Church Offers Official Apology For MMM

[Jan]

Here's the link for the other thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=27959&st=0

[LifeOnaPlate]

On the way: a ridiculously expansive thread on "Blood Atonement." Give me a week or so.

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[fox_goku]

If we are taking votes, then I vote for "apology." That is, I think Elder Eyring's statement was a deeply felt apology on behalf of the entire Church because of the actions of local Church leaders in 1857.

Way to go Church!! An apology was needed and appreciated.

[smac97]

One of the things Sister Juanita Brooks might take issue with

She's dead, isn't she? I doubt she's "taking issue" with much of anything at this point.

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.

I don't understand. What is there to take issue with?

Only recently was membership restored, but it was done in quasi secrecy.

Temple ordinances are done that way. The LDS Church doesn't make public announcements about such things.

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.

Yes, I've heard that, too. But even assuming it's true, so what? What is there about Elder Eyring's comments that Juanita Brooks would find objectionable?

-Smac

[Momus]

Im merging these two topics (and therefore the link in Jan's post will no longer work - all the posts from both threads are now in this thread).

[Tsuzuki]

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.

What did Christ do with the sins of the world?

"Oh! There is certainly a terrible secret as far as that is concerned: it is that of responsibility. The father answers for the children, the master for his servants, and the intelligent man for the unintelligent herd. Redemption comes through all superior men; folly suffers, but only the spirit atones.

The pain of a crushed worm or of a lacerated oyster cannot expiate.

Know then, O thou who wishest to be initiated into the great mysteries, that thou makest a pact with suffering and encounterest Hell. The vulture which gorged itself on Prometheus' entrails has fixed its eye upon thee, and the Furies, led by Mercury, are preparing the blocks of wood and the nails. Thou shalt be sacred, that is to say, consecrated to torment. Humanity has need of thine agonies."

- Eliphas Levi,

The Great Secret

[maxrep12]

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.

So you'll save your tears for sacrament meeting?

Charity, it might be helpful to give some of your thoughts a quick "once over" before posting. I don't believe you have the hardened outlook that plays out from the above paragraph. Since the victims are not Mormon, and you have not seen God, it is not your place to proclaim the current state of the victims or their orphaned children, nor their relatives.

The wagon train party endured excruciating days before experiencing their own slaughter. Children were torn from their parents before they were chopped down. It would be alright if you did shed a tear, nobody would think any less of you.

I am not a victim here. Reading the account though of MMM did make me ill. You come across as if you cannot be bothered to give the whole event a second thought. Am I reading you wrong, or has your time on these forums turned you into a tough gal?

[jadams_4242]

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.

And i beleive yer train of thought is absolutely correct!

[soren]

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.

Will do. Actually, I will wait a bit. I had not realized that yesterday was the 150-year anniversary of the attack, so I figure I will wait for a more tasteful day.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Will do. Actually, I will wait a bit. I had not realized that yesterday was the 150-year anniversary of the attack, so I figure I will wait for a more tasteful day.

I've a nice blood atonement thread on the way. No worries.

[cdowis]

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?

So, you are taking "BY's words literally -- he is teaching that we should burn people at the stake, is that correct. Or is he talking figuratively, where the death penalty is applied, the "smoke", or execution, is justified for his own atonement.

Some sins are not covered by the atonement of Christ. For example, the sin of Judas, the sin of murder of innocent blood. You are speaking for yourself, as though you were a prophet and authorized to speak for the Lord. I accept BY as a prophet, and reject your pontifications.

[katherine the great]

Some sins are not covered by the atonement of Christ.

I have a very hard time believing that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I've a nice blood atonement thread on the way. No worries.

I think Zak gotcha beat here.

[cdowis]

I have a very hard time believing that.

Matt 12 [31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Don't listen to the theologians, the wisdom and teachings of man, listen to the prophets.

[alter idem]

QUOTE(katherine the great @ Sep 12 2007, 11:01 AM) *

I have a very hard time believing that.

Matt 12 [31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Don't listen to the theologians, the wisdom and teachings of man, listen to the prophets.

And that is the only sin which is not covered by the atonement. That's because the person rejects Christ's atonement will full knowledge of what they are doing and what this will mean. He can't save a person who does not want saving.

[Zeta-Flux]

And that is the only sin which is not covered by the atonement. That's because the person rejects Christ's atonement will full knowledge of what they are doing and what this will mean. He can't save a person who does not want saving.

Exactly. We believe that part of *accepting* Christ's atonement is repenting of our sins. Part of repentance is making restitution. Apparently Brigham felt that to obtain a better resurrection and (partially) make resitution to God for cold-blooded murder (in a celestial society) one must be willing to give up their own life.

By the way, I recommend the epistles of John for statements about the salvation of murderers.

[Lamanite]

She's dead, isn't she? I doubt she's "taking issue" with much of anything at this point.

I don't understand. What is there to take issue with?

Temple ordinances are done that way. The LDS Church doesn't make public announcements about such things.

Yes, I've heard that, too. But even assuming it's true, so what? What is there about Elder Eyring's comments that Juanita Brooks would find objectionable?

-Smac

I used the word 'might' because Sister Brooks has passed away and we cannot know for sure. However, being conversant with her life and writings I would venture to guess that she 'might' take issue with the absence of a mea culpa regarding the execution of John Lee.

You're right that the church doesn't make public announcements about such things, but Elder stapeley's threat of revocation if this information was published was definitely not saluatory. (To assert she was lying is laughable even amongst her worst critics. Although her critics may not agree with the conclusions drawn from her research I have yet to see a respectable historian suggest Sister Brooks would fabricate her interaction with Elder Stapley and Pres. McKay.)

And lastly, I don't think anything in Elder Eyring's statements were objectionable. I do think that omitting BY's involvement in covering up and pinning it all on John Lee and the Church's refusal to acknowledge this is long over due. However, I'm not sure yesterday was the day to tackle that one.

[selek]

I do think that omitting BY's involvement in covering up and pinning it all on John Lee and the Church's refusal to acknowledge this is long over due.

And herein lies the problem Lamanite. You state these things as if they were self-evident fact. They are not.

While you're interpretation might well be reasonable, other reasonable people have come to precisely the opposite interpretation.

[Lamanite]

And herein lies the problem Lamanite. You state these things as if they were self-evident fact. They are not.

While you're interpretation might well be reasonable, other reasonable people have come to precisely the opposite interpretation.

Point taken. The primary source of my information is Juanita Brooks and a few other "dialogue" type intellectuals of the Church. So I ask "where is the peer reviewed study or historical treatise that makes your case? Sincerely wondering?"

[mms]

This may have already been noted, as I have not read this entire thread, but it looks like there is a debate abolut whether the Church's statement was an apology.

Apparently, the Church, through it's spokesman, is adamant that it was not an apology. See here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2...oneer-massacre/

"Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology. 'We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'' church spokesman Mark Tuttle told The Associated Press."

But, then, today's Tribune says,

"Turley Jr., the LDS Church's managing director of family and church history and co-author of the forthcoming book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, insisted after the ceremony that the statement was meant to be an apology. ''[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry,'' he said. ''What happened here was horrific.''

I was surprised the Church entered into a debate about whether it was an apology. Seems a bit trivial. But they might want to get the historian on board with the Church line if they are going to engage the debate.

[Jan]

Apparently, the Church, through it's spokesman, is adamant that it was not an apology. See here

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2...oneer-massacre/

"Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology. 'We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'' church spokesman Mark Tuttle told The Associated Press."

...'

I was surprised the Church entered into a debate about whether it was an apology. Seems a bit trivial. But they might want to get the historian on board with the Church line if they are going to engage the debate.

Is there a direct (not second-hand) source for the first claim about it not being an apology? Or is that just what a blog or news article says? (Not making a statement, just curious as to the source of this claim)

[katherine the great]

Matt 12 [31] Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Don't listen to the theologians, the wisdom and teachings of man, listen to the prophets.

I pay very little attention to theologians. I agree with some of the above posters and feel that Christ's atonement covers the sins of the world. If we reject that and choose to push the Saviors' sacrifice away, He won't interfere with our free agency. God has the power, though, to eliminate any sin whatsoever.

[katherine the great]

"Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology. 'We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'' church spokesman Mark Tuttle told The Associated Press."

Thank you. That was the way I read it too.

[mms]

Is there a direct (not second-hand) source for the first claim about it not being an apology? Or is that just what a blog or news article says? (Not making a statement, just curious as to the source of this claim)

The Church spokesman is quoted as saying, "We don't use the word 'apology'. We used 'profound regret'."

Seems to me that the spokesman would not distinguish the two if they were intended to be used interchangeably. Rather, why not say, "The statement was clear and intended to say just what it said. We have no further comment." But to ensure that it is understood by the media that the word "apology" was not used and that another term was intentionally used indicates that it is not intended to be an apology. Forgive the common sense analysis, as I know such does not always carry the day, here

[Severian]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/2...oneer-massacre/

"Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology. 'We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'' church spokesman Mark Tuttle told The Associated Press."

I was surprised the Church entered into a debate about whether it was an apology.

I suspect they were anxious to help lend support to Sister Charity's words that no actual apology was offered.

I really do no understand this lack of apology since it was a chance to finally put this issue to rest.