USU78 Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 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 BY sent a postrider with instructions to leave 'em alone. There was your prophetic voice of discernment. It was ignored. Its followup, in response to a request for clarification, came too late. Fact is . . . nobody needed anything clarified. BY says, "Leave 'em alone," that should have been the end of it.
stemelbow Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 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. If it means something to someone then I'm all for it. If it can help, then by all means let it fly. Stingy apologizers often aren't very pleasant. Always, seemingly, concerned about being right. I say forget it. Let it go. Apologize and move on. Giving attitudes tend to beat down the harsh walls.
USU78 Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 May be so, but I have the soul of a poet, each time I hear or read of it I am wounded. Because no shopkeeper ever had a deep feeling?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) I agree. Not sure where we've got some mixed signals.I think the confusion has come in disagreement over the meaning of the word apologize. I hope you can see from the Harvard Business Review article I cited that in our Western culture, the widespread understanding of the term implies acceptance of blame. May be so, but I have the soul of a poet, each time I hear or read of it I am wounded. Nothing wrong with that, my friend. Just don't place -- or accept -- blame where it doesn't belong. Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) If it means something to someone then I'm all for it. If it can help, then by all means let it fly.Stingy apologizers often aren't very pleasant. Always, seemingly, concerned about being right. I say forget it. Let it go. Apologize and move on.Giving attitudes tend to beat down the harsh walls.But it is unjust to imply blame where the blame isn't deserved. Injustice is never a good thing. And letting people think you accept blame when you really don't amounts to patronizing -- which at its core is disrespectful. Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Guest Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 I think the confusion has come in disagreement over the meaning of the word apologize. I hope you can see from the Harvard Business Review article I cited that in our Western culture, the widespread understanding of the term implies acceptance of blame. Nothing wrong with that, my friend. Just don't place -- or accept -- blame where it doesn't belong.That I have not done. Except with Lee.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) So well hidden it was in the Church History Institute manuals since early 70s at least (and maybe 60s, I will have to check the text sitting on my shelf). Yeah but normal members don't have access to that. Actually, they do. It is available from the Church Distribution Center. If you don't live where you can buy it in person, you can order it. These days, you can read it digitally online. At no cost. Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 That I have not done. Except with Lee.But insisting that there be an apology, where the widespread understanding is that the word implies acceptance of blame, is in effect placing blame where it is not deserved.
USU78 Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 That is complete hogwash. Southern Senators and Buchanan did not cause the Mountain Meadows Massacre. By that twisted logic, you could claim that George H.W. Bush caused 9/11. If he hadn't sent US troops to Saudi Arabia in 1990, nearly 3,000 civilians wouldn't have died on September 11, 2001; ergo, he's to blame for it. As far as people who bear responsibility for the Mountain Meadows Massacre goes, James Buchanan falls pretty far down the list, certainly after Brigham Young. The shadowy "Southern senators" I assume are a figment of your imagination. Your logic has me in a whirl here. Sorry I'm so late responding, but life intervenes from time to time. My post was in response to another's, where the poster had downplayed the Utah War/Buchanan's Blunder to mere "other contributing factor" without seriously engaging its centrality, at least as I read it. If we are to graph the GWB responsibility for 9/11 in your attempted reductio ad absurdam there's just no parallel that I can find that makes sense. Here was and is my point: We are morally responsible for what is the inevitable consequence of our act, since that consequence is foreseeable and avoidable by us. If we engage in warlike acts like sending an expeditionary force against others without prior warning and without explanation, we bear the moral responsibility of our acts' inevitable consequences. Here Buchanan and his secretary of war and the leading senator from the South were responsible for the Blunder. One doesn't simply take the word of a federal appointee who abandons his post under pressure of the citizenry [local attorneys had had a bonfire to burn up some books and papers in protest to the appointed federal judge's arrogant and immoral acts] and spend that kind of treasure and manpower without serious investigation. Yet that is what they did. That the local populace got riled up and a [relatively few] innocents lost their lives in the ensuing panic is the moral responsibility of those who combined to affect US policy. Was it the sole and proximate and only cause of MMM? Of course not. If you think that's what you read in my post, you weren't reading carefully. It was, however, the sine qua non cause thereof: that without which nothing that ensued would have happened. Morally sufficient, but perhaps legally insufficient. I could, of course, make a case for legal responsibility and so could you. 2
thesometimesaint Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 If it means something to someone then I'm all for it. If it can help, then by all means let it fly.Stingy apologizers often aren't very pleasant. Always, seemingly, concerned about being right. I say forget it. Let it go. Apologize and move on.Giving attitudes tend to beat down the harsh walls. How would me apologizing for something I had absolutely no involvement or say in help anyone? 1
Guest Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 But insisting that there be an apology, where the widespread understanding is that the word implies acceptance of blame, is in effect placing blame where it is not deserved.I only asked if the apology extended to Brigham Young...I never said he was to blame. I only said that "if"; then he must be punished. Don't read into my comments things that are not there.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) I only asked if the apology extended to Brigham Young...I never said he was to blame. I only said that "if"; then he must be punished. Don't read into my comments things that are not there.Pardon, but I understood an earlier comment of yours to mean that the Church leaders of today did (actually, they did not) or should "apologize" for Mountain Meadows. I resist that thinking, because in our contemporary Western culture (as borne out by the Harvard Business Review article I cited), to apologize implies that the apologizer accepts personal blame. That is why I say it is best in situations such as this to use terms that don't imply acceptance of blame but still convey sympathy, sorrow and disapproval, such as "expression of regret." A very good example of this was set by the State Assembly of Illinois a few years ago, when they expressed regret to the Church for the oppression its people had suffered in the 1800s, but they did not phrase it in the form of an apology. (See my prior posts on this.) Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) I don't accept that at all. It was neither "foreseeable" nor "inevitable" that a detachment of the Nauvoo Legion would ambush and murder 120 civilians in cold blood as result of Buchanan's decision to appoint a new governor and send him to Utah with an armed escort. That's an absurd argument.You're ignoring the essential fact that there was no prior notification of the purpose of sending the army to Utah. The Mormons did not know why an armed force, amounting to one-third the size of the entire U.S. Army of the day, was bearing down on the citizenry of the territory. The Mormons having so very recently suffered oppression and dispossession of homes and property with the acquiescence of government officials -- and in one case being driven out of Missouri by order of that state's governor -- had every reason to suppose that the federal government, reacting to false rumor spread by hostile former territorial appointees, had ill intent. And I disagree that it's "absurd" to think that government office holders should have foreseen that such a thing would send the people into a panic and that grave consequences could result. Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
stemelbow Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 How would me apologizing for something I had absolutely no involvement or say in help anyone? My answer would be found in the very post you quoted. Giving attitudes tends to break down the obstinate walls amongst us.
stemelbow Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 But it is unjust to imply blame where the blame isn't deserved. Then we're left pettily arguing about where to place the blame. Why is that preferred? Apologize and move on. Injustice is never a good thing. You mean the injustice of having people born and raised in the harshest starving conditions compared to others who just so happen to be born into wealth and comfort? And letting people think you accept blame when you really don't amounts to patronizing -- which at its core is disrespectful. I disagree that its patronizing. And in cases like the MMM there are many factors that can be argued as the cause.
ERayR Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 My answer would be found in the very post you quoted. Giving attitudes tends to break down the obstinate walls amongst us. Done equally well with an expression of sorrow for the events in question. 1
thesometimesaint Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 My answer would be found in the very post you quoted. Giving attitudes tends to break down the obstinate walls amongst us. Beyond just making us feel good(An iffy proposition at best) I just don't see any value in apologies for something someone long dead did. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Then we're left pettily arguing about where to place the blame. Why is that preferred? Apologize and move on. You keep parroting that line, ignoring the point I have repeatedly made that to "apologize" in this instance implies unjust placement of blame. That is no light thing, notwithstanding your dismissive attitude regarding it. You mean the injustice of having people born and raised in the harshest starving conditions compared to others who just so happen to be born into wealth and comfort? This is a non-sequitur. Obviously, I mean the injustice of placing blame on those who don't deserve it. I disagree that its patronizing. Letting people believe you accept or place blame where you don't? How is that not patronizing? And in cases like the MMM there are many factors that can be argued as the cause. This is irrelevant to the matter of whether an apology implies personal acceptance of blame. ... Unless you mean to imply here that the Church as an institution does deserve blame for the massacre. In which case I would disagree with you in the strongest of terms. Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
ERayR Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Then we're left pettily arguing about where to place the blame. Why is that preferred? Apologize and move on. You mean the injustice of having people born and raised in the harshest starving conditions compared to others who just so happen to be born into wealth and comfort? I disagree that its patronizing. And in cases like the MMM there are many factors that can be argued as the cause. Because acceptance of blame(responsibility)has legal ramifications. Are you going to go before the judgement bar of Christ and shoulder the blame for MMM? Without knowledge of the premortal that assessment can not be validly made. But it is patronizing. Edited September 9, 2014 by ERayR
Scott Lloyd Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 (edited) Done equally well with an expression of sorrow for the events in question.As a Latter-day Saint, I was deeply moved by the expression of regret and sorrow offered by the Illinois state government delegation. It mattered not to me that they didn't frame their expression in the form of an apology. In fact, I might have thought it less proper had they done so, believing as I do that an apology must come from the actual perpetrators of the wrong to those who were the actual victims of it. Edited September 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
ERayR Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 As a Latter-day Saint, I was deeply moved by the expression of regret and sorrow offered by the Illinois state government delegation. It mattered not to me that they didn't frame their expression in the form of an apology. In fact, I might have thought it less genuine had they done so, believing as I do that an apology must come from the actual perpetrators of the wrong to those who were the actual victims of it. To me it would have lessened its impact if they had done so.
stemelbow Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Done equally well with an expression of sorrow for the events in question. If so, then great. I am speaking more generally though. It's much nicer to apologize rather than drag it out into extended battles of whose to blame. I've seen far too many petty battles of people taking offense from someone who refusing to apologize but offering expression of sorrow.
stemelbow Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Beyond just making us feel good(An iffy proposition at best) I just don't see any value in apologies for something someone long dead did. Me neither.
ERayR Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 If so, then great. I am speaking more generally though. It's much nicer to apologize rather than drag it out into extended battles of whose to blame.I've seen far too many petty battles of people taking offense from someone who refusing to apologize but offering expression of sorrow. If the perpetrators are still living it is always better for them to accept responsibility and express regret.
Recommended Posts