Tacenda Posted September 7, 2014 Posted September 7, 2014 Scott, I am an anthropologist and have studied many cultures that have this particular way of thinking. If you think that is bogus, then that is going to have to be your problem. I am not making a judgement on that type of thinking, I am saying that it exists and is not even uncommon. From the official Illinois General Assembly: "RESOLVED, That we ask the pardon and forgiveness of the community of Latter-day Saints for the misguided efforts of our citizens, Chief Executive and the General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors from the gleaming city of Nauvoo and the State of Illinois." I don't know exactly the wording of the entire document that they sent to church headquarters but it is officially recorded in their state records that they issued an apology.Thanks Kathryn, for taking the time on this. I didn't have the wherewithall or ability to state the case as well. I hope ERayR, and Scott wiil understand a little better. And I believe that it was imperative for the church to express regret even though it isn't they themselves who caused the harm. If they hadn't then the families of those murdered would in turn be harmed w/o that expression of regret or sorrowfulness from the leaders in our church. And it would harm the opinions people would hold for the church.
ERayR Posted September 7, 2014 Posted September 7, 2014 Thanks Kathryn, for taking the time on this. I didn't have the wherewithall or ability to state the case as well. I hope ERayR, and Scott wiil understand a little better. And I believe that it was imperative for the church to express regret even though it isn't they themselves who caused the harm. If they hadn't then the families of those murdered would in turn be harmed w/o that expression of regret or sorrowfulness from the leaders in our church. And it would harm the opinions people would hold for the church. Neither Scott nor I said an expression of regret was not in order and to my understanding that was what was issued. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) The New York Times considered it an apology, but it was actually from the state of Illinois.I covered that news conference in Salt Lake City. It was not an apology. The Illinois delegation made that distinction for the reasoning given by some of us here: You cannot apologize for a thing you personally did not do and for which you thus bear no accountability. The New York Times was wrong to call it an apology. I say that as a news reporter personally acquainted with the event and who makes a point of being accurate. Edited to add: Your own source indicates the wording of the resolution was changed because lawmakers did not want to call it an apology. Thank you for helping me establish my point by linking to this self-contradictory New York Times piece. Edited September 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Neither Scott nor I said an expression of regret was not in order and to my understanding that was what was issued. This.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Scott, I am an anthropologist and have studied many cultures that have this particular way of thinking. If you think that is bogus, then that is going to have to be your problem. I am not making a judgement on that type of thinking, I am saying that it exists and is not even uncommon. From the official Illinois General Assembly: "RESOLVED, That we ask the pardon and forgiveness of the community of Latter-day Saints for the misguided efforts of our citizens, Chief Executive and the General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors from the gleaming city of Nauvoo and the State of Illinois." I don't know exactly the wording of the entire document that they sent to church headquarters but it is officially recorded in their state records that they issued an apology. What is your source on the resolution? I ask, because my memory is that the wording was changed between the time it was drafted and introduced and the time it was passed, this because some lawmakers disagreed with the notion of it being an apology as opposed to an expression of regret. On the matter of collective guilt, I never denied that the concept may have existed in some societies. I was expressing an opinion on the justice and sensibility of such thinking. I claim that as my right. Edited to add: Please see this from the New York Times link given to us above. It bears out my memory of what happened: An earlier draft of the resolution asked the Mormons for their ''pardon and forgiveness,'' but the language was weakened at the behest of Illinois lawmakers who said they could not ask forgiveness for acts they had not personally committed. It appears you are going from a source that has outdated information. Edited September 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 For what it's worth, here is a link to my story about the Illinois delegation coming to Church headquarters to deliver an official expression of regret. You will notice I never called it an apology, because I understood clearly at the time that's not what it was. http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/45436/Illinois-state-leaders-close-dark-chapter-in-history.html
why me Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Again I have no sympathy for John D. Lee and his fellow murderers. They deserved what ever punishment they got, and may God have mercy on their souls. To smear a religion for the actions of a small group acting against the dictates of that religion, and against legal authorization is simple bigotry. I think that it is more of an excuse to bash the mormon church as a whole. But it is strange logic. Something that happened in history by a small group of people condemns an entire church in the 21st century. If only people can make a perfect history I suppose that the world would be a better place. But alas, people are not perfect. Waverers and critics seem to want to find perfection in the membership both past and present. And yet, these people are not perfect themselves.
boblloyd91 Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I think that it is more of an excuse to bash the mormon church as a whole. But it is strange logic. Something that happened in history by a small group of people condemns an entire church in the 21st century. If only people can make a perfect history I suppose that the world would be a better place. But alas, people are not perfect. Waverers and critics seem to want to find perfection in the membership both past and present. And yet, these people are not perfect themselves. I think with this same logic we should call the current Calvinistic movement evil because of how the puritans massacred Indians, and imprisoned Quakers.
thesometimesaint Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I think with this same logic we should call the current Calvinistic movement evil because of how the puritans massacred Indians, and imprisoned Quakers. I don't believe the members of the modern day Calvinist movements are evil. Just mistaken on some of their beliefs.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I don't believe the members of the modern day Calvinist movements are evil. Just mistaken on some of their beliefs.I don't think boblloyd91 was saying that they are evil, just that if the same faulty logic as applied to Mormons were applied to them, it would brand them as such.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Not to mention any President or Apostle has every right to apologize for an institutional mistake.The point I have endeavored to make is that they in fact have not done so in this instance, though there has been a formal expression of regret and a condemnation of the events at Mountain Meadows in 1857, all that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances. Even more it is their role to apologize on behalf of the Church and it's members for any public mistake or error. So, good for them for doing so. It would be neither just nor prudent for them to accept culpability for wrongdoing for which the Church as an institution is not culpable. By that reasoning, one could hold the Church collectively responsible for every sin or infraction you or I or any other member of the Church committed as a matter of personal choice. I already have quite enough to repent of as it is without being held accountable either individually or institutionally for deeds that occurred nearly 100 years before I was born. Edited September 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 2
tonie Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) For what it's worth, here is a link to my story about the Illinois delegation coming to Church headquarters to deliver an official expression of regret. You will notice I never called it an apology, because I understood clearly at the time that's not what it was.http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/45436/Illinois-state-leaders-close-dark-chapter-in-history.htmlIllinois Resolution 793 did not use the term apology, nor does it appear that an Official from the State labeled the Resolution an apology.The glaring difference between the Illinois Resolution regarding the expulsion of the LDS from the State, and the Statement from the Church regarding the Mountains Meadows Massacre, is that an Official Representative of the Church did label statement an apology. A Representative of the Church has labeled the statement about MMM an apology, and we should accept the Church Officials label rather than attempting to use our own intellect to diminish the importance of the Church statement. Edited September 8, 2014 by tonie
ERayR Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I don't believe the members of the modern day Calvinist movements are evil. Just mistaken on some of their beliefs. Who said they were?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Illinois Resolution 793 did not use the term apology, nor does it appear that an Official from the State labeled the Resolution an apology. No indeed. In fact, the State Assembly explicitly changed the wording of the resolution from the way it was introduced so that it would not be viewed as an apology. The glaring difference between the Illinois Resolution regarding the expulsion of the LDS from the State, and the Statement from the Church regarding the Mountains Meadows Massacre, is that an Official Representative of the Church did label statement an apology. A Representative of the Church has labeled the statement about MMM an apology, and we should accept the Church Officials label rather than attempting to use our own intellect to diminish the importance of the Church statement.I have already explained that I don't recognize an informal, post-ceremony conversation with a news reporter, for which there are no other witnesses, as binding on the Church. No need to keep rehashing this. Edited September 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
ERayR Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) Illinois Resolution 793 did not use the term apology, nor does it appear that an Official from the State labeled the Resolution an apology.The glaring difference between the Illinois Resolution regarding the expulsion of the LDS from the State, and the Statement from the Church regarding the Mountains Meadows Massacre, is that an Official Representative of the Church did label statement an apology. A Representative of the Church has labeled the statement about MMM an apology, and we should accept the Church Officials label rather than attempting to use our own intellect to diminish the importance of the Church statement. I must have missed where a Church representative labeled it as an apology.. Please post reference. Edited September 8, 2014 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Who said they were? No one. I was responding to boblloyd91, on 08 Sept 2014 - 07:26 AM, saidI think with this same logic we should call the current Calvinistic movement evil because of how the puritans massacred Indians, and imprisoned Quakers.
ERayR Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 No one. I was responding to boblloyd91, on 08 Sept 2014 - 07:26 AM, saidI think with this same logic we should call the current Calvinistic movement evil because of how the puritans massacred Indians, and imprisoned Quakers. But bobiloyd91 did not say they were either. Read his post again.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I must have missed where a Church representative labeled it as an apology.. Please post reference.Post #39. You can go back and read it and the follow-up exchange, but please, let's not dredge it up again.
thesometimesaint Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 But bobiloyd91 did not say they were either. Read his post again. I didn't say he was. He said the same logic would lead to that conclusion. I agreed that such would be an inappropriate conclusion.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I didn't say he was. He said the same logic would lead to that conclusion. I agreed that such would be an inappropriate conclusion.It appears we're all on the same page.
ERayR Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 Post #39. You can go back and read it and the follow-up exchange, but please, let's not dredge it up again. I won't but was wondering at the wording and source.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 I won't but was wondering at the wording and source.It's in the news story linked in Post #2. I think a lot of this stems from a semantic misunderstanding or disagreement over the meaning of the word apology. I -- and apparently you as well -- believe that it connotes acceptance of blame and culpability. Despite any off-the-cuff remarks made to a Tribune news reporter, I would be very surprised to learn that Turley believes the Church as an institution is culpable for Mountain Meadows. But I said I didn't want to dredge this up again, and here I am dredging it up again.
ERayR Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 It's in the news story linked in Post #2. I think a lot of this stems from a semantic misunderstanding or disagreement over the meaning of the word apology. I -- and apparently you as well -- believe that it connotes acceptance of blame and culpability. Despite any off-the-cuff remarks made to a Tribune news reporter, I would be very surprised to learn that Turley believes the Church as an institution is culpable for Mountain Meadows. But I said I didn't want to dredge this up again, and here I am dredging it up again. That is about where I am coming from. One thing to remember is when one accepts blame and culpability one also accepts the legal ramifications attached,
Scott Lloyd Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 (edited) That is about where I am coming from. One thing to remember is when one accepts blame and culpability one also accepts the legal ramifications attached,Yes. I imagine it is only a baby step between that and being subjected to demands on the perceived church of deep pockets of latter-day saints for "reparations" for injuries supposedly incurred by a descendant who-knows-how-many generations removed from events of more than 150 years ago. Edited September 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 'Tis a sad day when apologies require the apologizer to be the cause of that deed for which sorrow ought to be expressed. An apology by he who is not at fault goes a long way even when expressed to those who weren't victims. Apologizing for mountain meadows would be good for the Church. It expresses sincere sorrow for the events that took place, clearly suggesting the events that led up to and caused the massacre were the fault of Church members who, apparently, we're doing what they thought was a good thing. "I'm sorry" is my most used phrase, it seems. And only part of the time when expressing it can I be considered at fault.
Recommended Posts