Should the church officially reject Illinois' apology?

[Exiled]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Blessedly, no. And I don’t get your reasoning that one must be “critical of the Church” to be a fair or unslanted reporter or writer. Maybe it says more about you than it does me. 

One does not have to be critical to be independent, of course. However, one that is critical is more likely to be independent. If a DN reporter were critical of the church, would the story be published?

[6EQUJ5]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you respond to the wrong post?

What are you talking about?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

What are you talking about?

Your response was to a post I gave to Exiled, not to you. Did you click on the wrong post? 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

One does not have to be critical to be independent, of course. However, one that is critical is more likely to be independent. If a DN reporter were critical of the church, would the story be published?

One who is critical is more likely to be partisan and opinionated as opposed to being fair and unslanted. 

When you say “independent,” one could ask, “Independent of what?”

Edited June 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

3 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

This is, by far, the single worst thing the DN has ever published.  I hope that editor was canned.

I think it was great.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Where did the candidate reference come from? I was talking about p.r.

You suggested DN cleared things with Church leaders before publishing, correct?

[Exiled]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

You suggested DN cleared things with Church leaders before publishing, correct?

Based on how my friend described things surrounding the preparations for the martin handcart monument grand opening, I suggested that it seems likely that the DN saying the church apologized for mountain meadows probably was no accident. The church seems pretty sophisticated at controlling its message in big events and it seems more likely to me that it would have known in advance of a headline from its own newspaper about mountain meadows and would have approved of it.  However, there is always room to doubt what I said because I wasn't in the room. So, of course I am speculating. It seems reasonable to me though.

[Exiled]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One who is critical is more likely to be partisan and opinionated as opposed to being fair and unslanted. 

When you say “independent,” one could ask, “Independent of what?”

Independent of the church group think.

I think it is obvious that there is a way of viewing the world of mormonism that is common to those at the DN and new hires are selected from those who share the basic views or remain silent if they don't. I'm sure no one like Kirby would last there. I am pretty sure you couldn't espouse a non-historical book of mormon and put those thoughts into a column you write. Any breaking story on the Denson matter that is critical of the church will not come from the DN. That's what is expected from a church owned paper. Having said that, I like reading the DN. I also like to see what KUTV or Ch 13 say about given issues.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Independent of the church group think.

I think it is obvious that there is a way of viewing the world of mormonism that is common to those at the DN and new hires are selected from those who share the basic views or remain silent if they don't. I'm sure no one like Kirby would last there. I am pretty sure you couldn't espouse a non-historical book of mormon and put those thoughts into a column you write. Any breaking story on the Denson matter that is critical of the church will not come from the DN. That's what is expected from a church owned paper. Having said that, I like reading the DN. I also like to see what KUTV or Ch 13 say about given issues.

OK. So it appears you think a newspaper cannot be unbiased unless it produces anti-Mormon advocacy (not just reporting, but advocacy). That doesn’t strike me as unbiased. 

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Based on how my friend described things surrounding the preparations for the martin handcart monument grand opening, I suggested that it seems likely that the DN saying the church apologized for mountain meadows probably was no accident. The church seems pretty sophisticated at controlling its message in big events and it seems more likely to me that it would have known in advance of a headline from its own newspaper about mountain meadows and would have approved of it.  However, there is always room to doubt what I said because I wasn't in the room. So, of course I am speculating. It seems reasonable to me though.

It seems quite obvious that a lot of people don’t grasp the distinction between an apology, which implies admission of culpability, and an expression of regret, which doesn’t. I don’t believe you have given due consideration to the far more likely scenario, which is that both the Deseret News and the Tribune writers that day lacked this essential understanding. 

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK. So it appears you think a newspaper cannot be unbiased unless it produces anti-Mormon advocacy (not just reporting, but advocacy). That doesn’t strike me as unbiased. 

It seems to me that all newspapers and media report within a defined area, as defined by its owners. The DN has its area, too.

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems quite obvious that a lot of people don’t grasp the distinction between an apology, which implies admission of culpability, and an expression of regret, which doesn’t. I don’t believe you have given due consideration to the far more likely scenario, which is that both the Deseret News and the Tribune writers that day lacked this essential understanding. 

Perhaps. Organizational control doesn't always happen.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It seems to me that all newspapers and media report within a defined area, as defined by its owners. The DN has its area, too.

I can’t disagree with this as a broad theoretical statement. 

[Exiled]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can’t disagree with this as a broad theoretical statement. 

Well on this I base my speculation and go from there. Some months back some newsweek reporters published some stories very critical of their own news site and were immediately fired. I'm sure if anyone were openly critical of the organization they work for, they wouldn't last long. Of course DN reporters can be counted on to report the ordinary stories in a professional manner. My point is that they, like reporters in general, cannot report certain stories because ownership wouldn't allow it. Stories critical of Huntsman regarding the cancer institute and the UofU probably won't originate from the tribune. The phenomenon is everywhere and in every job. Employers want team players.

[Analytics]

On another thread, I got into an interesting side-discussion with Smac about the personhood of corporations. According to some people (including, tragically, 5 members of the Supreme Court), corporations are persons who carry the same basic rights as people do. Corporations have the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom not to incriminate themselves in trial, the freedom to keep and bear arms, etc.

If, as Mitt Romney quotably said, "corporations are people, my friend," then can the corporation itself apologize for what it did in the past? It's clear to me that if corporations really are people and have the rights of people, they should also have the ability to take responsibility for their own actions, just as other people do.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Well on this I base my speculation and go from there. Some months back some newsweek reporters published some stories very critical of their own news site and were immediately fired. I'm sure if anyone were openly critical of the organization they work for, they wouldn't last long. Of course DN reporters can be counted on to report the ordinary stories in a professional manner. My point is that they, like reporters in general, cannot report certain stories because ownership wouldn't allow it. Stories critical of Huntsman regarding the cancer institute and the UofU probably won't originate from the tribune. The phenomenon is everywhere and in every job. Employers want team players.

But from this assumption, you are making an absurdly large leap in speculating that the newspaper or its owner ordered its writer to deliberately misreport what occurred as part of some convoluted conspiracy. In essence, without anything substantive to go on, you are accusing the Deseret News of egregious journalistic malpractice that would violate the ethics of the profession. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/4/2018 at 10:05 AM, Analytics said:

On another thread, I got into an interesting side-discussion with Smac about the personhood of corporations. According to some people (including, tragically, 5 members of the Supreme Court), corporations are persons who carry the same basic rights as people do. Corporations have the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom not to incriminate themselves in trial, the freedom to keep and bear arms, etc.

If, as Mitt Romney quotably said, "corporations are people, my friend," then can the corporation itself apologize for what it did in the past? It's clear to me that if corporations really are people and have the rights of people, they should also have the ability to take responsibility for their own actions, just as other people do.

This whole notion of guilt by proxy is absurd on its face. 

Even assuming arguendo that your theory is valid, an institution should not bear collective guilt for errant actions done by individuals in violation of the institution’s own policies, principles, values, etc. 

Elsewhere, I have used the family of Butch Cassidy as an analogy. Butch was born into a Mormon household. Does his Mormon family bear culpability for the bank and train robberies he pulled off? How about the Church, since his family were Mormons? How far do you carry this notion? He was a U.S. citizen at the time. Do you hold the U.S. government responsible?  

Edited July 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This whole notion of guilt by proxy is absurd on its face. 

Even assuming arguendo that your theory is valid, an institution should not bear collective guilt for errant actions done by individuals in violation of the institutions own policies, principles, values, etc. 

Elsewhere, I have used the family of Butch Cassidy as an analogy. Butch was born into a Mormon household. Does his Mormon family bear culpability for the bank and train robberies he pulled off? How about the Church, since his family were Mormons? How far do you carry this notion? He was a U.S. citizen at the time. Do you hold the U.S. government responsible?  

I'm not talking about guilt by proxy. I'm talking about the implications of the personhood of corporations. Do you think corporations are people, Scott?

If corporations have the right to speech, the freedom of press, and the right to freely exercise their religion, that means they are capable of speaking, publishing, and exercising religion, right? If corporations are capable of doing those things, are they capable of doing anything wrong? If they are capable of doing something wrong, are they capable of using their freedom of speech to apologize for their own wrong actions?

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Analytics

[Exiled]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But from this assumption, you are making an absurdly large leap in speculating that the newspaper or its owner ordered its writer to deliberately misreport what occurred as part of some convoluted conspiracy. In essence, without anything substantive to go on, you are accusing the Deseret News of egregious journalistic malpractice that would violate the ethics of the profession. 

I don't know about all that. It just seems that from what my friend tells me, that the church was sensitive to message control when he worked there and that reporting from the church owned paper would be tightly controlled for big events. Even so, you bring up a good point that expressions of profound regret and apologies aren't that far apart and maybe that is where the mistake lies. Perhaps also, maybe a church official was confused on the message when briefing the media and used apology instead of regret. You did say that the Trib called it an apology, too. Do you remember if other national media used apology too in their reporting?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm not talking about guilt by proxy. I'm talking about the implications of the personhood of corporations. Do you think corporations are people, Scott?

If corporations have the right to speech, the freedom of press, and the right to freely exercise their religion, that means they are capable of speaking, publishing, and exercising religion, right? If corporations are capable of doing those things, are they capable of doing anything wrong? If they are capable of doing something wrong, are they capable of using their freedom of speech to apologize for their own wrong actions?

 

 

I’m saying the “corporation” (if you want to call the Church that) did not do wrong in this instance, as the actions of the perpetrators were clearly at odds with the values and principles that the Church teaches its members. There was even a direct instruction from the Church president to the perpetrators to leave the emigrant party alone, but it arrived too late. 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't know about all that. It just seems that from what my friend tells me, that the church was sensitive to message control when he worked there and that reporting from the church owned paper would be tightly controlled for big events. Even so, you bring up a good point that expressions of profound regret and apologies aren't that far apart and maybe that is where the mistake lies. Perhaps also, maybe a church official was confused on the message when briefing the media and used apology instead of regret. You did say that the Trib called it an apology, too. Do you remember if other national media used apology too in their reporting?

There was an Associated Press report in which a Church Public Affairs guy (Mark Tuttle) was quoted as affirming that the Church did not call the statement an apology. 

Link: 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/story/2007/09/12/mormon-church-expresses-regret-for-1857-massacre-that-left-120-dead.amp.html

Edited June 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There was an Associated Press report in which a Church Public Affairs guy (Mark Tuttle) was quoted as affirming that the Church did not call the statement an apology. 

Link: 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.com/story/2007/09/12/mormon-church-expresses-regret-for-1857-massacre-that-left-120-dead.amp.html

However, Richard Turley, Jr., acting director of the church historical department then and director now, told the SL Tribune, at the ceremony, that the statement was meant to be an apology.  He was part of the church delegation and wrote a major work on the subject.

"[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry," he said. "What happened here was horrific."  https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=6862682&itype=NGPSID

I guess he was speaking out of turn?  Why would he say that if it never was meant to be an apology?  One would assume that he was part of the meetings discussing what was going to happen.  Did the church leadership mean to apologize but then changed its mind?  Anyway, why is it such a big deal to issue an apology for this and the racial ban and then be done with it?  Is it because God cannot make mistakes and therefore his church doesn't?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

However, Richard Turley, Jr., acting director of the church historical department then and director now, told the SL Tribune, at the ceremony, that the statement was meant to be an apology.  He was part of the church delegation and wrote a major work on the subject.

"[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry," he said. "What happened here was horrific."  https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=6862682&itype=NGPSID

I guess he was speaking out of turn?  Why would he say that if it never was meant to be an apology?  One would assume that he was part of the meetings discussing what was going to happen.  Did the church leadership mean to apologize but then changed its mind?  Anyway, why is it such a big deal to issue an apology for this and the racial ban and then be done with it?  Is it because God cannot make mistakes and therefore his church doesn't?

Again, read the official statement drafted in advance by Church Historian and Recorder Marlin Jensen and delivered on site by Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The word “apology” does not appear in the statement. The Associated Press interview with Mark Tuttle of Church Public Affairs indicates this was by design. 

The reason it’s “such a big deal” is that it’s a matter of justice. The Church of Jesus of Christ should not be expected to accept blame or culpability for mass killings it did not authorize or approve and that it deplores to this day, having expressed profound regret for them. Why would you demand that the Church accept guilt by proxy? That is manifestly unjust. 

Why can’t you be content with today’s Church leaders deploring and expressing profound regret for the massacre?  Why do you insist that they take blame for it as well?

And how far would you take it? Mass murder is a horrible thing. Once blame has been assigned, would you have today’s Church leaders go to prison for it or worse?

Edited June 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, read the official statement drafted in advance by Church Historian and Recorder Marlin Jensen and delivered on site by Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The word “apology” does not appear in the statement. The Associated Press interview with Mark Tuttle of Church Public Affairs indicates this was by design. 

The reason it’s “such a big deal” is that it’s a matter of justice. The Church of Jesus of Christ should not be expected to accept blame or culpability for mass killings it did not authorize or approve and that it deplores to this day, having expressed profound regret for them. Why would you demand that the Church accept guilt by proxy? That is manifestly unjust. 

Why can’t you be content with today’s Church leaders deploring and expressing profound regret for the massacre?  Why do you insist that they take blame for it as well?

And how far would you take it? Mass murder is a horrible thing. Once blame has been assigned, would you have today’s Church leaders go to prison for it or worse?

I think an apology is not that far from expressions of regret and the people affected would greatly benefit from an "I'm sorry." The hoax apology a little while ago showed this.

I don't think there is any danger of current leaders going to jail and I don't think anyone is calling for that. Also, an apology for the past wouldn't implicate any current obligation for compensation to victims or families long since gone. It would just be a nice gesture. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/4/2018 at 3:17 PM, Exiled said:

I think an apology is not that far from expressions of regret and the people affected would greatly benefit from an "I'm sorry." The hoax apology a little while ago showed this.

I don't think there is any danger of current leaders going to jail and I don't think anyone is calling for that. Also, an apology for the past wouldn't implicate any current obligation for compensation to victims or families long since gone. It would just be a nice gesture. 

An apology entails acceptance of blame/culpability; an expression of regret does not. That is quite a distinction. I don’t know why you insist on minimizing it or its theoretical consequences. 

It appears that, in terms of implications, what you are calling for is what the Church has already done, essentiallly what the Illinois General assembly did for the Church. Why isn’t that a nice enough gesture?

Edited June 6, 2018 by Scott Lloyd