMM is my support. The source for it is the personal journal of Wilford Woodruff.

Again, the statement (if it is accurate of what BY said) does not say that he was not sorry for the lives lost. Your conclusion is your interpretation of it, based on your preconceived notions. Try taking a look again at the quotes calmoriah provided on BYs real reaction. Your conclusion is faulty.

Sinner's blood is totally unable to clease from sin, precisely because it is sinful. That is why we need Christ. To tell a man in a condition of grave sin that Christ's blood will not help him and that he must rely on his own is to steer him directly away from the only means of salvation unto a completely false hope. To give such advice to a man and then kill him in that confidence is to betray the gospel altogether. Even if it really were a "theory," as a theory it is a dark blasphemy.

Again, this is your conclusion about what BYs opinions mean. In no case does it support your claim of BYs "spiritual madness" and "disregard for the value of life". Those interpretations are your conclusion of what you think BY's thoughts and motivations were. Whenever you pull a Fawn Brodie and try to attribute motivations to someone, you better have some very strong evidence. You don't have such evidence. Yours is speculation, and your conclusion is faulty.

I don't say everyone who disagrees with me is mad on just any old subject that I have strong feelings about. I don't for instance, go around saying people are mad if they think God and man have the same nature. But certain things are so obvious that to not see them is to be mad, and this is one of those things.

Given your faulty conclusions on this subject, and your unwillingness to give anyone any credence for any other view, your judgment on what is "obvious" is very suspect.

Since you have a closed mind on the subject, I can only leave you to stew in your own preconceived misconceptions. You are at a disadvantage when you treat your assumptions as fact, especially when they are pointed out to be faulty.

I did not say Young's comments were doctrine. I said they were insane. I know that Latter-day Saints do not consider any statment by an LDS prophet to be doctrine, but hold to a number of restrictions. Most importantly, a doctrine is not official until the first presidency signs off on it. I would venture to suggest however, that a rigid application of that distinction is anachronistic in interpreting Young, since he claimed that everything he said was of scriptural authority, barring stenographic errors.

You did indeed say they were doctrine. After assuring us that you had read every sermon by BY on the subject, you proceeded to explain to us what "the doctrine in brief" was. And then you attempt to backpedal by claiming you understand what we really mean by doctrine, and then say that it doesn't matter anyway, since BY claimed that everything he said was of scriptural authority.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oh, and CFR on BY's statement that he claimed everything he said was of scriptural authority.

[charity]

I didn't say anything about an apology, or victimization. You might be picturing another forum members post. Your first post on the thread seemed to indicate a lack of compassion that at least the church's statement carried. I'm sure you have compassion for the 120 members of the wagon train party, it just didn't come through at all.

Of course, I am sorry it happened. It was a terrible thing that had terrible consequences. The terrible consequences were on the perpetrators of the crime. What kind of repentance did they have to go through? Did all of them repent so completely that they will still receive the blessings they were on track to receive before they did it? That is the terrible consequences, not dying. We all die. Some die young, some die old. Some die peacefully without pain, and some die in terrible pain and suffering. Some die as the result of actions of others. That wasn't special to the victims of MMM.

I am not wasting any tears on a group of people who have been in paradise for over 150 years. As victims and not perpetrators, their eternal future was not jeopardized as was that of the perpertrators. The survivors and the family members who knew them have similarly departed mortality years and years ago and are in a great place.

Now, if there are people who still feel themselves victims of that event, they are manufacturing it in their own minds. That gets zero compassion from me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

On some occasions Young stipulated that this law was not in full force, but presupposed a theocratic kingdom not yet instituted.

Have I got anything wrong? Maybe I'm missing something?

Yeah, the fact that no Theocratic Kingdom was "in full force."

[LifeOnaPlate]

Wait, isn't Soren Catholic? If so, Jiminy Christmas!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Out of curiosity, Soren, do you believe in capital punishment?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Most Mormons, I would say.

ooooooooo! Burn! Baby burn!

[Doctor Steuss]

The full text of Elder Eyring's remarks:

Just bumping this link to the head of the pack. Such beautiful words deserve the forefront.

[soren]

Again, the statement (if it is accurate of what BY said) does not say that he was not sorry for the lives lost. Your conclusion is your interpretation of it, based on your preconceived notions.

Can you explain it in another way that fits the facts?

Try taking a look again at the quotes calmoriah provided on BYs real reaction. Your conclusion is faulty.

Again, this is your conclusion about what BYs opinions mean.

Looking at Calmoriah's quotes, I will suspend judgment until someone can explain to me what Young meant at the scene of MMM. And a better response than questioning Woodruff's accuracu in reporting that as opposed to Young's real response, as if the source I cited were somehow fake, would be useful.

In no case does it support your claim of BYs "spiritual madness" and "disregard for the value of life". Those interpretations are your conclusion of what you think BY's thoughts and motivations were.

They are based on my knowledge of theology, and the unlimited power and benevolence of Christ's atonement and well as the incapacity of impure blood to atone for sins. A madman is someone who cannot see reality as it is but only as it isn't. Blood atonement is an extreme example of this.

Whenever you pull a Fawn Brodie and try to attribute motivations to someone, you better have some very strong evidence. You don't have such evidence. Yours is speculation, and your conclusion is faulty.

Given your faulty conclusions on this subject, and your unwillingness to give anyone any credence for any other view, your judgment on what is "obvious" is very suspect.

Since you have a closed mind on the subject, I can only leave you to stew in your own preconceived misconceptions.

You are at a disadvantage when you treat your assumptions as fact, especially when they are pointed out to be faulty.

What faulty assumptions did you in fact point out? Anything false in my interpretation of the blood atonement? Am I wrong to say blood atonement is human sacrifice? Wrong to say it replaces Christ's blood with man's? Or was my false assumption perhaps that I attempted to draw conclusions from evidence and allowed theology to function in my judgment?

You did indeed say they were doctrine. After assuring us that you had read every sermon by BY on the subject, you proceeded to explain to us what "the doctrine in brief" was. And then you attempt to backpedal by claiming you understand what we really mean by doctrine, and then say that it doesn't matter anyway, since BY claimed that everything he said was of scriptural authority.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You're right. Anyway, I didn't mean LDS doctrine. I meant Brigham Young doctrine. I meant it in a genreic sense, that a "doctrine" is a thing taught, in this case, a thing taught by Young. I didn't realize I had even used this word because the sense in which you understood it had not even occured to me when I wrote it, so it seemed to me that the accusation came from nowhere.

Oh, and CFR on BY's statement that he claimed everything he said was of scriptural authority.

What does CFR mean?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What does CFR mean?

Mean call for a refrence.

[soren]

Out of curiosity, Soren, do you believe in capital punishment?

I think capital punishment is just by nature, inasmuch as murder, for instance, warrants death. I also think that it should only be carried out if the common good of society demands it, and I do not think we live in such a time. Therefore I oppose capital punishment in our society, but not because it is intrinsically evil as such.

Yeah, the fact that no Theocratic Kingdom was "in full force."

I thought that went without saying.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It is not capital punishment. It is human sacrifice. Do but note Young's words:

Ascent of smoke? Sin offering? Denial of Christ's blood as applicable for the sinnner's redemption? The thoelogical basis for capital punishment is justice and security for the state, the necessity of cleansing a man with human blood other than Christ's is a much bigger claim than that. It is not I who misunderstand Young here, but LDS apologists who misrepresent him to make his teachings sound more defensible.

Young throughs in a qulifier. If they could see their true state, then they would do this. See? He isnt saying that is what is going to happen or what should happen.

[jwhitlock]

Just bumping this link to the head of the pack. Such beautiful words deserve the forefront.

You're right, of course.

I still tend to get a little bit testy when BY is attacked as part of this.

Soren, start another thread if you want to discuss this further.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Agreed. Soren, start a blood atonement thread if you wanna go into it.

[smac97]

Richard Turley is quoted in the Trib:

LDS Church historian Richard Turley said that while Eyring's words didn't go so far as to say the church is "sorry," the remarks were an apology. "[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry," he said. "What happened here was horrific."

But it seems that Elder Eyring's statement is not enough for some:

Other descendants, though acknowledging Eyring's words represent progress, wish the church had gone even farther.

"Simply saying 'I'm sorry,' would go a long way," said Priscilla ****son, 60, of St. George, a descendant of the Tackett family, which was part of the Fancher-Baker group.

"Did you hear 'I'm sorry?' " asked historian Will Bagley, author of Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows. "They did apologize to the Paiutes, if shoving it off on local leadership is an apology."

This reminds me of a thread on this board. Bsix asked:

On one of the endless Mountain Meadows Massacre threads, solomarineris said:

The best way would be to acknowledge and get on with life but Church failed to do so.

Six: This is a fairly typical the-church-should-make-it-right sort of mentality. These calls are always soooo vague.

This thread is devoted to letting folks itemize, in specific terms, what they think the Church should do today regarding the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Is it possible for the Church 150 years after the fact to make amends and settle the matter?

Please be specific.

I responded:

Admit that Brigham Young was a false prophet and that Mormonism is false.

That's what they're really after.

You'll note that the primary (sole?) source of contention about the Mountain Meadows Massacre is not about the massacre, but rather about Brigham Young's role in it.

If Brigham Young ordered the massacre, then anti-Mormons can assert that he was a false prophet.

So reasonably evaluation of the evidence take a backseat to damning Brigham Young, because damning Brigham Young, challenging his prophetic mantle, and attacking the religious truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ are the order of the day.

If you doubt the reality of this ulterior motive, check this out:

Bagley's sneer, made mere minutes or hours after Elder Eyring's remarks, seem to validate my suspicion.

-Smac

[selek]

The full text of Elder Eyring's remarks:

Dear Friendsâ??

I speak today, by assignment, on behalf of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In so doing, I express their appreciation for the invitation to participate on this program.

It is important and appropriate that we meet together on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We gather as relatives of the massacre victims and perpetrators and as unrelated but interested and sympathetic parties. We gather to remember and to honor those whose lives were taken prematurely and wrongly in this once lush and pastoral valley.

We believe it is our obligation to understand and learn from the past. For this reason, the Church responded favorably several years ago to the request of three experienced and able historians, Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Jr., and Glen M. Leonard, to cooperate with their researching of a book about the awful event that occurred here a century and a half ago. The book they are writing is nearly complete and will be published in coming months by Oxford University Press under the title Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

Although they are Church employees, the authors have retained full editorial control and have drawn their own conclusions from the exhaustive body of historical material they assembled. They have been given full access to all relevant materials held by the Church. Two of the significant conclusions they have reached are (1) that the message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late, and (2) that the responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the Church acting under their direction.

Although no event in history can fully be known, the work of these three authors has enabled us to know more than we ever have known about this unspeakable episode. The truth, as we have come to know it, saddens us deeply. The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse, abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.

We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time.

A separate expression of regret is owed to the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local Church leaders and members.

We know, too, that many of those who carried out the massacre were haunted all their lives by what they did and saw on that unforgettable day. They and their relatives have also suffered under a heavy burden of guilt. No doubt Divine Justice will impose appropriate punishment upon those responsible for the massacre. Nevertheless, our continued prayer for their relatives is that knowledge of a God who is both just and merciful will bring a measure of peace to their souls.

In 1999, President Gordon B. Hinckley returned and joined with many of you in dedicating the monument that stands near our place of assembly today. The Church has worked with descendant groups since then to maintain the monument and surrounding property and continues to improve and preserve these premises and to make them attractive and accessible to all who visit. We are committed to do so in the future.

Having reflected and commented on both the past and future of this hallowed meadow, we conclude by expressing our love and desire for reconciliation to all who have in any way been affected by what occurred at Mountain Meadows 150 years ago today. May the God of Heaven, whose sons and daughters we all are, bless us to honor those who died here by extending to one another the pure love and spirit of forgiveness which His Only Begotten Son personified, is our prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Despite how the panting pack might want to spin this, there is no apology here because there is no admission of culpability. There is no mention of the Church representatives gathering as responsible parties- only as relatives of the perpetrators and interested and sympathetic parties.

There is no admission of either guilt or responsibility on the part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for what took place in that meadow a hundred and fifty years ago- only a deep regret for the lives lost and a desire for healing and reconciliation.

Those with an axe to grind will accept nothing less than a full admission of guilt and of the "bankrupt" nature of the Mormon faith (amply demonstrated by the quotes Smac found responding to the Elder Eyring's statements). They continue to demonstrate freely and enthusiastically that thier concern is not about either the lives lost or healing, but rather that it is about extracting a pound of flesh and furthering their other agendas.

[katherine the great]

I'm not sure this is an apology. Is expressing regret for something you don't consider yourself responsible for an apology? I would consider an apology something like this:

"We deeply regret the mountain meadows massacre and apologize for any part the leaders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints played in it."