Why the insistence on no apology offered?

[_Trevor]

Okay. Then let me rephrase my point. I am still puzzled by this kind of self-righteousness. I would think that if one were of a mind to resort to snubbery in this way, it would be for something far more serious and significant than a well-intending party making a simple and reasonable clarification following a heart-felt expression of regret for a 150-year-old event. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't think of this as self-righteousness at all. I think of it as a reasonable criticism of poor behavior. Your response to the whole thing seems pretty run-of-the-mill for the LDS membership as a whole. When the leaders of the Church make a misstep, most members respond by minimizing the problem. Phrases like "well-intending" and "heart-felt" are contestable. You see it all this way. Others, like me, do not.

You also seem to see your approach to this and many other issues as more reasonable than mine. I likewise see my approach as more reasonable than yours. I don't think we will see eye to eye on this. I know that, for myself, the excuses made for LDS leaders no longer worked. It is a matter of me responding in accordance with the dictates of my conscience, not yours. And I think that the LDS Church rushes to excuse itself too readily.

[_Trevor]

It just seemed like you were saying that current members of the Church should shoulder the blame for MMM.

I think current members of the LDS Church should do what is necessary to make this right.

At the same time, I find the preoccupation with avoiding blame kind of disconcerting.

[_wenglund]

I am sorry, but your comments made me all the more confused.

If, as you suggested, the descendents were happy with the Church's heart-felt expression of regret, and didn't mistake it for an apology (or, in other words, they didn't mistake it for a tacit admission of guilt--whether by association or otherwise), then how could it be a slap in their face for the Church to clarify, for those who may have been mistaken, that it was not an apology/admission of guilt?

Furthermore, I am a bit baffled by the modern need, typically felt by the PC folks, to solicite apologies from, and to, descendants, each of which are only loosely connected to things that occured in the very distant past (I have mostly in mind the Arab/Israeli conflict, the movement for black reparations, etc.). While I don't doubt that such solicitations are intended to heal. I believe they are terribly mis-directed (not only unjustly and unmercifully shouldering the innocent with inferred guilt and responsibility), but from what I have observed, they tend to do just the opposite (stirring up strife and greater divisiveness). It also shifts public focus from current conflicts and divisions (for which some of the living bear direct responsibility), as well as away from truly effectual avenues for healing (such as mediating, in good faith, mutually beneficial, contemporary resolutions), and towards relatively meaningless gestures that cannot change the past or positively influence the present and future. It's like were estranged siblings to, instead of working to resolve their own differences, went about soliciting apologies from each other for a dispute their parents had before the siblings were even born. Where is the sense in that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

Furthermore, I am a bit baffled by the modern need, typically felt by the PC folks, to solicite apologies from, and to, descendants, each of which are only loosely connected to things that occured in the very distant past (I have mostly in mind the Arab/Israeli conflict, the movement for black reparations, etc.). Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For those who think primarily in terms of individuals, all of this may be baffling. What seems hard for you and others to grasp is that groups have a collective responsibility in which each individual member may be implicated to an extent. This responsibility does not end when one generation passes and another takes the lead. I call it long-term social responsibility. As a member of a particular group, with all of its history, I incur the responsibilties of being a member, not only in terms of inner-group dynamics, but also in terms of the group's dealings with outsiders.

It is not surprising to me that those people who like to see responsibility in highly individualistic terms should have a problem understanding the idea of such a long-term, social responsibility. If the theology tells you that you are responsible for your own sins, not for those of others, then I can see how apologies for MMM would seem strange. It is not that there is a necessary relationship between the two concepts, but it is nevertheless easy to conflate them. Still, I see the potential in LDS theology for recognizing the good that can be done across generations. If the righteousness of the parents can save the children, and the righteousness of the children can save the parents, or ancestors, then perhaps people can in a sense right wrongs committed long ago.

What I have seen, in my personal experience, is an LDS tendency to ignore or avoid past and present problems with the LDS Church. The organization has a certain teflon quality that best insulates those closest to the top, but which also affects attitudes throughout the membership. It is not so unusual really, but in modern democratic society there has been a real backlash against this kind of elite privilege. The idea that all people in a society, regardless of their position, should be held responsible for their actions is, imho, a real improvement on the past.

Complete justice takes the past as well as the present into account has some utility, when it comes to righting certain kinds of wrongs. When it comes to murder, for example, there is no statute of limitations. There was no reprieve for those responsible for the Holocaust simply because they moved to South America and lived there in comfort for decades. I would add that when a certain wrong is associated sufficiently with a group as a whole, the group should do what is necessary to heal these wounds. I think it is part of the group's larger responsibility to humanity, and that goes for individuals in the group as well. Why? Because healing wounds, and lifting burdens is the right thing to do.

[_harmony]

Furthermore, I am a bit baffled by the modern need, typically felt by the PC folks, to solicite apologies from, and to, descendants, each of which are only loosely connected to things that occured in the very distant past (I have mostly in mind the Arab/Israeli conflict, the movement for black reparations, etc.). Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For those who think primarily in terms of individuals, all of this may be baffling. What seems hard for you and others to grasp is that groups have a collective responsibility in which each individual member may be implicated to an extent.

Since when? Says who? [/quote]

I repeat: since when? Says who?

[_moksha]

It seems wrong to focus on an apology as an admission of guilt rather than an expression of remorse.
That would keep those with too much pride from ever admitting any degree of wrongdoing. Instead,
by focusing on an expression of remorse, that would only pose a difficulty for those lacking compassion.

[_Trevor]

That pertained to Nazi leaders, not to the soldier in the army who had nothing to do with the concentration camps. That's how I see church members today: as soldiers in the army who had nothing whatsoever to with the massacre.

Sure, the average soldier would not be prosecuted for what took place in the concentration camps, but the best of them would do, and did do, what they could to make it right. Why? Because they would (and did) understand the point I am trying to make about shared burdens and group responsibilities. It really would not surprise me if many Mormons, like you, do not understand them. It isn't because you are bad people. It is because of a radical individualism that is blind to group responsibility.

And again, I add that the very rush to avoid blame is disconcerting. It is this tendency to disassociate from atrocities that contributes to their reoccurrence.

[_Trevor]

It seems wrong to focus on an apology as an admission of guilt rather than an expression of remorse.

I don't see much of either in this case, but maybe that's just me.

[_harmony]

That pertained to Nazi leaders, not to the soldier in the army who had nothing to do with the concentration camps. That's how I see church members today: as soldiers in the army who had nothing whatsoever to with the massacre.

Sure, the average soldier would not be prosecuted for what took place in the concentration camps, but the best of them would do, and did do, what they could to make it right.

Perhaps because they were so close to it, not 150 years removed.

I'm perfectly willing to shoulder whatever burden I cause or that is caused by people who I have stewardship over or who are related to me. I am not willing to shoulder the burden for behavior that took place 150 years ago in place I've never been by people who are not related to me in any way. And I don't see why I should.

[_harmony]

Furthermore, I am a bit baffled by the modern need, typically felt by the PC folks, to solicite apologies from, and to, descendants, each of which are only loosely connected to things that occured in the very distant past (I have mostly in mind the Arab/Israeli conflict, the movement for black reparations, etc.). Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For those who think primarily in terms of individuals, all of this may be baffling. What seems hard for you and others to grasp is that groups have a collective responsibility in which each individual member may be implicated to an extent.

Since when? Says who?

I repeat: since when? Says who?

Dang it, I did it wrong. I meant to quote, not to edit. *sigh*