SLTribune still writing as if Church apologized for MMM ....

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:32 pm

I just don't get it. There is an editorial posted in the Salt Lake Tribune just 3 hours ago, which opens with this sentence:

That it took the LDS Church until the 21st century to fully acknowledge and take responsibility for the 1857 mass murder of some 120 men, women and children of a wagon train passing through southwestern Utah was partly due to the sheer enormity and hideousness of the crime. (Bold mine for emphasis)

Huh? I didn't see anything in Eyring's statement that indicated the Church has fully acknowledged and taken responsibility for the MMM. Eyring still blamed it on local folks. And LDS spokesman Tuttle clarified today that Eyring's statement was not an apology by the Church institution. What would lead the Trib to continue to sound as if the Church institution has accepted responsibility and apologized for the massacre? Is the new ownership of the Trib starting to show its true colors?

Post by **_bcspace** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:58 am

I didn't see anything in Eyring's statement that indicated the Church has fully acknowledged and taken responsibility for the MMM.

As it should be. The Church bears no responsibility for the act.

Post by **_moksha** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:06 am

bcspace wrote:
I didn't see anything in Eyring's statement that indicated the Church has fully acknowledged and taken responsibility for the MMM.

As it should be. The Church bears no responsibility for the act.

As in, "It wasn't the building, it was the members"?

Post by **_Inconceivable** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:26 pm

Anyone have a link to the actual Eyring speech (or maybe his email address or cell phone number?).

Seems pretty rediculous to be blabbering about what someone said about what someone said... you know..

when was the last time a newspaper got something right anyway?

Post by **_Mercury** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:27 pm

bcspace wrote:
I didn't see anything in Eyring's statement that indicated the Church has fully acknowledged and taken responsibility for the MMM.

As it should be. The Church bears no responsibility for the act.

Ha! And monkeys will fly out of my butt!

Post by **_Blixa** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:28 pm

I could not believe the Trib's headline. There was no apology. No one took Eyring's bleatings as such that I was aware of.

More later.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:30 pm

Mercury wrote:
bcspace wrote:
I didn't see anything in Eyring's statement that indicated the Church has fully acknowledged and taken responsibility for the MMM.

As it should be. The Church bears no responsibility for the act.

Ha! And monkeys will fly out of my butt!

OK...That's just too much image for me to handle right now...LOL

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:41 pm

Blixa wrote:I could not believe the Trib's headline. There was no apology. No one took Eyring's bleatings as such that I was aware of.

The Des News also put "apology" in its headline. I think Eyring's statement sounded so much like an apology (but it wasn't) that folks initially jumped to that erroneous conclusion.

Post by **_moksha** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:57 pm

Mercury wrote:
Ha! And monkeys will fly out of my butt!

Had anyone else said it, I would think it a mere expression.

Post by **_moksha** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:00 pm

Rollo Tomasi wrote:The Des News also put "apology" in its headline. I think Eyring's statement sounded so much like an apology (but it wasn't) that folks initially jumped to that erroneous conclusion.

It would have been a good impression to leave everyone with but still they had to deny it.