Mountain Meadows Massacre

[Scott Lloyd]

Makes sense. But if the Church offered an apology it was disingenuous and patronizing, as I've been told. So no one wins here.

It was not an apology. It was an expression of regret. See here.

 

And I disagree that "no one wins here." There is a great deal to be said for the expression the Church did make.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

A good source to answer that question is the Utah War Journal of Albert Tracy.  The orders were basically understood to put down the rebellion and install the new governor.  The new governor travelled with the army, but he became disturbed over the pending conflict and at one time rode ahead to try and avert the conflict.   Based upon Brigham Young's sermons and some of his sources, it seems that Brigham Young believed there was a good probability that the same fate awaited him as befell Joseph Smith, when Governor Ford betrayed his agreement with Joseph Smith and withdrew state troops in favor of the Carthage Greys.

The Mormons had had plenty of experience with mobs in uniform in Missouri and Illinois. They had every reason to fear that experience would be repeated in this instance. It occurs to me that all manner of mischief could be carried out with the rationalization that it was to "put down the rebellion."

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

What we know about how the US army dealt with the American Indian may cast some light about the US army being a hostile and hateful force. I see no reason to believe that the treatment of the saints would not have been the same. The army follows orders. 

The official order was not to molest the people unless it was necessary for self-defense and to carry out the mission, which was to install the new governor.

 

But the fact is, we don't know what the soldiers would have done had Brigham Young caved in, as Nevo thinks he should have done, and allowed the army to march unhindered into Salt Lake City. We don't know, because they were not allowed that privilege. I'm quite certain having to winter over at Fort Bridger with their supplies cut off took a good deal of the pluck out of them and made them more ready to behave themselves when they did arrive.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The shame is that individuals can not or will not accept the position of the Church. A representative from the Church labeled a statement from the Church as an apology. People are relying on their own wisdom to diminish the intent of the statement from the Church. This to me is the shame, that we are unwilling to accept what comes from the Church as it was stated to be intended.

As I've already pointed out here, you are going on an off-the-cuff conversation as reported by a newspaper writer with no other witnesses, and the word apology can mean different things to different people. What you really intend to establish is that the Church as an institution has accepted collective blame and culpability for the massacre. I'm fairly certain that if the question had been posed in those terms, the answer would have been "no".

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

It was not an apology. It was an expression of regret. See here.

 

And I disagree that "no one wins here." There is a great deal to be said for the expression the Church did make.

Putting principal blame on church leaders is an apology for past crimes by organizations, if you ask me. It is after all in the case of all countries and organizations who have committed crimes in the past the only thing present people who head the groups can do--apologize and move on. But I know you dispute that and I grant we can disagree.

[stemelbow]

and the word apology can mean different things to different people.

Then what's been the point of this whole "no way was it an apology" stance? Just seems we're quibbling about minor turns of phrases to me.

[ERayR]

Then what's been the point of this whole "no way was it an apology" stance? Just seems we're quibbling about minor turns of phrases to me.

 

But we are not in China or Japan.

[stemelbow]

But we are not in China or Japan.

So we quibble about nothingness? Come on they have to do that some in China and Japan.

[Scott Lloyd]

Putting principal blame on church leaders is an apology for past crimes by organizations, if you ask me.

On local Church leaders.

 

It's a crucial distinction. They acted on their own part and without authorization from Brigham Young or the Church. They alone must bear the blame for what they did, and an apology would have to come from them, although we all can express regret and condemnation for their deeds. The Church has, in fact, done that.

 

 But I know you dispute that and I grant we can disagree.

 

Good. Let's recognize that and not beat the matter into the ground.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Then what's been the point of this whole "no way was it an apology" stance? Just seems we're quibbling about minor turns of phrases to me.

The point is whether or not the Church as an institution and all of its members bear collective blame for what the perpetrators did. "Apology" implies that they do; "expression of regret" not so much.

[tonie]

As I've already pointed out here, you are going on an off-the-cuff conversation

CFR the conversation was "off-the-cuff". Or is this just more of your opinion?

as reported by a newspaper writer with no other witnesses,

CFR there were no other witnessess to the conversation between Turley and interviewer. How do you know there were no other witnesses

and the word apology can mean different things to different people. What you really intend to establish is that the Church as an institution has accepted collective blame and culpability for the massacre. I'm fairly certain that if the question had been posed in those terms, the answer would have been "no".

What I need to establish is what did Church sources says, Turley a Church representative made a statement.And lets see how the Church owned Newspaper reported on the statement:LDS Church issues apology over Mountain MeadowsBy Carrie A. Moore, Deseret NewsPublished: Wednesday, Sept. 12 2007 12:37 a.m. MDT"CEDAR CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah."And for the article summary - located to the left of the main article - as provided by DeseretNews:SummaryThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah.Maybe you can write the followup article and issue the correction. It is really baffling that you would diminish what the Church intended.While we are talking about the Church and apologies, is the Church responsible for baptizing Holocaust victims OR are individual members responsible for baptising holocaust victims. The Church did not baptize those people individual members did. Yet the Church apologized for it:Mormon Church apologizes for Jewish baptisms for the deadBy Joseph Walker, Deseret NewsPublished: Wednesday, Feb. 15 2012 7:44 a.m. MST

[Bob Crockett]

I see them as apologies.  For unauthorized acts.  That's like a mother apologizing for her son being a serial killer.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR the conversation was "off-the-cuff". Or is this just more of your opinion?

 

The definitition of off-the cuff is "not prepared in advance : done without planning or preparation"

 

Was the Tribune writer quoting from a statement that Turley had prepared in advance and either read or handed to her? I didn't get that sense from the story. To me, it reads more like she approached him after the ceremony and put questions to him. I believe that mine is the more likely conclusion; individual readers will have to decide on their own.

 

 

 

CFR there were no other witnessess to the conversation between Turley and interviewer. How do you know there were no other witnesses

 

Were there witnesses? What are their names? Produce them, please, along with their attestations.

 

 

 

What I need to establish is what did Church sources says, Turley a Church representative made a statement.

 

What was the context of their conversation? How were the questions to him phrased? You don't know,  because the writer doesn't tell us.

 

On the other hand, I have linked to the official Church statement as carefully prepared by the Church Historian and Recorder and delivered by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve who would shortly become a member of the First Presidency. While that statement repeatedly uses the phrase of expression of regret, there is no apology given or implied.

 

And lets see how the Church owned Newspaper reported on the statement:

 

Carrie Moore is a former colleague of mine. In this instance, I disagree with her phrasing. It was not an apology.

 

I well remember that event. I had another assignment that day, or I might well have been the one sent down to Cedar City to cover the story. Had I been, I would not have referred to it as an apology, because it's clear from the official statement read by Elder Eyring that it was not. As I said, I make a point of being accurate.

 

The editors of the newspaper would not have questioned my judgment any more than they did Carrie's because they were not there to experience the event. And you would not have a Deseret News story today to wave in people's faces.

 

My point is, you are putting a lot of stock in the opinions and assumptions of fallible journalists, just as Omni did when he tried to show that the New York Times had called the Illinois state delegation's expression to the Church an apology. I was able readily to show that the New York Times story contradicted itself in that self-same news story by reporting that the wording of the resolution had been altered by the Illinois House of Representatives deliberately to avoid having it be considered an apology.

 

While we are talking about the Church and apologies, is the Church responsible for baptizing Holocaust victims OR are individual members responsible for baptising holocaust victims. The Church did not baptize those people individual members did. Yet the Church apologized for it:

 

First, let's clear up one glaring inaccuracy in your wording. No one is "responsible for baptizing Holocaust victims," because that is not what happened. The Church does not baptize dead people. What it does is perform ordinances whereby proxies are baptized for and in behalf of deceased individuals with the understanding that the deceased person has the option to accept or reject the ordinance.

 

Now then, the situation you cite here is different. The Church might very well be regarded as being at fault for not more carefully implementing procedures already in place to prevent such a thing from occurring. I haven't reviewed the story you cite (for which you gave no link) but I'm thinking that is probably what the Church apologized for in that instance.

 

Finally, why are you so insistent that the Church's expression of regret be regarded as an apology?  Let me pose a question to you straight out that has been implied in this discussion but which you have not yet addressed: Do the Church of Jesus Christ and its members bear collective guilt and culpability for the mass murders at Mountain Meadows on Sept. 11, 1857? Yes or no? If you say yes, on what do you base that unjust conclusion?

 

By the way, I inadvertently gave you a rep point when I went to click on the "Quote" button. It was not intended, but Merry Christmas.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I see them as apologies.  For unauthorized acts.  That's like a mother apologizing for her son being a serial killer.

Does the mother bear guilt and blame for doing the serial killing? That's the operative question. If not, then she cannot apologize for it in the sense that most people in the Western culture understand the meaning of the term.

[USU78]

Does the mother bear guilt and blame for doing the serial killing? That's the operative question. If not, then she cannot apologize for it in the sense that most people in the Western culture understand the meaning of the term.

 

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

By the way, I inadvertently gave you a rep point when I went to click on the "Quote" button. It was not intended, but Merry Christmas.

Heh. Under Tonie's logic, I am now and forever doomed to being officially regarded as agreeing with her because I gave her a rep point, even though the rep point was not intended. 

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

Heh. Under Tonie's logic, I am now and forever doomed to being officially regarded as agreeing with her because I gave her a rep point, even though the rep point was not intended.

 

You are now inextricably linked and must bear the blame and consequence of her actions and must forever apologize for her actions.

Edited September 10, 2014 by ERayR

[Scott Lloyd]

You are now inextricably linked and must bear the blame and consequence of her actions and must forever apologize for her actions.

Arghh! I never truly grasped the concept of hell until now.

[ERayR]

Arghh! I never truly grasped the concept of hell until now.

 

And you slipped into it so easily.  Oh how insidious.

[Billy1137]

How is it that the murderous action of the adopted son of Brigham Young means the father was implicated? If you think that the adopted son's action on his own means the adopted father is guilty, then this guilty by association will probably mean Lehi was as bad as he two bad sons, or Adam & Eve are bad parents because they had Cain. You can also say the original apostles must be bad because Judas did what he did to the Savior, or that the Savior Himself was at fault because He couldn't influence Judas to do good. After all we are all free man with free agency. Given the persecution mentality of those involved in the crime, the action was inexcusable but explainable. Just a stupid mistake by a small group and the church has to suffer a tarnished reputation for their mistake.

[ERayR]

How is it that the murderous action of the adopted son of Brigham Young means the father was implicated? If you think that the adopted son's action on his own means the adopted father is guilty, then this guilty by association will probably mean Lehi was as bad as he two bad sons, or Adam & Eve are bad parents because they had Cain. You can also say the original apostles must be bad because Judas did what he did to the Savior, or that the Savior Himself was at fault because He couldn't influence Judas to do good. After all we are all free man with free agency. Given the persecution mentality of those involved in the crime, the action was inexcusable but explainable. Just a stupid mistake by a small group and the church has to suffer a tarnished reputation for their mistake.

 

I agree with what you are say but I would not minimize MMM as just a stupid mistake.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with what you are say but I would not minimize MMM as just a stupid mistake.

More like a chain or spiral of increasingly serious errors and misdeeds that led inexorably to a grievous and horrible crime.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

How is it that the murderous action of the adopted son of Brigham Young means the father was implicated? If you think that the adopted son's action on his own means the adopted father is guilty, then this guilty by association will probably mean Lehi was as bad as he two bad sons, or Adam & Eve are bad parents because they had Cain. You can also say the original apostles must be bad because Judas did what he did to the Savior, or that the Savior Himself was at fault because He couldn't influence Judas to do good. After all we are all free man with free agency. Given the persecution mentality of those involved in the crime, the action was inexcusable but explainable. Just a stupid mistake by a small group and the church has to suffer a tarnished reputation for their mistake.

He wasn't really "adopted."   I imagine Brigham Young "adopted" hundreds of other men under the old ordinance of adoption, even after his death, before Wilford Woodruff suspended it in 1894.

[Tacenda]

Does the mother bear guilt and blame for doing the serial killing? That's the operative question. If not, then she cannot apologize for it in the sense that most people in the Western culture understand the meaning of the term.

Operative or not, maybe in her heart, whether true or not, she bares a burden of thinking her parenting skills may have contributed and the need to apologize. Just as the church leaders may have felt some past leaders were in the wrong and as a collective whole feel they should apologise for them, as they were part of the church.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

 Just as the church leaders may have felt some past leaders were in the wrong and as a collective whole feel they should apologise for them, as they were part of the church.

 

But        They              didn't.