Church Issues Statement about MMM

[_Bryan Inks]

CLICKY de LINKY

Some excerpts:

"We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time," Elder Eyring said.

"A separate expression of regret is owed the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre," he said. "Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local church leaders and members."

Some have also petitioned the church to transfer to the federal government stewardship of the monument and surrounding lands the church has purchased to preserve the site that church President Gordon B. Hinckley has described as sacred ground.

In addressing the proposed land transfer, Elder Eyring said, "The church has worked with descendant groups ... to maintain the monument and surrounding property and continues to improve and preserve these premises to make them attractive and accessible to all who visit. We are committed to do so in the future."

Hmmm. I think it's a step in the right direction. . .

[_Jason Bourne]

Good news

Very appropriate and about time.

And now one less thing for the critics to bitch about.

[_Runtu]

Good news

Very appropriate and about time.

And now one less thing for the critics to bitch about.

My daughter said the same thing last night. Of course, the church immediately undermined its own apology, so I suppose we have something to bitch about again. ;-)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Good news

Very appropriate and about time.

And now one less thing for the critics to bitch about.

I wish. The AP is reporting that LDS spokesman, Mark Tuttle, has clarified the statement was not an apology, just an expression of profound regret. I'm afraid the statement changes very little, if anything. Well, at least the Church can continue its 177-year streak of never apologizing for anything.

[_Inconceivable]

Any links to that actual statement? A report on a statement is hardly the real deal. If the apology is that specific, I imagine the civil suits will come next. Doesn't make sense that the church is willing to name names and embarrass many Mormon family legacies. If anything, they have demonstrated the opposite with regard to the legacy of John D. Lee.

The most meaningful apology (from a Mormon standpoint) would be for the hierarchy to rescind the sacred temple work done to posthumously reinstate John D. Lee into full fellowship.

(at least it's a start)

[_Runtu]

I'm reminded of Homer Simpson's wisdom:

"Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasel."

[_rcrocket]

These are pretty courageous things for anonymous posters to say, including you John W., who admits to actively attending Church. (Why can't you show the courage of your convictions, and exit, if you feel this way?)

In terms of a MMM apology:

1. The Church, as an institution, did not plan or direct the massacre. What is the "institution?" I guess that drives part of this issue. I see the institution as that corpus directed by the Quorum of the Twelve with the First Presidency its delegated executive body. The evidence that the Quorum of the Twelve (i.e., George A. Smith) directed the massacre is slight and speculative.

2. An institution would be "legally" responsible for the malfeasance of its agents if the agents acted within the scope of authority. A UPS driver who leaves his vehicle to fire a gun and kill a jaywalker is not acting within his authority, and UPS is not responsible for that act. A UPS driver who drives and kills a child in a crosswalk makes UPS responsible for the act. In this case, Brigham Young specifically told Isaac Haight to leave the Fanchers alone. There is no evidence that the Cedar City militia had authority to wage war against immigrants. Haight acted outside his authority, and his authority exceedance was not forseeable.

3. An institution may be responsible for the malfeasance of its agents if it ratified the conduct. Ratification means to intentionally obtain the fruits of the crime. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence that the booty was sent to the tithing office, but no evidence that the apostles understood what was going on. There is an affidavit from Klingensmith that Brigham Young directed the disposition of the booty, but Lee does not corroborate this.

4. Is the "vengeance is mine" quote from Brigham Young a "ratification?" Rollover-in-favor-of-the-devil contends that this statement indicates that the church "condoned" the massacre. This single event is probably the most significant to Will Bagley in arguing that Brigham Young was both an accessory before and after the fact. "Condone" is of French derivation which indicates a pardon or forgiveness. President Young's statement was nothing along those lines.

5. What is the relevance of John D. Lee's posthumous reinstatement? A person's lifetime crimes play almost no role in the Church's decision to reinstate somebody. The Church reasons that trying to ascertain whether the Lord will forgive the person is impossible, as the proxy work is contingent upon the moral worthiness of an individual beyond the Church's control. I imagine that Pres. McKay authorized the work to placate Lee's descendants, and not to approve the work. The more cogent question than Lee's reinstatement was why the Church reinstated Haight during Haight's lifetime, while Haight was a fugitive. Another time on that issue.

[_Runtu]

These are pretty courageous things for anonymous posters to say, including you John W., who admits to actively attending Church. (Why can't you show the courage of your convictions, and exit, if you feel this way?)

I'd say I attend passively, not actively. I've said before that I attend because I'd rather sit through a meeting or two than live alone without my wife and children. If that's cowardly, so be it. A while back I did just what you suggested and "showed the courage of my convictions"; I ended up with my belongings packed in the car. If not wanting that to happen again makes me a coward, then consider me a coward.

As to my participation in this thread, what is so courageous about merely saying that the church undermined its own apology. Seems to me pretty clear. I've outlined why I think the church bears some institutional responsibility for the massacre. I've also stated that I do not believe Brigham Young or any general church leaders ordered the attack. I'm mystified that you think my position regarding MMM has anything to do with my decision to attend church with my family.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

1. The Church, as an institution, did not plan or direct the massacre. What is the "institution?" I guess that drives part of this issue. I see the institution as that corpus directed by the Quorum of the Twelve with the First Presidency its delegated executive body. The evidence that the Quorum of the Twelve (I.e., George A. Smith) directed the massacre is slight and speculative.

I do not believe general Church leaders (such as BY or GAS) ordered the massacre of the Fancher party. But I do believe general Church leaders (especially BY) played a significant part in setting the stage for actions that ultimately led to the massacre. This is the accountability I think the Church ought to acknowledge and for which the institution ought to apologize.

2. An institution would be "legally" responsible for the malfeasance of its agents if the agents acted within the scope of authority. A UPS driver who leaves his vehicle to fire a gun and kill a jaywalker is not acting within his authority, and UPS is not responsible for that act. A UPS driver who drives and kills a child in a crosswalk makes UPS responsible for the act.

We're talking about an apology, not "legal responsibility." BY played a role in all this; ergo, the institution should apologize for that role.

In this case, Brigham Young specifically told Isaac Haight to leave the Fanchers alone.

But the same BY on Sept. 1 engaged the Indians in his war strategy to stop overland travel through Utah by instructing them to steal cattle of travelers; BY knew this could lead to violence (he concedes this in his letter to Dame, when he says the Indians will do as they please with the emigrant train). I don't think BY wanted a massacre, and probably realized his war strategy was getting out of hand when he sent the mesage to Dame to back off.

3. An institution may be responsible for the malfeasance of its agents if it ratified the conduct. Ratification means to intentionally obtain the fruits of the crime. There is no evidence of that.

Again, we are talking about an apology, not a trial.

4. Is the "vengeance is mine" quote from Brigham Young a "ratification?" Rollover-in-favor-of-the-devil contends that this statement indicates that the church "condoned" the massacre.

I think the quote at least shows that BY, in his own mind, did not feel remorse for the folks who were slaughtered (he evidently thought they deserved it, based on past Mormon persecutions).

5. What is the relevance of John D. Lee's posthumous reinstatement? A person's lifetime crimes play almost no role in the Church's decision to reinstate somebody. The Church reasons that trying to ascertain whether the Lord will forgive the person is impossible, as the proxy work is contingent upon the moral worthiness of an individual beyond the Church's control. I imagine that Pres. McKay authorized the work to placate Lee's descendants, and not to approve the work.

Lee's reinstatment was not your run-of-the-mill proxy work. It was a huge deal (ETB presided at the endowment ceremony), so big that the Lee family had to promise not to reveal it had been done. David McKay later threatened to rescind the reinstatement if Juanita Brooks published the information in her forthcoming bio of John D. Lee. Brooks was even called in by Apostle Delbert Stapley, who repeated McKay's threat. Brooks agreed not to print the information in the first edition of the Lee bio, but did put it in the second printing in 1962.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

That's a nice statement, and I applaud the church for it, but why follow it up by saying it's not an official apology? Would there be possible legal issues if they apologized? Could the descendants come after them for settlements if they apologized and admitted blame? Why is the church so defensive about this?