Well, if the apology is crafted in such way to allow some members to insist it isn't even an apology, perhaps it isn't enough.
Charity:
max, the idea was in apologizing for something you didn't do. Besides, I don't think "regret" is really an apology. "I"m sorry we did it" is an apology. "I'm sorry it happened" isn't. As usual, in the press, headlines don't always convey the content. But if those who are really into the victimization mode want to read it as an apology, they can.
beastie wrote:Well, if the apology is crafted in such way to allow some members to insist it isn't even an apology, perhaps it isn't enough.
Charity:
max, the idea was in apologizing for something you didn't do. Besides, I don't think "regret" is really an apology. "I"m sorry we did it" is an apology. "I'm sorry it happened" isn't. As usual, in the press, headlines don't always convey the content. But if those who are really into the victimization mode want to read it as an apology, they can.
Thanks to Charity for illustrating my point.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
beastie wrote:Well, if the apology is crafted in such way to allow some members to insist it isn't even an apology, perhaps it isn't enough.
Charity:
max, the idea was in apologizing for something you didn't do. Besides, I don't think "regret" is really an apology. "I"m sorry we did it" is an apology. "I'm sorry it happened" isn't. As usual, in the press, headlines don't always convey the content. But if those who are really into the victimization mode want to read it as an apology, they can.
So then, Elder Eyring's statements were misconstrued and the Church did not really issue an apology because such an apology is unneeded for something they didn't do? Is Charity arguing from the apologetic dictum of "admit nothing and deny everything"? Was Elder Eyring just furnishing a meaningless sound bite that upon clever parsing could be later demonstrated to be a non-apology to the faithful? Sounds like the basis for a new FAIR review to clarify this matter.
Is this truly still a sesquicentennial late and a dollar short issue of denial and non-responsibility? I was hoping Elder Eyring had laid this issue to rest.
So then, Elder Eyring's statements were misconstrued and the Church did not really issue an apology because such an apology is unneeded for something they didn't do? Is Charity arguing from the apologetic dictum of "admit nothing and deny everything"? Was Elder Eyring just furnishing a meaningless sound bite that upon clever parsing could be later demonstrated to be a non-apology to the faithful? Sounds like the basis for a new FAIR review to clarify this matter.
Is this truly still a sesquicentennial late and a dollar short issue of denial and non-responsibility? I was hoping Elder Eyring had laid this issue to rest.
Perhaps Charity believes the church is simply fooling satan at his own game, the way the Manifesto was intended, before they realized satan was serious. ;)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
I think the Church's expression of regret is about all we are going to get. I am glad that they regret it, and it seems that they understand it should not have happened. That too is positive. What I do not see is any discussion of how it got there. And in expressing a meaningful sense of regret--one that says, "we don't want this to happen again," I think it is important for them to demonstrate some kind of awareness of the problems that lead to these tragedies.
The fact that they did not acknowledge in any way the context in which these events unfolded tells me that they have failed to express the kind of regret that would have real teeth. But, since it seems impossible to discuss the atmosphere of anxiety and violence that gripped the Mormons of that time, and it is improbable that Brigham Young, who does bear a good deal of responsibility for fomenting this atmosphere, will be dragged into the issue in a public forum, what are we left with? Statements of regret that are ultimately as empty as they seem heartfelt.
Let me say that *I* regret that human social groups rarely seem to be able to scrutinize themselves in a meaningful way in front of others. It takes real courage for leaders and members of an organization to unite in apologizing in a fullsome manner, wherein the group sees itself as an entity that can both have lasting impact on others, and bear lasting responsibility for the actions of its past members. As long as we think that institutions are a barrier between people and responsibility, as they too often are in the corporate world, then there will always be this place to hide from responsibility---to get a pass.
Wouldn't it be great, if Eyring had said, "we are deeply sorry that a decade after Mormons were driven from their homes, leaders and members of the LDS Church made the terrible mistake of visiting similar horrors upon others. We make a commitment this day to take actions that will ensure that we, as a Church, never perpetrate this kind of wanton violence against the innocent again..."? Perhaps the Church could have started a research foundation for nonviolence in religious conflict at BYU. While some might call that a token gesture, it could do some real good, and it would show real institutional awareness of the danger and commitment to resolving the problem.
From one perspective, you might say that the Church has simply multiplied Brigham Young's scapegoating of Lee a few times, and that the buck has still stopped short of its appropriate destination. That assessment might be thought uncharitable, but it is not without some foundation.
How much responsibility for the MMM should be placed on Brigham Young? Indeed, there is no evidence he orchestrated the massacre or even condoned it, but was he not the instigator of the so-called Mormon Reformation which had much of Utah in a frenzy? That, combined with his Blood Atonement ideology and the impending threat of Federal forces entering Utah surely played a large role in what happened that fateful day on September 11, one-hundred and fifty years ago. Brigham Young, in my opinion, shoulders a significant part of the blame along with the Mormon church as an institution.
Also, wasn't Brigham Young actively involved in the cover-up of the MMM? Did not Brigham Young benefit materially from the massacre? It seems I recall a picture of him in a wagon taken from the Francher party.
Until the Mormon church confesses institutional culpability in the MMM and admits Brigham Young's role in creating the environment which triggered the violence, then their apologies ring hollow.
beastie wrote:Perhaps Charity believes the church is simply fooling satan at his own game, the way the Manifesto was intended, before they realized satan was serious. ;)
I don't get it. Why not just take the regret at face value instead of trying to parse it into a denial of blame. Charity has outdone herself.
I don't get it. Why not just take the regret at face value instead of trying to parse it into a denial of blame. Charity has outdone herself.
I would never question the judgment of someone with an IQ of 150... which, If I recall correctly, is what she self reported. :O
The vast majority of MADdite apologists have viewed the idea of the church issuing an apology as ludicrous. And now that the leaders of the church have decided to do just that, or something very near just that, proving themselves to buy into the "victimology" mind-set, Charity has to find a way for the world to make sense again.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Let me say that *I* regret that human social groups rarely seem to be able to scrutinize themselves in a meaningful way in front of others. It takes real courage for leaders and members of an organization to unite in apologizing in a fullsome manner, wherein the group sees itself as an entity that can both have lasting impact on others, and bear lasting responsibility for the actions of its past members. As long as we think that institutions are a barrier between people and responsibility, as they too often are in the corporate world, then there will always be this place to hide from responsibility---to get a pass.
Excellent observation.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.