6EQUJ5 Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) The fake "apology" hoax perpetrated by a dishonest former member caused a lot of stir. It was all the rage on facebook and even spurred discussion here. One of the things that kept coming up was that descendants cannot offer, not accept apologies for choices made by their ancestors. The specific argument was that the LDS Church -- even if it wanted to -- cannot apologize for the decisions made by Brigham Young or President McKay. But back in 2008 the State of Illinois officially apologized to the LDS Church for the murder of Joseph Smith and the pursecutions the Saints had to endure up until they were forced out. From what I can tell, the Church accepted the apology. But based on what we've been talking about lately I am wondering if it would be more appropriate to inform them we accept their regret, but not their apology as they are not in any position to apologize for the atrocities committed against the Nauvoo Saints. ETA: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-04-08/news/0404080246_1_church-president-gordon-hinckley-mormons-latter-day-saints Edited June 2, 2018 by 6EQUJ5 1
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2018 Popular Post Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said: The fake "apology" hoax perpetrated by a dishonest former member caused a lot of stir. It was all the rage on facebook and even spurred discussion here. One of the things that kept coming up was that descendants cannot offer, not accept apologies for choices made by their ancestors. The specific argument was that the LDS Church -- even if it wanted to -- cannot apologize for the decisions made by Brigham Young or President McKay. But back in 2008 the State of Illinois officially apologized to the LDS Church for the murder of Joseph Smith and the pursecutions the Saints had to endure up until they were forced out. From what I can tell, the Church accepted the apology. But based on what we've been talking about lately I am wondering if it would be more appropriate to inform them we accept their regret, but not their apology as they are not in any position to apologize for the atrocities committed against the Nauvoo Saints. ETA: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-04-08/news/0404080246_1_church-president-gordon-hinckley-mormons-latter-day-saints Despite the erroneous headline in the newspaper story you have linked to, the resolution passed by the Illinois general assembly was not termed an apology. In fact The original draft was amended to remove the idea of asking for pardon and forgiveness and make it, instead, an expression of regret (not the same thing, for it does not entail an acceptance of culpability). As a journalist, I was there that day in the Church Administration Building when the document was officially presented by the delegation from Illinois. I distinctly recall a member of the delegation explaining why the Illinois lawmaking body had not termed it an apology. Curious, I asked during the news media Q and A whether any of the delegation there present had ancestors living in Illinois in the 1840s when the Latter-day Saints were oppressed. None had. So not only were they personally not culpable for the wrongs that were committed, they didn’t even have ancestors who were. So, to respond to your question in the thread title, no, the Church should not reject an apology, because there was never one offered, just an official expression of regret. Edited to add: See this link to a New York Times piece which explains that the wording in the resolution was amended: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/us/illinois-tells-mormons-it-regrets-expulsion.html A quote from the article: “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.” Edited June 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 6
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted June 2, 2018 Popular Post Posted June 2, 2018 Sincere apologies or expressions of regret should always be accepted with good grace. 7
Popular Post Jeanne Posted June 2, 2018 Popular Post Posted June 2, 2018 I have apologized previously and now again for the participation of my Great Grandfather who participated by direction in the MMM. From this generation..my cousin and I offer our deep apology for his participation and his misunderstanding. 7
jbarm Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) I apologize for all of my family for the US Civil War, as my great great Grandfather fought on the side of the Confederacy. I also apologize for all of my family for the US Civil war, as my great great great Grandfather fought on the side of the Union. The Union had its share of atrocities too. /sarcasm jb Edited June 2, 2018 by jbarm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 So long as we are apologizing for stuff for which we bear no culpability, I apologize for all of the critics who come here day after day to denigrate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They won’t do it for themselves, so I may as well do it for them. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: I have apologized previously and now again for the participation of my Great Grandfather who participated by direction in the MMM. From this generation..my cousin and I offer our deep apology for his participation and his misunderstanding. While you’re at it, why don’t you apologize for the Missourians who perpetrated the Hawn’s Mill Massacre?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Sincere apologies or expressions of regret should always be accepted with good grace. I very much agree with this. But at the same time, one should not hold someone else accountable for acts for which the other is not culpable. Edited June 2, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
RevTestament Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: While you’re at it, why don’t you apologize for the Missourians who perpetrated the Hawn’s Mill Massacre? Ouch.
Eek! Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Sincere apologies or expressions of regret should always be accepted with good grace. Well said. Imo most choices are between peace and something else, and when we treasure grievances, we are choosing something else. Edited June 2, 2018 by Eek! 1
Guest Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 13 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: The fake "apology" hoax perpetrated by a dishonest former member caused a lot of stir. It was all the rage on facebook and even spurred discussion here. One of the things that kept coming up was that descendants cannot offer, not accept apologies for choices made by their ancestors. The specific argument was that the LDS Church -- even if it wanted to -- cannot apologize for the decisions made by Brigham Young or President McKay. But back in 2008 the State of Illinois officially apologized to the LDS Church for the murder of Joseph Smith and the pursecutions the Saints had to endure up until they were forced out. From what I can tell, the Church accepted the apology. But based on what we've been talking about lately I am wondering if it would be more appropriate to inform them we accept their regret, but not their apology as they are not in any position to apologize for the atrocities committed against the Nauvoo Saints. ETA: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-04-08/news/0404080246_1_church-president-gordon-hinckley-mormons-latter-day-saints How can the Church "accept" a hoax? No matter how I feel (and I have strong feelings on the matter, very strong!) or anyone else, how could the Church be motivated by such a "hoax" (lie) to then move to embrace it?
Marginal Gains Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 31 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: How can the Church "accept" a hoax? No matter how I feel (and I have strong feelings on the matter, very strong!) or anyone else, how could the Church be motivated by such a "hoax" (lie) to then move to embrace it? The fake apology is interesting in that the outcry about it seems to be more because they really embraced it as the Church making proper amends. It's clear what a large portion of the membership wants to see happen. Passionately so. So the furore towards the hoaxer is simply a proxy for how upset people are that the Church hasn't offered an apology like it. But I agree with what someone said earlier, Pres. Oaks clearly still believes God wanted black people embargoed from the temple and the Priesthood. Whilst the Church has leaders maintaining that kind of belief it will be impossible for the hurt to be properly healed.
RevTestament Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: The fake apology is interesting in that the outcry about it seems to be more because they really embraced it as the Church making proper amends. It's clear what a large portion of the membership wants to see happen. Passionately so. So the furore towards the hoaxer is simply a proxy for how upset people are that the Church hasn't offered an apology like it. But I agree with what someone said earlier, Pres. Oaks clearly still believes God wanted black people embargoed from the temple and the Priesthood. Whilst the Church has leaders maintaining that kind of belief it will be impossible for the hurt to be properly healed. I don't feel hurt for the Lord not allowing my Gentile ancestors into the priesthood. Nor do I feel the need for healing. 2
katherine the great Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: I have apologized previously and now again for the participation of my Great Grandfather who participated by direction in the MMM. From this generation..my cousin and I offer our deep apology for his participation and his misunderstanding. Several years ago, I learned that I had 3rd great uncles who participated the MMM. I also learned that my 3rd great grandpa did not participate, even though he was a member of one of the participating communities. He died of unknown causes a few months later. His daughter (my gg grandmother) told some family members that he was poisoned by "the mormons" which I found odd because he himself was supposedly a devout member. I've always wondered about that. It was such a dark, terrible time and place and I try not to judge harshly, but I am also very ashamed of their behavior. 2
Jeanne Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So long as we are apologizing for stuff for which we bear no culpability, I apologize for all of the critics who come here day after day to denigrate The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They won’t do it for themselves, so I may as well do it for them. I apologize Scott...if I denigrate the Church...I apologize..no need to do that for me. ☺️ We ex-mormons have no trouble with apologies..you know us..we are a sorry lot. Edited June 2, 2018 by Jeanne
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 I would like to apologize to the Britons for my family who invaded alongside William the Conqueror, to the Jews for my relative Jeroboam’s rebellion against the House of David, and to Esau for Jacob buying the birthright in the lentil scam. I hope we can put this all behind us now. 4
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 The Deseret News called the mountain meadows statement by Pres. Eyring an apology. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/695209359/LDS-Church-issues-apology-over-Mountain-Meadows.amp Perhaps apologizing for the past isn't so wrong? At least a profound statement of regret shouldn't be so difficult?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 24 minutes ago, Exiled said: The Deseret News called the mountain meadows statement by Pres. Eyring an apology. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/695209359/LDS-Church-issues-apology-over-Mountain-Meadows.amp Perhaps apologizing for the past isn't so wrong? At least a profound statement of regret shouldn't be so difficult? The Deseret News and other news media who referred to it as an aapology did so inaccurately. Nothing in the statement drafted in advance and delivered by then-Elder Henry B. Eyring refers to it as an apology. Read the statement. The word is very carefully avoided, and the phrase expression of regret is used. 3
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The Deseret News and other news media who referred to it as an aapology did so inaccurately. Nothing in the statement drafted in advance and delivered by then-Elder Henry B. Eyring refers to it as an apology. Read the statement. The word is very carefully avoided, and the phrase expression of regret is used. Who made the "mistake" calling it an apology at the DN? Was that person fired? Did the DN ever retract calling the non-apology an apology?
cinepro Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The Deseret News and other news media who referred to it as an aapology did so inaccurately. Nothing in the statement drafted in advance and delivered by then-Elder Henry B. Eyring refers to it as an apology. Read the statement. The word is very carefully avoided, and the phrase expression of regret is used. But the key question is how Elder Eyring was able to even "express regret." Since we all agree that he wasn't alive in 1857 and therefore could not have personally been involved in the atrocity, by what magic was he able to deliver such an expression? By the logic expressed in this thread, the only rational response from the descendants of the victims of the MMM would be for them to say "We cannot acknowledge your expression, for we are not the victims ourselves, nor are you the perpetrator. We only recognize you as an uninvolved man, and while your carefully worded statement is a nice gesture, you have neither the power nor responsibility to make it, just as we have neither the power nor authority to acknowledge it. In fact, all our involvement in this charade is silly. Good day." The headline in the DN should have simply read "Human male delivers thoughts on a past event with which he had nothing to do, to a group of people who similarly had nothing to do with it." The coincidental fact that Eyring held a position in the Church of which the perpetrators were members, and that the recipients carried some genetic link to the victims, might have been pointed out by the DN as an interesting but ultimately meaningless bit of trivia in the situation. 2
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, Exiled said: Who made the "mistake" calling it an apology at the DN? Was that person fired? Did the DN ever retract calling the non-apology an apology? Aren't we petty today? 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, Exiled said: Who made the "mistake" calling it an apology at the DN? Was that person fired? Did the DN ever retract calling the non-apology an apology? I’m not a Deseret News spokesman.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, cinepro said: But the key question is how Elder Eyring was able to even "express regret." Since we all agree that he wasn't alive in 1857 and therefore could not have personally been involved in the atrocity, by what magic was he able to deliver such an expression? Anybody can express regret over a thing. I don’t get your reasoning here.
Exiled Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Aren't we petty today? I say that because I have a hard time believing that the headline wasn't coordinated with the church. The leadership may not be able to say it but the paper can in order to put the apology word out there. The mountain meadows non-apology by Eyring was a big, big deal at the time, the church p.r. dept. is well-run and coordinates well with the church owned paper. So, putting apology in the headline would seem to be a firing offense if some editor went rogue. I don't remember if there was an uproar at the non-apology and that the paper put apology in the headline to calm the storm after the fact, but coordination should be the default position.
Recommended Posts