Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[_daheshism]

"The Church" believes it is Infallible. To "apologize" is to admit a mistake. Since "The Church" cannot make mistakes, it cannot apologize for them.

Descendants of the Baker-Fancher wagon train have fought for years to memorialise their ancestors and to wrestle an apology from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those words have not come. (from The Daily Mail online newspaper article about the new memorial)

Please feel free to provide supporting references for your vote

[_Quasimodo]

So what is the coverup? That the Mormons did it? The whereabouts of Lee, Haight, Dame and the others?

The cover up was to keep Brigham from being implicated. Do you doubt that he was beyond that? Even to the point of executing John Lee?

[_Willy Law]

What is the best evidence that th Church covered it up? Anything better than your sig line quote which is evidence of nothing?

You have stated in the past that you believe there was a cover up by the higher ups in the church. Do you no longer believe this?

No I haven't.

What's a coverup?

I know you won't be around for a while to respond, but when you return:

Maybe I did not understand your earlier comment. You and I tussled about MMM a while ago and you said,

(you can throw in Sessions as well who agrees with both Brooks and Bagley about the cover up)

You didn't ask me about a cover-up. Yes, there was plenty of cover-up, ranging from the perps themselves to many high-ups.

I am not trying to play gotcha, just interested in what you believe happened post MMM.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13114&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sorry, Doc. The church has to take the fall on this one.

Why?

The perpitraitors were agents of the Church.

Not in the matter of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, they weren't.

Brigham ruled with an iron fist and I don't think the militia would have acted in such a violent manner had it not been approved beforehand.

What you "think" on the matter is of no particular relevance.

History is an empirical discipline, and the known facts aren't on your side.

I can understand your desire (emotional) to defend Brigham in this, but I don't think it will stand up to scrutiny.

I don't feel any great emotion about the matter. I'm simply reporting the fact that the evidence isn't there to demonstrate that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Not even close.

If you can post an unbiased history that does not blame the Church, I will give it some consideration.

http://www.amazon.com/Brigham-Latter-Da ... 2&sr=1-142

http://www.amazon.com/Massacre-Mountain ... 0195160347

http://www.amazon.com/Mountain-Meadows- ... 927&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/John-Doyle-Lee-Ju ... pd_sim_b_7

If you want to argue that these treatments won't withstand scrutiny, feel free to publish your critique of them.

[_Willy Law]

I don't feel any great emotion about the matter. I'm simply reporting the fact that the evidence isn't there to demonstrate that Brigham Young ordered the massacre. Not even close..

what about George Albert Smith? Do you believe he had anything to do with ordering the massacre?

[_Daniel Peterson]

what about George Albert Smith? Do you believe he had anything to do with ordering the massacre?

No.

[_why me]

Descendants of the Baker-Fancher wagon train have fought for years to memorialise their ancestors and to wrestle an apology from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those words have not come. (from The Daily Mail online newspaper article about the new memorial)

Please feel free to provide supporting references for your vote

I think that the federal govenment owes the LDS church an apology for not protecting the early saints from the mobs. I also think that the good state of Missouri and the other states were Mormons were victims should pay compensation to the LDS church for property loss and suffering.

[_Baker]

The perpitraitors were agents of the Church.

Not in the matter of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, they weren't.

Sorry, but yes they were. They were agents of the church, acting in their authorized capacities, organizing a horrific event. The fact that they did something that may very well have been entirely contrary to the desires, and indeed offended the deepest sensibilities, of top leadership simply does not change that fact. I think it's really not all that difficult to say that the organization bears some responsibility, even though the actions of the few should not be mistaken for the mission of the organization as a whole.

As bishop, to whom extends your stewardship? Who gave you that authority?

Try any effective analogy, and I doubt any reasonable person would seriously take your position.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Sorry, but yes they were.

Sorry, but no they weren't.

There. I've refuted you.

They were agents of the church, acting in their authorized capacities,

They were militia commanders, agents of the territorial government, abusing their offices to carry out a horrific event.

[_schreech]

They were militia commanders, agents of the territorial government, abusing their offices to carry out a horrific event.

I agree...I don't blame all living Germans for the nazi regime and i certainly don't blame the current LDS church for the cold-blooded murder of a bunch of innocents who happened to be in the wrong, fundamentalist controlled, territory over 100 years ago...Thomas Monson didn't kill those people so I see no reason why he should be coerced into apologizing for the mistakes for former "prophets" and LDS leaders....