DiscussMormonism.com

Church leaders were adamant that the 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.

Why be adamant that no apology was given? This was the opportunity to set things right and finally put closure to the issue of a grizzly crime committed 150 years earlier by a organized band of Church members in Southern Utah. Why did they not seize upon the opportunity to do so?

I know the Pope has offered apologies on less serious issues that the Catholic Church was involved in. To me this signified part of the repentance and redemption process. He wanted to do what is right. Why did the LDS Church not share the same desire to set things right between themselves and the descendants of those murder victims? Why did these same Christian principles of repentance and forgiveness not come into play?

The Church has admitted to a revised version of the events of the massacre in the September 2007 issue of the Ensign Magazine. Wouldn't the humble and loving followup be to ask for forgiveness rather than seek to continue a tortuous legalistic interpretation of what they can be held accountable for?

What do you think?

moksha wrote:Why be adamant that no apology was given? This was the opportunity to set things right and finally put closure to the issue of a grizzly crime committed 150 years earlier by a organized band of Church members in Southern Utah. Why did they not seize upon the opportunity to do so?

I know the Pope has offered apologies on less serious issues that the Catholic Church was involved in. To me this signified part of the repentance and redemption process. He wanted to do what is right. Why did the LDS Church not share the same desire to set things right between themselves and the descendants of those murder victims? Why did these same Christian principles of repentance and forgiveness not come into play?

The Church has admitted to a revised version of the events of the massacre in the September 2007 issue of the Ensign Magazine. Wouldn't the humble and loving followup be to ask for forgiveness rather than seek to continue a tortuous legalistic interpretation of what they can be held accountable for?

What do you think?

Obviously, the church does not feel it has anything to apologize for or repent of.

Mok wrote:Wouldn't the humble and loving followup be to ask for forgiveness rather than seek to continue a tortuous legalistic interpretation of what they can be held accountable for?

What do you think?

Is the Facuher family threatening to sue the Church? Is that why Church officers are so skittish about the whole thing?

liz3564 wrote:

Mok wrote:Wouldn't the humble and loving followup be to ask for forgiveness rather than seek to continue a tortuous legalistic interpretation of what they can be held accountable for?

What do you think?

Is the Facuher family threatening to sue the Church? Is that why Church officers are so skittish about the whole thing?

I can't imagine what cause of action could still be live 150 years later. Sue for what??

liz3564 wrote:

Mok wrote:Wouldn't the humble and loving followup be to ask for forgiveness rather than seek to continue a tortuous legalistic interpretation of what they can be held accountable for?

What do you think?

Is the Facuher family threatening to sue the Church? Is that why Church officers are so skittish about the whole thing?

Woud saying your sorry force you to give control of the upkeep of the monument to the Feds? Is this what kept the right thing from having happened?

moksha wrote:

Church leaders were adamant that the 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.

Why be adamant that no apology was given? This was the opportunity to set things right and finally put closure to the issue of a grizzly crime committed 150 years earlier by a organized band of Church members in Southern Utah. Why did they not seize upon the opportunity to do so?

I know the Pope has offered apologies on less serious issues that the Catholic Church was involved in. To me this signified part of the repentance and redemption process. He wanted to do what is right. Why did the LDS Church not share the same desire to set things right between themselves and the descendants of those murder victims? Why did these same Christian principles of repentance and forgiveness not come into play?

The Church has admitted to a revised version of the events of the massacre in the September 2007 issue of the Ensign Magazine. Wouldn't the humble and loving followup be to ask for forgiveness rather than seek to continue a tortuous legalistic interpretation of what they can be held accountable for?

What do you think?

So much for any admiration I had for the Eyring statement from earlier in the week. By coming out and making this point, it seems that the church is determined to keep controversy alive. At least the previous statement seemed conciliatory enough. Not anymore.

moksha wrote:Why be adamant that no apology was given? This was the opportunity to set things right and finally put closure to the issue of a grizzly crime committed 150 years earlier by a organized band of Church members in Southern Utah. Why did they not seize upon the opportunity to do so?

The Church institution has never apologized for anything (or acknowledged it has ever made a mistake) during its 177-year history, and it's not about to now. To do so would be tantamount to admitting that the Church institution and the Brethren are not perfect. Let's face it, there's been an ongoing belief since the beginning that the Church (and the Brethren) is literally led by Jesus Christ, so it can't make a mistake. Take away that myth, and control over the masses weakens.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

moksha wrote:Why be adamant that no apology was given? This was the opportunity to set things right and finally put closure to the issue of a grizzly crime committed 150 years earlier by a organized band of Church members in Southern Utah. Why did they not seize upon the opportunity to do so?

The Church institution has never apologized for anything (or acknowledged it has ever made a mistake) during its 177-year history, and it's not about to now. To do so would be tantamount to admitting that the Church institution and the Brethren are not perfect. Let's face it, there's been an ongoing belief since the beginning that the Church (and the Brethren) is literally led by Jesus Christ, so it can't make a mistake. Take away that myth, and control over the masses weakens.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/pope_apo.htm

Pope John Paul II had some insight,

Many leaders of the Vatican Curia opposed his action, being concerned that a confession of past errors might cause many Roman Catholics to wonder whether the church is currently engaged in sinful behavior that will require some future pope to apologize for present-day sins. However, John Paul believed that repentance would transform the church and enable it to lead the world into a "new springtime of Christianity." He was able to overrule the Vatican Curia.

What I don't get, Rollo, is that an apology would actually be a good PR move. Just think, they could copy the Catholics (as the church hasn't had any original ideas since its beginning years) and then put a bust of Hinckley in some building at BYU and spin him as the great statesman of Mormonism. It must be that the church is still in a young, fundamentalist phase of its existence.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

moksha wrote:Why be adamant that no apology was given? This was the opportunity to set things right and finally put closure to the issue of a grizzly crime committed 150 years earlier by a organized band of Church members in Southern Utah. Why did they not seize upon the opportunity to do so?

The Church institution has never apologized for anything (or acknowledged it has ever made a mistake) during its 177-year history, and it's not about to now. To do so would be tantamount to admitting that the Church institution and the Brethren are not perfect. Let's face it, there's been an ongoing belief since the beginning that the Church (and the Brethren) is literally led by Jesus Christ, so it can't make a mistake. Take away that myth, and control over the masses weakens.

Wait a second... I thought the members all knew and claimed the church leaders weren't infallible (of course, I'm being facetious here and only referring to Internet Mormons and apologists). Does this mean it's only the leaders who think the leaders are infallible?

Some Schmo wrote:Wait a second... I thought the members all knew and claimed the church leaders weren't infallible (of course, I'm being facetious here and only referring to Internet Mormons and apologists). Does this mean it's only the leaders who think the leaders are infallible?

It's just lip service. For all intents and purposes, the Church institution is infallible, as are the Brethren. This is the result of blind obedience.