Why the insistence on no apology offered?

[_wenglund]

All of you have offered interesting responses to my post. Unfortunately I am preparing for a job review, and I do not have time to offer a proper response to everyone. Still, I will offer a few brief thoughts.

I am not the person who continues to bring up blame. I only note that some seem overly concerned with avoiding it. Why? Do you fear that someone is going to punish you for the murders at Mountain Meadows?

I can only answer for myself, but there are at least four reasons why I avoid blame and calls for apologies in this case:

1) Out of deference to the fundamental principal of "presumption of innocence"--the blame has not been sufficiently evinced or directly/indirectly linked to the parties being called upon.
2) So as to avoid making matters worse (through hurtful or damaging false accusation)
3) As a matter of priority and efficacy. To me, there is far greater value in addressing contemporary issues rather than ancient history, and in taking healthy and uplifting actions regarding the here-and-now, rather than speaking seemingly meaningless and ineffectual words about the past. I ascribe to the modern conventions of mediation, which steer the parties away from glame-games and calls for apologies, and towards mutually benefitial resolution.
4) And, yes, because the enemies of the Church will attempt, in various ways, to "punish us for the murders at Mountain Meadows". In fact, they frequently attempt to do so against the Church's presumed innocence and the dearth of evidence for even indirect guilt.

In fact, as I see things, you have it exactly backwards. The issue shouldn't be one of blame avoidance, but rather wrongful blame. If you are looking for an apology, it should be from the man in the mirror who is demanding apologies from innocent people and for an action they had no part in, but was in the distant past, and from which most of us (some critics of the Church being the exception) have moved well beyond.

Second, "since when and who" are such big questions that they would require a book to answer. I think it comes down to recognizing, or failing to recognize, one's implication in a group identity and group responsibility. Perhaps these things don't have a since when or who about them. They simply exist, from my point of view.

Then, as one of many critics of the Church, consistency demands that you apologies for each and every harm and damaged inflicted on the Church by your fellow critics throughout the history of the Church. That should keep you busy for the longest time. ;-)

And, if you have any remaining time in your life, then as a member of the human race, you can start the near endless apologizing for each and every wrong committed by humanity.

For my part, I wouldn't expect that from you since I don't think it make sense. But, perhaps while in the process of putting into action your own words, and finding what little or no value is derived from that enterprise, you just might come to the same point of view.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Jason Bourne]

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-

I asked Bob this next question and he never answered. So I will ask you since you both seem to object to this sort of thing.

Do you think the states of Missouri and Illinois were wrong to apologize to the LDS Church for the things that happened to the Church and to the Smith's? I did not see any church members complaining that the political leaders of those states should not have apolgized for things they never did. After all they were not there in 1832-1846.

[_wenglund]

And, if so, I would hope they would be consistent, and we will then be able to read their self-righteous calls to the current citizens of Illinois to apologize for the deaths and harm to the saints who were illegally expelled from Nauvoo; and their call to current Missourians to apologize for the extermination order

Illinois apologized in 2004; in fact, it was reported that Mr Hinckley was moved to tears over their asking for forgiveness.

Missouri apologized in 1976 for the extermination order, at the same time they officially took removed it from the books.

Can you document this? (I ask out of curiousity so as to see if they were explicit apologies or expressions of regret, and to find out specifically what was being apologized for and on behalf of whom)

Whatever the case, the point of my comments wasn't to question whether these states had apologiezed or not, but whether those here, who have been calling for the Church to apologize, also actively petitioned those states to do the same. I deriously doubt that they did.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Illinois's statement can be read about here. It is reported they asked for "pardon and forgiveness".

Also from the byunewsnet article:

"We acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints, a people of faith and hard work... we ask the pardon and forgiveness of the community of Latter-day Saints for the misguided efforts of our citizens, Chief Executive and General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors from the gleaming city of Nauvoo and the State of Illinois."

The statement from Missouri, issued in 1976, is the following:

WHEREAS, on October 27, 1838, the Governor of the State of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, signed an order calling for the extermination or expulsion of Mormons from the State of Missouri; and

WHEREAS, Governor Boggs' order clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and

WHEREAS, in this bicentennial year as we reflect on our nation's heritage, the exercise of religious freedom is without question one of the basic tenets of our free democratic republic;

Now, THEREFORE, I, CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Governor of the State of Missouri, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Missouri, do hereby order as follows:

Expressing on behalf of all Missourians our deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering which was caused by the 1838 order, I hereby rescind Executive Order Number 44, dated October 27, 1838, issued by Governor W. Boggs.

In witness I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the great seal of the State of Missouri, in the city of Jefferson, on this 25 day of June, 1976.

(Signed) Christopher S. Bond, Governor.

I am grateful for you providing this. However, since neither explicitly apologized for what happened, and one was but an expression of regret, consistency would suggest that this won't suffice with those who have been demanding more from the Church, though it is well beyond what I would require.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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-

I asked Bob this next question and he never answered. So I will ask you since you both seem to object to this sort of thing.

Do you think the states of Missouri and Illinois were wrong to apologize to the LDS Church for the things that happened to the Church and to the Smith's? I did not see any church members complaining that the political leaders of those states should not have apolgized for things they never did. After all they were not there in 1832-1846.

As mentioned above, I don't think they were explicit apologies, and one of them was even a statement of regret not dissimilar to what the Church has expressed--which I thought was more than sufficient. Even still, even if one considers them to be an apology, I don't so much view such things as "wrong" as I think that they were unnecessary and a relatively meaningless jestures. I didn't even know they had happened until today--that is how insignificant an issue it was for me. However, I may have thought an explicit apology on behalf of those states to be "wrong" or ill-advised were there anti-Missourians and anti-Illiniosians today who would exploit those good intention for negative purposes. In other words, I would think it unwise to unecessarily give one's enemies ammunition via a jesture that wouldn't serve much if any good, particularly given the wealth of contemporary issues far more deserving of everyone's attention.

Besides, I think there is an over-abundance of evidence evincing the direct culpibility of past leaders in those states, which is far from the case with LDS Church leaders and MMM. So, if I question the necessity of contemporary apologies for demonstrable culpability of ancient history, I certainly would question the necessity of contemporary apologies for very questionable culpability of ancient history.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

I can only answer for myself, but there are at least four reasons why I avoid blame and calls for apologies in this case:

1) Out of deference to the fundamental principal of "presumption of innocence"--the blame has not been sufficiently evinced or directly/indirectly linked to the parties being called upon.

Unfortunately, Mormons were guilty of these crimes. There can be no presumption of innocence. We will simply have to end in disagreement here. It is clear that you do not accept the idea of group responsibility over time, and I do. Never the twain shall meet, I guess.

2) So as to avoid making matters worse (through hurtful or damaging false accusation)

I fail to see how mending the hurt makes matters worse.

3) As a matter of priority and efficacy. To me, there is far greater value in addressing contemporary issues rather than ancient history, and in taking healthy and uplifting actions regarding the here-and-now, rather than speaking seemingly meaningless and ineffectual words about the past. I ascribe to the modern conventions of mediation, which steer the parties away from glame-games and calls for apologies, and towards mutually benefitial resolution.

If it were only about the past, there would be no present conversation about the issue. It seems to be a little less irrelevant to the descendants of the victims than it is to you or the LDS Church.

4) And, yes, because the enemies of the Church will attempt, in various ways, to "punish us for the murders at Mountain Meadows". In fact, they frequently attempt to do so against the Church's presumed innocence and the dearth of evidence for even indirect guilt.

So the enemies of the Church will attempt to do what.... arrest and imprison all Mormons for the MMM? Come on! The Church is not guilty in any way? Come on! How can the Church as a whole be presumed innocent when its members acted on its behalf, whether asked to or not, in perpetrating these deeds? Dearth of evidence for even *indirect* guilt? That, my friend, is sheer fantasy.

In fact, as I see things, you have it exactly backwards. The issue shouldn't be one of blame avoidance, but rather wrongful blame. If you are looking for an apology, it should be from the man in the mirror who is demanding apologies from innocent people and for an action they had no part in, but was in the distant past, and from which most of us (some critics of the Church being the exception) have moved well beyond.

Yes, it is very easy for you to say how distant in the past it is when you are not the descendant of a victim. The fact that Mormons clearly killed them is incontestable. Where is the wrongful blame here? No one is accusing you of the murder, Wade, but they look to you and every other Mormon for leadership in making these things right.

Then, as one of many critics of the Church, consistency demands that you apologies for each and every harm and damaged inflicted on the Church by your fellow critics throughout the history of the Church. That should keep you busy for the longest time. ;-)

To paraphrase the immortal words of Socrates, "for acting as a gadfly to the state, my punishment should be free meals for life." May I be so punished for calling upon the LDS Church and its members to live up to their best selves.

[_Astarte Moonsilver]

In 1999, during the dedication ceremony of the rock cairn the church rebuilt, (after accidentally uncovering bones and making sure they were all reburied as quickly as possible) he actually went out of his way to make sure that the church was not absorbing any blame or fault for the "occurrence".

http://www.delange.org/MeadowM/MeadowM.htm

LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley delivered words of reconciliation at the Sept. 11, 1999, dedication of a rebuilt monument to emigrants slaughtered by Mormon militiamen and their Indian allies 142 years earlier. He emphasized in his talk, "That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment of the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful day".

Contrast this with Eyring's "apology" given a few days ago, and see if it sounds any closer to an apology.

It is creeping up on a "we're sorry" approach, but falls short when it comes to discovering Brigham's "complicity". The church can apologize from the stand point of, "yeah it was dreadful and shouldn't have happened" but they won't go deeper because it exposes Brigham as something other than a spiritual leader.

The people are human, but the (dead) prophets are Gods. And you can't speak ill of the Lord's anointed. in my opinion.


Astarte Moonsilver
http://www.wonderwitch.blogspot.com

[_Roger Morrison]

The LDS Church continues to affirm my decision to quit attending a year ago. Just when you think you might have been too hard on the old CoJCoLDS, they pull a boner like this. It is one thing to refrain from a straightforward apology, but is takes a special kind of dickhead, or collection of them, to do something this deficient in class.

Thanks again, LDS Church, for keeping me the hell away from you.

I'm sitting here reading this aloud to my dh (he participates in message boards vicariously through me), and he wanted me to ad a great big
DITTOfrom him.

I am a bit 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 more immediate (rather than something that occured 150 years in the past), it would be for something the snubbed party is demonstrably responsible for (rather than something based on mere rumors and conjectures regarding members who have long been dead that are indirectly tied to those being snubbed), and for something of significance like rank bigotry (rather than for an expression of deep regret in lieu of an apology for something the snubbed parties never did). But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I think you might be on to something here: Apologize to Blacks around the world, for years of prejudice and discrimination; to women for prejudice and discrimination that keeps them subservient; for demanding ten percent--not a free-will offering, but a tax--of a person's income to be even considered for heaven-entry; to those abused sexually and psychically by "ordained" Church Leaders...

Yes, i too think there are many immediate doings/happenings that could well be considered worthy of apology. I'm sure other things are not beyond recognition IF honesty and justice replaced arrogance, and as you use the word, "self-righteousness" of LDS hiearchy. Warm regards, Roger

[_wenglund]

Wade, I think you might be on to something here: Apologize to Blacks around the world, for years of prejudice and discrimination; to women for prejudice and discrimination that keeps them subservient; for demanding ten percent--not a free-will offering, but a tax--of a person's income to be even considered for heaven-entry; to those abused sexually and psychically by "ordained" Church Leaders...

Yes, I too think there are many immediate doings/happenings that could well be considered worthy of apology. I'm sure other things are not beyond recognition IF honesty and justice replaced arrogance, and as you use the word, "self-righteousness" of LDS hiearchy. Warm regards, Roger

Were your perception of the Church not projective and warped by your own evident bias and prejudice, then you may have a valid point. I see your comments instead as inadvertantly reinforcing the Savior's mote/beam counsel. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Were your perception of the Church not projective and warped by your own evident bias and prejudice, then you may have a valid point. I see your comments instead as inadvertantly reinforcing the Savior's mote/beam counsel. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, do you think your own perception of the church is projective and warped by your own evident bias and prejudice? Why or why not?

[_wenglund]

It appears that the arguments on either side of the issue have failed to be persuasive, and seem bent on remaining as is.

However, even though we haven't been successful in coming to a oneness of mind, I am wondering if we can at least agree to respect, as reasonable, the opposing point of view, and leave each to their own?

For my part, if you think it important to apologize today for things you were not directly involved with and that occured many centuries ago, I can respect that, and not expect you to think or do otherwise, and leave you unjudgementally to pursue what you think best.

For your part, if others of us think it more effecacious to mediate current issues between parties directly involved, rather than apologies today for ancient history that we don't believe we are responsible for (though we may wish to express regret that such things occured), then I would hope you would respect that, and not expect us to think or do otherwise, and leave us unjudgementally to pursue what we think is best.

In other words, if you want to apologize for MMM, then by all means have at it. But, if I and other members, or the Church itself, thinks an expression of regret (not to be confused with an apology) is sufficient, particularly in light of more immediate, pressing, and higher priority issue facing us all, then by all means let us have at it.

Is that agreeable to you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-