Church Offers Official Apology For MMM

[Jan]

I haven't read the full text yet, but this statement is at least accepting responsibility for it:

The research also found that the "responsibility for the massacre lies with the local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows ... and with members of the church acting under their direction."

The statement is saying responsibility rested with local Church leaders and members (not the central/corporate Church).

I'll have to read the full text - but don't have time now.

[Doctor Steuss]

"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 (i.e. â??our Churchâ?) 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."

**If I use my handy-dandy right-clicker for synonyms, I get:

be sorry

be apologetic

apologize for

be repentant

feel sorry

be disappointed

be unhappy

lament

But then again, what does my computer know(?)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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."

Im confused. Why does the church need to apologize? They were not involved. They are expressing regret for what happen and are sympathizing. Or am I wrong? Guilt by association does not make one guitly.

[katherine the great]

Im confused. Why does the church need to apologize? They were not involved. They are expressing regret for what happen and are sympathizing. Or am I wrong? Guilt by association does not make one guitly.

I didn't say that the church needs to apologize. I just read the thread title (LDS Church issues Apology for the Mountain Meadows Massacre) and then read the statement (which doesn't read like an apology to me.) It just sounds like what the church has been saying for a long time.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I didn't say that the church needs to apologize. I just read the thread title (LDS Church issues Apology for the Mountain Meadows Massacre) and then read the statement (which doesn't read like an apology to me.) It just sounds like what the church has been saying for a long time.

Oh yeah. Then I concour. That is what I thought too.

[Hammer]

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."

Sounds like you have had lots of practice at apologizing. Maybe you should offer your services to the church on account of they don't seem to do it as well as you.

[katherine the great]

Sounds like you have had lots of practice at apologizing. Maybe you should offer your services to the church on account of they don't seem to do it as well as you.

I had ancestors who participated in that heinous act. I would apologize from the bottom of my heart and soul to anyone who suffered because of what my ancestors did. It breaks my heart to even think of it.

[Hammer]

I had ancestors who participated in that heinous act. I would apologize from the bottom of my heart and soul to anyone who suffered because of what my ancestors did. It breaks my heart to even think of it.

How does this address my post?

I'm sorry you have ancestors of that group. I don't see it as appropriate, however, to carry other's burdens of sin when Christ has declared it is His work and glory to do so.

[Doctor Steuss]

I had ancestors who participated in that heinous act. I would apologize from the bottom of my heart and soul to anyone who suffered because of what my ancestors did. It breaks my heart to even think of it.

I can't even begin to imagine what that must be like... bless you Katherine.

Maybe this thing by Elder Eyring isn't an apology. It seems that there are people on both sides of the fence (LDS and Critics [on another board]) who don't see it as one. Maybe it's just my hopes that it is that are causing me to not see it as something else. I just feel like an apology could do so much towards healing and understanding, and at such a small price.

Maybe I've just got MMM burnout from all of the September Dawn/MMM stuff lately. It has made my heart heavy, and I can't even imagine what it has done to those (such as yourself) who had ancestors involved.

[katherine the great]

How does this address my post?

I'm sorry you have ancestors of that group. I don't see it as appropriate, however, to carry other's burdens of sin when Christ has declared it is His work and glory to do so.

"Bear ye one anotherâ??s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ."

[Hammer]

"Bear ye one anotherâ??s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ."

Burdens -- not sins--. I apparently used the wrong word for you. But since it was my choice of words, it it will be my choice of meaning to that word--

Where in all the doctrines does it say bear one another's sins? A widow if struggling to pay her bills and keep food on the table. Those are her burdens. She is not admonished to share her sins with anyone that I know of.

[katherine the great]

Maybe I've just got MMM burnout from all of the September Dawn/MMM stuff lately. It has made my heart heavy, and I can't even imagine what it has done to those (such as yourself) who had ancestors involved.

I get kind of tired of thinking about it too, but they were mostly decent people before and after the massacre. It's so bizzare. Everyone knows how horrible this was for the victims, but most people don't realize how profoundly it affected the lives of the Southern Utah communities. Southern Utah was a VERY tight community up to the point of the massacre, but new settlers were called shortly afterward. These new settlers ostracized the earlier groups and most of them ended up leaving and moving further out or to Nevada or Arizona. I don't say that as a criticism of the newer settlers because the former were very clannish anyway. I doubt they were particularly welcoming to new neighbors. I think the massacre was the last straw for a few of my Pioneer ancestors. As soon as they had the chance to leave the church, they did. Others stayed faithful.

Burdens -- not sins--. I apparently used the wrong word for you. But since it was my choice of words, it it will be my choice of meaning to that word--

Where in all the doctrines does it say bear one another's sins? A widow if struggling to pay her bills and keep food on the table. Those are her burdens. She is not admonished to share her sins with anyone that I know of.

Whatever. I really don't want to discuss this with you.

[Avatar4321]

whether its an apology or not, Elder Eyering spoke the truth. I dont care whether you want to label it an apology or not.

I regret the MMM happening too. That doesnt mean I am apologizing for it, cause i had nothing to do with it. I regret the holocaust too.

But I promise you that whether its an apology or not, the people who hate the Church will never be satisfied.

[Severian]

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.

So then, these statements were misconstrued and the Church did not really issue an apology because such an apology is unneeded for something they didn't do?

Sounds like the basis for a new FAIR review to clarify this matter.

[Lamanite]

One of the things Sister Juanita Brooks might take issue with is that although the Church acknowledges the responsibility of "Church leaders" (Plural), John D. Lee took the majority of the blame and paid for it with his life. Only recently was membership restored, but it was done in quasi secrecy. And when Sister Brooks went to publish it she was threatened by Elder Stapley that if she went ahead Pres McKay would reverse his decision. Before you all type out the CFR please read Levi Petersens (sp?) biography of Sister Brooks. I don't have pg numbers with me but feel free to use the index.

[Deborah]

Soren, please see the qualifier in BY's statement (assuming it is quoted accurately):

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)

There is nothing in this statement that implies that BY would enforce the blood atonement on anyone. He was talking from the perspective of those who would commit such crimes as being willing to shed their own blood to atone.

[Jan]

Here's the entire text from the Church web site. I read it as an apology (the words that Doctor Stuess emphasized). I've added my own emphasis (colored font) to the text below - none of it's in the original.

150th Anniversary of Mountain Meadows Massacre

11 September 2007 Elder Henry B. Eyringâ??s remarks at the Mountain Meadows Massacre Sesquicentennial on 11 September 2007, in Washington County, Utah.

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.

It's acknowledging responsibility for the act by leaders of the Church against the wagon train *and* the Indians. It's acknowledging the pain of the descendants of the victims as well as the perpetrators.

[Deborah]

this topic is already being discussed under the All Things MMM site. There is already quite a bit of discussion on it.

[Nephi]

Here's your apology.

Nice. Charity. You can sleep better tonight now, knowing that Illinois has apologized for the killing of Joseph Smith... This calls for a celebration. Anyone wanna drink a beer with me? <--- insert sarcastic remark image.

[katherine the great]

whether its an apology or not, Elder Eyering spoke the truth. I dont care whether you want to label it an apology or not.

We didn't label it an apology--the newspaper article did.

this topic is already being discussed under the All Things MMM site. There is already quite a bit of discussion on it.

So it is. I guess it's just easier to see it here. Maybe the mods will move it over there.

[cinepro]

That is really a fantastic statement, and I read it as an explicit apology to the extent that modern Church leaders and members can "apologize" for the misdeeds of the past. It is obvious a lot of time and thought went into that statement, and I wouldn't change a word of it.

[alex71va]

I'm proud of the church for this apology.

[BishopRic]

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.

Nice compassion.

I could say exactly the same thing about Joseph Smith...and I hope you apply the same logic to him. Would you not "waste any tears" on him too?

[Avatar4321]

We didn't label it an apology--the newspaper article did.

So it is. I guess it's just easier to see it here. Maybe the mods will move it over there.

I wasnt speaking to you specifically. i mean in general. it doesnt matter whether its called an apology or not its true.

[Nephi]

I am not wasting any tears on a group of people who have been in paradise for over 150 years.

How do you know this? Was there not a bad guy among them who deserved prison instead? If they were in prison, would you feel sorry for them, then?