Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply

Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

 
Total votes: 0

_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Buffalo »

why me wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:The church should apologize for creating an atmosphere of fear and revenge instead of forgiveness and faith. The church failed to provide spiritual guidance to the people who perpetrated the massacre and it continues to fail to provide spiritual guidance to those who would defend it in this matter.


Bulldinky. The US government and the protestant churches that the mobs belonged to should apologize to the LDS church for their intolerance of Mormons. For afterall some of the members of the mobs went to church on sunday with their wives. Why couldn't these protestant churches control their flock and preach the word? It is here that forgiveness needs to come.


No one here is defending the mobs.

But here you are, defending the MMM murderers, whose crimes were much greater than any of those in the anti-Mormon mobs.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _why me »

Buffalo wrote:Why do YOU think Mormons were disliked?


Why were indians disliked? Why were catholics disliked? Why were blacks disliked? Look into american history and see the intolerance toward difference. Frontier life was harsh to be sure on difference.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _why me »

Buffalo wrote:No one here is defending the mobs.

But here you are, defending the MMM murderers, whose crimes were much greater than any of those in the anti-Mormon mobs.


Nonsense. By your silence you defend them. By your silence you give a free ride to the protestant churches who most likely encouraged the hostility toward the Mormons. And yet, you are quick to bring up MMM. MMM was the result of trauma suffered by the Mormons who experienced severe persecution in their lives. Also, the persecution was being threatened once more. It was a sad incident but understandable from a shell shocked people.

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... 6f620a____
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_daheshism
_Emeritus
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:18 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _daheshism »

Why should "Japan" apologize for the Rape of Nanking?

Did "Japan" do it?


Daniel Peterson wrote:Why should "the Church" apologize?

Did "the Church" do it?
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Lucretia MacEvil »

why me wrote:
Buffalo wrote:No one here is defending the mobs.

But here you are, defending the MMM murderers, whose crimes were much greater than any of those in the anti-Mormon mobs.


Nonsense. By your silence you defend them. By your silence you give a free ride to the protestant churches who most likely encouraged the hostility toward the Mormons. And yet, you are quick to bring up MMM. MMM was the result of trauma suffered by the Mormons who experienced severe persecution in their lives. Also, the persecution was being threatened once more. It was a sad incident but understandable from a shell shocked people.

http://LDS.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... 6f620a____


Okay, the Mormons were traumatized and shell shocked. Granted, they had it tough for a few years there. What did their religion do to alleviate this? I submit that the church encouraged an atmosphere of hate and revenge. It was in the hymns they sang and the sermons they heard, it was in the temple ceremonies. IMHO, if Jesus were leading this church he would have taught that forgiveness starts now. If Jesus were leading that church, members would have developed spirituality, not persecution complex; peace, not PTSD. But that's just me. I believe in a God of Love, not vengeance, and not some insane hybrid of love and vengeance.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Should the Church apologize for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _moksha »

MsJack wrote:
Church leaders were adamant that [Eyring's] statement should not be construed as an apology. "We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'" church spokesman Mark Tuttle told The Associated Press.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... 7941_x.htm


The legal department while not known for its sense of prophecy, seeing or revelating, can change what should have been a heart felt apology into something that in not legally binding in court. Sometimes doing what's right has to take a back seat to financial considerations.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Pahoran »

jon wrote:
Pahoran wrote:Good question; what evidence do you have that there was a "structured plan" coolly hatched in an office in Salt Lake City?

Regards,
Pahoran

Absolutely not, I was (as you pointed out) easing myself back in my chair, putting my feet up and hypothesising.

You, on the other hand, spoke with certainty and authority.

Perhaps you'll be good enough to answer my question (like I have yours) with an answer not another question?
<starting to hold my breath in 3...2...1....>

No need to hold your breath, Jon. Perhaps you aren't aware, but the burden of proof for an accusation rests solely with the accuser.

There are only two exceptions to that rule that I am aware of: witch hunts and inquisitions.

Which one of these were you trying to run?

In any event, since, as you have admitted, your accusation was entirely baseless, and represents nothing but your own personal spite, it fails for lack of support, and I see no need to discuss it further.

Regards,
Pahoran
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Pahoran »

Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Okay, the Mormons were traumatized and shell shocked. Granted, they had it tough for a few years there. What did their religion do to alleviate this? I submit that the church encouraged an atmosphere of hate and revenge. It was in the hymns they sang and the sermons they heard, it was in the temple ceremonies. IMHO, if Jesus were leading this church he would have taught that forgiveness starts now. If Jesus were leading that church, members would have developed spirituality, not persecution complex; peace, not PTSD. But that's just me. I believe in a God of Love, not vengeance, and not some insane hybrid of love and vengeance.

And yet, the God you believe in has failed to inculcate in you a spirit of forgiveness and understanding. Instead, you have a spirit of hectoring and lecturing and accusing, as you refuse to even try to live up to the advice you so generously dish out in our direction.

The survival value of interpreting "turn the other cheek" as "let those who would destroy you ride roughshod over you" is exactly zero. Evidently, in your mind, 19th century Mormons are to be blamed for not meekly climbing into the cattle cars.

Regards,
Pahoran
_Lucretia MacEvil
_Emeritus
Posts: 1558
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Lucretia MacEvil »

Pahoran wrote:
Lucretia MacEvil wrote:Okay, the Mormons were traumatized and shell shocked. Granted, they had it tough for a few years there. What did their religion do to alleviate this? I submit that the church encouraged an atmosphere of hate and revenge. It was in the hymns they sang and the sermons they heard, it was in the temple ceremonies. IMHO, if Jesus were leading this church he would have taught that forgiveness starts now. If Jesus were leading that church, members would have developed spirituality, not persecution complex; peace, not PTSD. But that's just me. I believe in a God of Love, not vengeance, and not some insane hybrid of love and vengeance.

And yet, the God you believe in has failed to inculcate in you a spirit of forgiveness and understanding. Instead, you have a spirit of hectoring and lecturing and accusing, as you refuse to even try to live up to the advice you so generously dish out in our direction.

The survival value of interpreting "turn the other cheek" as "let those who would destroy you ride roughshod over you" is exactly zero. Evidently, in your mind, 19th century Mormons are to be blamed for not meekly climbing into the cattle cars.

Regards,
Pahoran


Namaste.
The person who is certain and who claims divine warrant for his certainty belongs now to the infancy of our species. Christopher Hitchens

Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. Frater
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by _Chap »

I said a while ago that I thought it would be easy to draft a speech for the President of the COJCoLDS to make that would not admit institutional guilt for the MMM, but would amount to a genuine apology for what was done.

Here is a first draft. I wonder if DCP will agree that any reasonable person would take it as a frank and acceptable apology for what was done, while steering well clear of any expression of corporate guilt on behalf of Church leadership, past or present?

I am not LDS, so please do not accuse me of 'Ark steadying'. I am merely trying to show that an apology can be made without the admission of corporate guilt that seems to be cited as the reason why no apology can be made.

And if an apology can be made, why would one not want to make one?


[Begin with recounting in bald detail what is known of the course of the massacre, and of its aftermath.]

A truly terrible crime was committed that day, by a group of grown men who must have known exactly what they were doing when they killed men who had done them no harm, and after the men were dealt with murdered women and even children who could not possibly have been a threat to them. There is no excuse for what they did.

There is nothing in the teachings of our church that condones such a crime, or gives any pretext for it, and there never has been. This frightful act was planned by a group of local militia commanders, not by the then leaders of our Church. The head of the Church, the Prophet Brigham Young, had even sent a message forbidding any molestation of the emigrant wagon trains: alas, it arrived too late.

But this crime was certainly committed by members of our church - let us lay to rest for ever the old excuse that it was committed by Native Americans, for it was not. Now what do I, as President of the Church today, have to say about that? First of all - and it should hardly be necessary to say this - the Church as an institution, and its members today, bears no blame for what happened on that dreadful day. Those of us who are Latter-day Saints today have nothing to apologise for, as individuals or as a church.

The fact remains that something dreadful was done, by men the great majority of whom were never brought to justice, and who are not on record as having expressed repentance for what they did. That unrepented and, at least on earth, unpunished wrong is still felt keenly by those whose family members were amongst those who were brutally slain. And that wrong was done by men, who, if they were alive today, we would call ‘brother’. We cannot bear their guilt, but is there nothing we can do as Latter-day Saints today to wipe away some of that wrong?

I believe there is. In our Church, we believe that God has given us the power, privilege and duty to revive the ancient Christian practice of vicarious baptism on behalf of those who have died without the chance to accept the Gospel in this life. Our belief is that those who have died are not bound to accept this baptism we perform for them, but they they are free to do so if they wish. I believe that in the same way we may offer a heart-felt apology and plea for forgiveness on behalf of those men who are not longer here in the mortality to do that for themselves. And how can we doubt that many if not all of the men who did evil that day will have long wished with bitter tears that they could at last say ‘we are sorry’ to all those down to the present day who have been touched by the wrong they did?

Our Church and its living members have nothing to be sorry for as regards that terrible day. But we are glad, on behalf of our dead brothers, to be able to express deep sorrow and repentance for what they did that day, and to say to all who can hear and wish to hear “On behalf of our dead brothers, who sinned so grievously, we are sorry. Please find forgiveness for them if you can, as you hope to find forgiveness for yourself.”


Please note that I do not myself agree with all the positions expressed in this text, though I have done my best to say what a Church President might wish to say.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply