Mountain Meadows Massacre

[thesometimesaint]

'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.

 

I agreed with that on our personal every day interactions. Not so much where such an acceptance of guilt would involve legal repercussion. 

[ERayR]

'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.

 

Go back over the thread nobody is saying that an expression of sorrow was not in order.  The problem comes for those that do not understand the difference between such an expression and an apology.  Rather than rehash the whole thread go back and read.

[Scott Lloyd]

'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.

Maybe we can cut to the chase by having you answer this question: Do you believe the Church as an institution should accept culpability and blame for what happened at Mountain Meadows in 1857? If not, then you don't have an argument with us.

[stemelbow]

I agreed with that on our personal every day interactions. Not so much where such an acceptance of guilt would involve legal repercussion.

Thus, why I say it is a sad day.

[stemelbow]

Go back over the thread nobody is saying that an expression of sorrow was not in order.  The problem comes for those that do not understand the difference between such an expression and an apology.  Rather than rehash the whole thread go back and read.

I think it's a sad day. such an apology would be worthwhile. Whether the apology accepts sole responsibility or not is not of interest to me.

[stemelbow]

Maybe we can cut to the chase by having you answer this question: Do you believe the Church as an institution should accept culpability and blame for what happened at Mountain Meadows in 1857? If not, then you don't have an argument with us.

I think it's been said before, It's complicated. Blame can go in many directions. Can it be argued that the Church, through it's leaders, encourage a fearful and aggressive environment? From some perspectives. Whether we agree with that or not, doesn't matter, at least not to me. I'm just pointing out that it's a sad day we have to play such roles as not really apologizing lest we fear someone try to seek money, or something.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's a sad day. such an apology would be worthwhile. Whether the apology accepts sole responsibility or not is not of interest to me.

What you are calling for has already occurred.

 

And I think calling it an "apology" is a misnomer, as the word connotes acceptance of guilt and blame.

 

I agree with ElRayR: You need to go back and read over the thread, then come back when you can demonstrate that you grasp the arguments.

[stemelbow]

What you are calling for has already occurred.

 

And I think calling it an "apology" is a misnomer, as the word connotes acceptance of guilt and blame.

 

I agree with ElRayR: You need to go back and read over the thread, then come back when you can demonstrate that you grasp the arguments.

What you are calling for has already occurred.

 

And I think calling it an "apology" is a misnomer, as the word connotes acceptance of guilt and blame.

 

I agree with ElRayR: You need to go back and read over the thread, then come back when you can demonstrate that you grasp the arguments.

I think you've misunderstood me. But I see no need to be upset about it. So have fun.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is an interesting piece in Harvard Business Review about the perceived meaning of the words apology or apologize. In short, the perceived meaning differs from culture to culture.
 
I think it goes to what has been said here about the need to be careful and precise with what is communicated. If one does not wish to convey a personal or collective admission of guilt, blame or culpability, it is better to express oneself in terms that are not likely to carry that connotation.
 
As a corollary, one should be aware that the intended meaning of "apologize" might not necessarily be what one thinks it is.


So, for example, when a Salt Lake Tribune reporter presses Rick Turley on whether Elder Eyring's statement amounts to an apology and he replies in the affirmative, she might not have wrung from him the concession she or others think she did.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

'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.

 

(bold mine)

Same here!! 

[thesometimesaint]

Thus, why I say it is a sad day.

 

Why? I can feel sad for someone involved in a car accident without claiming I'm responsible for it.

[Scott Lloyd]

(bold mine)

Same here!! 

But in that, both you and stemelbow are outside the norm in Western culture, where an apology is widely regarded as an acceptance of personal blame, according to the Harvard Business Review article I cited.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

'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.

 

I do not see what is so hard to understand about being able to express sorrow, even profound sorrow, for something without accepting culpability or the concept that one can not be culpable for something that happened long before they were born.  Is it that the understanding of the meaning of the word apology has been eroded?  To apologize is to accept culpability and to accept culpability is to accept all the ramifications of that culpability.

 

You aren't from Japan or China, are you?

Edited September 9, 2014 by ERayR

[Guest]

Why? I can feel sad for someone involved in a car accident without claiming I'm responsible for it.

Because a car wreck does not involve, cold blood murder, cover-up and on and on an on. It is not just sad that MMM happened, it is a Greek Tragedy!

[Scott Lloyd]

Because a car wreck does not involve, cold blood murder, cover-up and on and on an on. It is not just sad that MMM happened, it is a Greek Tragedy!

But the concept thesometimesaint expressed still applies in principle: One can feel bad about it, one can deplore it, one can condemn it for all of its gruesomeness and horror, one can express sorrow for the victims and their descendants without feeling obliged to accept undeserved personal or institutional blame for it.

 

Is that not true?

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Because a car wreck does not involve, cold blood murder, cover-up and on and on an on. It is not just sad that MMM happened, it is a Greek Tragedy!

 

I can still feel sorry for the victim of cold blooded murder, cover-up, and on and on without accepting legal responsibility for it. MMM happened a long before I was even born. If anything it is a cautionary tale a small group of scared individuals not letting God take vengeance.

[thesometimesaint]

But the concept thesometimesaint expressed still applies in principle: One can feel bad about it, one can deplore it, one can condemn it for all of its gruesomeness and horror, one can express sorrow for the victims and their descendants without feeling obliged to accept undeserved personal or institutional blame for it.

 

Is that not true?

 

Agreed.

[Jeanne]

I have a question..of course I do.. I hope you won't shoot my question down inspite of the fact that it may make you cringe. But if God had led this people here, and they were living the gospel as best as they could, why wouldn't he have at least directed someone to intervene?  If BY was no way responsible for this massacre as some believe, why wasn't there at least a prophetic voice or discernment of sort to keep this from happening?  It was so wrong.  My great grandfather was a part of this and I just found out recently. 

 

Thanks,

Jeanne

[thesometimesaint]

I have a question..of course I do.. I hope you won't shoot my question down inspite of the fact that it may make you cringe. But if God had led this people here, and they were living the gospel as best as they could, why wouldn't he have at least directed someone to intervene?  If BY was no way responsible for this massacre as some believe, why wasn't there at least a prophetic voice or discernment of sort to keep this from happening?  It was so wrong.  My great grandfather was a part of this and I just found out recently. 

 

Thanks,

Jeanne

 

God doesn't make sock-puppets.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have a question..of course I do.. I hope you won't shoot my question down inspite of the fact that it may make you cringe. But if God had led this people here, and they were living the gospel as best as they could, why wouldn't he have at least directed someone to intervene?  If BY was no way responsible for this massacre as some believe, why wasn't there at least a prophetic voice or discernment of sort to keep this from happening?  It was so wrong.  My great grandfather was a part of this and I just found out recently. 

 

Thanks,

Jeanne

This, of course, is a variation on age-old questions such as "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" or "Why doesn't God intervene to keep evil people from sinning or from harming others?"

 

The answer is that one purpose of this mortal existence is for all of us to be tested. There would be no test if God removed the possibility or capability of people to sin. What He does do is teach, cajole, warn, chasten from time to time.

 

Meanwhile, part of the test is to endure the consequences of others' wrongdoing. The promise is that the suffering will be made up to the victims sooner or later.

 

The concept is taught very well in this well-known hymn.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I have a question..of course I do.. I hope you won't shoot my question down inspite of the fact that it may make you cringe. But if God had led this people here, and they were living the gospel as best as they could, why wouldn't he have at least directed someone to intervene?  If BY was no way responsible for this massacre as some believe, why wasn't there at least a prophetic voice or discernment of sort to keep this from happening?  It was so wrong.  My great grandfather was a part of this and I just found out recently. 

 

Thanks,

Jeanne

If you read the Ensign article by Turley, it appears to be quite possible that the Spirit was inspiring people to back off. Dame refused to give the go ahead several times and only gave in it seems to me when Lee and Haight got him alone and pressure him...possibly with inaccurate information that made the situation more hopeless than it really was. Iirc the majority of people were also resisting violence and they were lied to in order to get them out to the meadow.

Unfortunately people's resistance was worn down by persistence and the fear created as the result of acts of others who had not held back and mob mentality took hold.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you read the Ensign article by Turley, it appears to be quite possible that the Spirit was inspiring people to back off. Dame refused to give the go ahead several times and only gave in it seems to me when Lee and Haight got him alone and pressure him...possibly with inaccurate information that made the situation more hopeless than it really was. Iirc the majority of people were also resisting violence and they were lied to in order to get them out to the meadow.

Unfortunately people's resistance was worn down by persistence and the fear created as the result of acts of others who had not held back and mob mentality took hold.

Very good points.

 

I think the very fact that an express rider was sent to Salt Lake City to ascertain the will of Brigham Young in the matter, and President Young sent clear instructions to let the emigrants alone, indicates that there was some restraining influence at work.

 

I don't see how anyone at this point can reasonably harbor the belief that Brigham Young had anything to do with ordering the attack. There is no evidence to that effect other than the thinnest of post hoc supposition. On the other hand, the return dispatch sent by President Young is convincing documentation that he instructed the Cedar City settlers to do just the opposite of what they did do.

 

Reading the Ensign article by Turley, one gets the clear sense of a chain of events that spiraled out of control without any outside involvement by Brigham Young or any of the other general Church leaders.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Why? I can feel sad for someone involved in a car accident without claiming I'm responsible for it.

I agree. Not sure where we've got some mixed signals.

[Guest]

But the concept thesometimesaint expressed still applies in principle: One can feel bad about it, one can deplore it, one can condemn it for all of its gruesomeness and horror, one can express sorrow for the victims and their descendants without feeling obliged to accept undeserved personal or institutional blame for it.

 

Is that not true?

May be so, but I have the soul of a poet, each time I hear or read of it I am wounded.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree. Not sure where we've got some mixed signals.

 

Issuing apologies makes us feel better. What I'm not so sure about is the efficacy of issuing apologies to someone not involved from someone not involved.