Time To Revisit

[mfbukowski]

One Sunday evening might be the best time.

I agree- that seems to be a time of high usage around here. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Buckeye]

I'm well aware of news coverage of this event. I insist that both the Tribune writer and the writer for my own paper, the Deseret News, were wrong to characterize it as such, for the reason I have already articulated. If I had written the story (and, in fact, I was almost sent down to Cedar City that day to cover it) I would not have termed it as an apology and you would not have had a Deseret News story to marshal in your behalf. I note that Elder Eyring himself, as quoted, did not term it an apology. I think the wording he chose is significant.

Yes, we do disagree -- diametrically in fact. And I don't see that you have persuasively rebutted my logic. In this instance, the "organization" itself (the Church of Jesus Christ) did not perpetrate the massacre; errant members of that organization did.

Scott, respectfully, I was not trying to prove anything to you. I was just laying out my position. That fact that the two major newspapers in Utah also described Elder Eyring's words as an "apology" suggests to me that my position is rational. Feel free to disagree (even diametrically).

I was present at the news conference in Salt Lake City when the Illinois state government officials announced this initiative. As I recall, one of them referenced a minor issue as to whether it should properly be called an apology as opposed to an expression of regret. A question I posed at that news conference was whether any of the officials then present had ancestors who were Illinois residents at the time the Prophet was martyred; none did. Implicit in my question, of course, was the logic I have articulated here: One can express regret about events of the past, but one cannot appropriately apologize for something for which one is not personally accountable.

My reasoning still applies. Under the definition I have applied it is not properly termed an apology unless the party making the apology assumes accountability.

Wow, this really is a big issue for you. My point, though, is that others see it differently.

[Edited to add: Re-reading your statement caused me to see something else. It appears by your question to the Illinois delegation that you may believe it appropriate for blood decendants to apologize for the actions of the predecessors, but not organizational leaders. Thus, Senator XYZ from Georgia could not apology on behalf of the US government for slavery, but he could apologize on behalf of the XYZ family for the slaves his ancestors controlled. Is this right? Please elaborate]

The Church as an institution is not accountable for the unauthorized and errant actions of individual members. If you (I assume you are a Church member) were to go out and commit adultery, for example, you yourself would bear the blame, not the Church. The Church could express regret for your action, but the apology would have to come from you.

Well, as an attorney, I can tell you that in some instances the Church can be held liable for unauthorized and errant actions of individual members. For instance, the Church has been held liable for child abuse committed by its members in the course of Church-sponsored activities.

As for the apology/regret dichotomy, I would offer the following:

1. I still think modern leadership or any organization can issue an apology for prior actions by members (particularly leaders) of the organization. It's been done many times. I cited a few examples. There are many more.
   
2. Regardless, I think many of those who would like to see an "apology" for the racial ban would be more than content with an "expression of regret." The central theme is not whether the current leadership is personally responsible for prior actions, but whether the prior actions were wrong. An expression of "regret" would be acknolwedgement of error just as much as an apology, and so should suffice.
   
3. That said, it would be possible (though I am not suggesting this) for some current leaders to personally apologize for actions taken or not taken by them prior to 1978. Even under your theory, for instance, President Monson could say he was sorry for not spurring action sooner. Again, I'm not saying he should. I don't know his heart. But unlike, MMM, many of the current leadership were involved in maintaining the priesthood ban.
   

Edited April 24, 2012 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, respectfully, I was not trying to prove anything to you. I was just laying out my position.

A position you continue to push without providing persuasive logic or substantiation.

That fact that the two major newspapers in Utah also described Elder Eyring's words as an "apology" suggests to me that my position is rational. Feel free to disagree (even diametrically).

This is not as momentous as you want it to be. News writers phrase things inaccurately quite often. As I pointed out to you, another writer might have chosen different wording without having his/her judgement questioned by an editor. In fact, the Deseret News writer in this instance easily could have been me, and I would have written it to more closely reflect what Elder Eyring actually did say on that occasion.

Wow, this really is a big issue for you. My point, though, is that others see it differently.

I recognize that others see it differently. What we are arguing is whether they are justified in doing so; thus far you have not made that case.

[Edited to add: Re-reading your statement caused me to see something else. It appears by your question to the Illinois delegation that you may believe it appropriate for blood decendants to apologize for the actions of the predecessors, but not organizational leaders. Thus, Senator XYZ from Georgia could not apology on behalf of the US government for slavery, but he could apologize on behalf of the XYZ family for the slaves his ancestors controlled. Is this right? Please elaborate]

Apparently you didn't read my later edit wherein I added, "And even if one's ancestors did commit crimes, a descendant is not accountable for the actions of the ancestor. In short, I reject the fallacy of guilt by association."

I invite you to go back and read the edited version of my post. I added a link to a story I wrote about that expression of regret by the state of Illinois. I quoted the documents, and in none of them is the word "apology" or "apologize" used. And the New York Times piece you linked us to makes a point of saying that the Illinois legislature weakened the language in the resolution because of the very logic I have been articulating here: You' can't apologize for a wrong you yourself didn't commit.

Well, as an attorney, I can tell you that in some instances the Church can be held liable for unauthorized and errant actions of individual members. For instance, the Church has been held liable for child abuse committed by its members in the course of Church-sponsored activities.

Alas, not all court rulings are just. Judges and juries have been wrong many times in the past, and I daresay there will be occasions in the future when they are wrong.

As for the apology/regret dichotomy, I would offer the following:

1. I still think modern leadership or any organization can issue an apology for prior actions by members (particularly leaders) of the organization. It's been done many times. I cited a few examples. There are many more.
   

Be that as it may, under the definition of apology I cited, one cannot properly apologize for a thing unless one assumes personal or institutional accountability for that thing. It's an important distinction whether or not you choose to recognize it.

Regardless, I think many of those who would like to see an "apology" for the racial ban would be more than content with an "expression of regret." The central theme is not whether the current leadership is personally responsible for prior actions, but whether the prior actions were wrong. An expression of "regret" would be acknolwedgement of error just as much as an apology, and so should suffice.

That said, it would be possible (though I am not suggesting this) for some current leaders to personally apologize for actions taken or not taken by them prior to 1978. Even under your theory, for instance, President Monson could say he was sorry for not spurring action sooner. Again, I'm not saying he should. I don't know his heart. But unlike, MMM, many of the current leadership were involved in maintaining the priesthood ban.

This is peripheral to the point I'm making pertaining to whether or not the Church "apologized" (or has standing to apologize) for Mountain Meadows.

Again, you have not persuasively rebutted my logic on that point. If you have some new argument to add, and not merely a restatement of your assertion, feel free to respond. Otherwise, I don't have time for an endless back-and-forth.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Okay, Scott, enough back-and-forth as to the term "apology." I'm comfortable with my view. You are comfortable with yours. Let's move on.

That said, I do not think the possibility of an "expression of regret" for the priesthood ban is a peripheral issue. This thread was created to discuss the possibility of a church apology for the ban. If an "expression of regret" would serve the same purpose as an apology, and that phrase would be more acceptable to some (such as you) than the phrase "apology", perhaps an expression of regret is what Oliverio should push for. Again, I think Oliverio's desire (and many others) is that the ban be repudiated. They don't care so much that some individual or even the church takes a fall for the ban. They just want it to be 100% clear that the ban was not of God.

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, Scott, enough back-and-forth as to the term "apology." I'm comfortable with my view. You are comfortable with yours.

That was foregone. What was in question (and still is) was whether you could make a persuasive case for your view; you haven't.

That said, I do not think the possibility of an "expression of regret" for the priesthood ban is a peripheral issue. This thread was created to discuss the possibility of a church apology for the ban. If an "expression of regret" would serve the same purpose as an apology, and that phrase would be more acceptable to some (such as you) than the phrase "apology", perhaps an expression of regret is what Oliverio should push for. Again, I think Oliverio's desire (and many others) is that the ban be repudiated. They don't care so much that some individual or even the church takes a fall for the ban. They just want it to be 100% clear that the ban was not of God.

Though I rejoiced (and still do) over the 1978 revelation, I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon that the Church should apologize or express regret or acknowledge error for the way things were pre-1978. But it's not a matter I choose to argue about here. So I guess my presence on this thread has come to an end.

[ERayR]

Okay, Scott, enough back-and-forth as to the term "apology." I'm comfortable with my view. You are comfortable with yours. Let's move on.

That said, I do not think the possibility of an "expression of regret" for the priesthood ban is a peripheral issue. This thread was created to discuss the possibility of a church apology for the ban. If an "expression of regret" would serve the same purpose as an apology, and that phrase would be more acceptable to some (such as you) than the phrase "apology", perhaps an expression of regret is what Oliverio should push for. Again, I think Oliverio's desire (and many others) is that the ban be repudiated. They don't care so much that some individual or even the church takes a fall for the ban. They just want it to be 100% clear that the ban was not of God.

How can something be repudiated when its genesis is as little understood as this issue?

[Buckeye]

How can something be repudiated when its genesis is as little understood as this issue?

I think the amount of scholarship on the priesthood ban is larger than that for MMM. Thus, if the Church could "apologize" or "express regret" (choose your phrase) for MMM, it could also do so for the priesthood ban. If additional understanding is needed, then it should be sought. Perhaps the Church could commission an independent review of all the historical materials relating to the ban, just at it did with MMM.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the amount of scholarship on the priesthood ban is larger than that for MMM. Thus, if the Church could "apologize" or "express regret" (choose your phrase) for MMM, it could also do so for the priesthood ban. If additional understanding is needed, then it should be sought. Perhaps the Church could commission an independent review of all the historical materials relating to the ban, just at it did with MMM.

Mountain Meadows is not the precedent that you want it to be. As much as you wish it to be so, the Church has not apologized or assumed accountability for the crimes committed on that occasion in 1857, though it has deplored and expressed regret for them.

And as much as you might wish it to be so, the Church has not acknowledged error in the pre-1978 policy with regard to the priesthood, nor is it likely to do so. This makes it quite unlike Mountain Meadows, where there was clear wrongdoing and such wrongdoing has been publicly deplored.

You are trying to draw a correlation where there is no such correlation to be drawn.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Log]

You are trying to draw a correlation where there is no such correlation to be drawn.

I think you're trying to say "You're making a false analogy."

As he's a lawyer, it's safe to say it's not unintentional.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

What, lawyers don't make mistakes in communication?

[Log]

What, lawyers don't make mistakes in communication?

I would not expect them to, no - don't they go to school for an additional 6 years to make them masters of communication?

Edited April 24, 2012 by Log

[Calm]

Do you know any lawyers personally? I do and they make mistakes all the time, even in their legal work.

[Log]

Do you know any lawyers personally? I do and they make mistakes all the time, even in their legal work.

Let's see, there's at least three in my ward, one of which is the Stake President.

I just figure if a lawyer uses a rhetorical trick to gain the upper hand in an argument, they mean to use it. Would you not agree?

[ERayR]

I think the amount of scholarship on the priesthood ban is larger than that for MMM. Thus, if the Church could "apologize" or "express regret" (choose your phrase) for MMM, it could also do so for the priesthood ban. If additional understanding is needed, then it should be sought. Perhaps the Church could commission an independent review of all the historical materials relating to the ban, just at it did with MMM.

You are a smart fellow so I think you know the difference between an apology and expressing regret. I often express regret that I didn't win the lottery but I do not apologize for not buying a ticket.

Are you willing to swear unequivocally that you know what was in the minds of those who started this practice?

[Bob Oliverio]

http://www.chron.com/business/press-releases/article/MormonVoices-Decries-Use-of-Proof-Texting-in-3520651.php

Again, this is the very problem.  Unofficial individuals and unofficial websites that simply don't have the official backing of The Church trying to come across as making official statements.  I have know idea who these two guys mentioned in the article are nor have I ever heard of this website.  But anyone, including the media can google onto all of the embarrassing statements of past prophets and leaders, as well as the whole "white and delightsome" of our scriptures, and is it any wonder they think our Church is racist!!!!

It's absolutely amazing to me that the best the Church can do is leave it those who have zero capacity to officially speak on behalf of the Church to attempt to provide official answers.  

Why is President Monson and/or The First Presidency so afraid to put themselves out in the public to answer questions  and explain our doctrines in an official capacity?

I mean how many in the general population would ever even see this websight?

[volgadon]

Again, this is the very problem. Unofficial individuals and unofficial websites that simply don't have the official backing of The Church trying to come across as making official statements.

You have no idea how ironic that sounds.

[ERayR]

http://www.chron.com...-in-3520651.php

Again, this is the very problem. Unofficial individuals and unofficial websites that simply don't have the official backing of The Church trying to come across as making official statements. I have know idea who these two guys mentioned in the article are nor have I ever heard of this website. But anyone, including the media can google onto all of the embarrassing statements of past prophets and leaders, as well as the whole "white and delightsome" of our scriptures, and is it any wonder they think our Church is racist!!!!

It's absolutely amazing to me that the best the Church can do is leave it those who have zero capacity to officially speak on behalf of the Church to attempt to provide official answers.

Why is President Monson and/or The First Presidency so afraid to put themselves out in the public to answer questions and explain our doctrines in an official capacity?

I mean how many in the general population would ever even see this websight?

Because your interpretation of the events is not so cut and dried as you seem to think it is.