Church Issues Statement about MMM

[_rcrocket]

Yes, the Church is so busy preaching the words of Christ that it can't perform a Christ-like deed. That is truly ironic.

I read my Bible. I don't see any such rule of conduct required. You simply have the politically expedient and relativistic view of morals of a critic and unbeliever. You would demand a system of ethics to which you do not subscribe.

rcrocket

Since you read your Bible so regularly, why don't you turn to Acts 20:35:

35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

I have compassion for the families of men, women, and children who were maliciously slaughtered. That makes my "relativistic view of morals" that of a critic and an unbeliever?

Bob...for the record...you stated in another thread that I know very little about you.....You know very little about me. And it's comments like this that further prove the point of my signature.

Have a nice day!

;)

Now, now. Spell my name correctly. I will just point out that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus say the thing that Paul quotes him as saying.

[_moksha]

From The Huffington Post:

QUOTE
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.

I feel sad that the Church did not issue an undeniable apology for this tremendous mass murder committed by their members and put this horrible tragedy behind them.

I do not understand the psychology or reasons behind being unwilling to offer such a healing apology.

[_Doctor Steuss]

From The Huffington Post:

QUOTE
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.

I feel sad that the Church did not issue an undeniable apology for this tremendous mass murder committed by their members and put this horrible tragedy behind them.

I do not understand the psychology or reasons behind being unwilling to offer such a healing apology.

Tuttle is a PR media-savvy spin-doctor that just happens to be on the Lord's payroll. Nothing more. Let Eyring come out with a statement like that and I might think it's worth some salt.

On a side note:

February 7, 2007 – this is what it would take:

"What we've felt would put this resentment to rest would be an official apology from the church," says Scott Fancher of the Mountain Meadows Monument Foundation in Arkansas, a group of direct descendants of the victims. "Not an admission of guilt, but an acknowledgement of neglect and of intentional obscuring of the truth."

Isn’t this essentially what the statement does? Forget the smarmy tactics of spin-doctor Tuttle. What about the words of Turley? Surely he offered feedback in the preparation of the statement (it was his and company’s research that brought about some of the statements). Is Turley's view that it was an apology less substantial than the insensitive and dumpy comments of Tuttle?

It was an apology. It was not an admission of guilt, but it acknowledged that the local leaders acted against Christian teachings (neglect?) and that there was obscuring of the truth (the Native Americans taking blame when it was Church leaders [albeit on a “local” level]).

It was about the closest thing to an apology for an anomalous act that occurred 150 years ago that is probably going to come from what is essentially a different organization in a completely different time. That may not be satisfactory, but it is what the MMMF was after a few months back.

[_moksha]

So it was important not to show guilt? Was a direct and heartfelt apology viewed as a sign of weakness?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Tuttle is a PR media-savvy spin-doctor that just happens to be on the Lord's payroll. Nothing more. Let Eyring come out with a statement like that and I might think it's worth some salt.

Tuttle is an official LDS Church spokesman, and his clarification is NOT inconsistent with the words used by Eyring.

Forget the smarmy tactics of spin-doctor Tuttle.

Tuttle is an official spokesman of the Church -- ergo, the Brethren must agree with what he said (or they would issue a retraction, which they have not).

What about the words of Turley? Surely he offered feedback in the preparation of the statement (it was his and company’s research that brought about some of the statements). Is Turley's view that it was an apology less substantial than the insensitive and dumpy comments of Tuttle?

Turley's explanation goes to the "intent" of the statement, not the words. Maybe Turley just hoped it was tantamount to an apology, but an official LDS spokesman has made it clear it was not. Until the Church issues a retraction or clarification of Tuttle's statement, I think we have to accept that Eyring's statement was not an apology, as some initially thought.

It was an apology.

No, it wasn't. It was a carefully (and I would add "swarmy") worded document so it specifically would not be an apology.

It was not an admission of guilt, but it acknowledged that the local leaders acted against Christian teachings (neglect?) and that there was obscuring of the truth (the Native Americans taking blame when it was Church leaders [albeit on a “local” level]).

But the blame by the Church still squarely rests with local Church leaders, not the Church institution via general leaders (like BY and GAS).

It was about the closest thing to an apology for an anomalous act that occurred 150 years ago that is probably going to come from what is essentially a different organization in a completely different time.

And that's why people got so excited at first, because it was cleverly worded to sound like an apology, when it really wasn't. The Church PR and legal teams did a very good job. I just think it makes the Church hierarchy look bad.

[_Jason Bourne]

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?)

Oh the love and charity that exudes from the man that says we know the doctrine when we do His will. Personally I think you ought to emulate His mercy and meekness more. But I know for you and your Monolithic Mormonism you cannot stand any criticism of the LDS Institution no matter how valid. But guess what Crockett, there is room for many views in the Church and if you don't make room for them someday you won't have much of a Church left.

[_Jason Bourne]

I speak in legal terms to demonstrate that there is no need (compelling or otherwise), in terms of advancing the Church's mission, to offer an apology. There is no moral code which describes the circumstances under which an apology is required; it is only your subjective hatred of the Church which compels here.

There is no need to "accept responsibility" because there is no institutional responsibility to accept. You make a big deal of the Church's role in laying the table for the atrocity, but I note that the you.S. government was pretty quick to issue a blanket pardon for these table-laying activities.

The Commonwealth of Virgnia was responsible for slavery, but I don't see any compelling need for an apology to further any institutional need or compensate any victims.

As to Lee's reinstatement being a "big" deal or otherwise, the factors that lead to the reinstatement of an excommunicant have nothing to do with condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense. For instance, a serial child molester, excommunicated by the Church, may be (and they are) reinstated. The Church is neither condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense in doing so.

rcrocket

Too bad you need to obfuscate so much. I have always thought it would not hurt the Church to apologize. It is the right thing to do. Ask yourself What Would Jesus Do....

[_Runtu]

Too bad you need to obfuscate so much. I have always thought it would not hurt the Church to apologize. It is the right thing to do. Ask yourself What Would Jesus Do....

Jesus would have had his PR firm draft a statement and then have Legal look at it. ;-)

[_Jason Bourne]

I am not very good a cut-and-paste repartee.

Why don't you just tell me the rule, or Biblical principle, or ethical code, which governs the Church and compels an apology? Then we'll dissect it and see it if applies to an institution that neither directed nor condoned it.

rcrocket

Do unto other as you would have them do unto you, love one another, blessed are the meek, blessed are the merciful, if you have done it unto the least of these you have done it unto me.......

[_Jason Bourne]

Why does the church own the land anyway? What would the interest or need be if "the church" had no involvement in the killings?

Chris <><

Excellent question. Since the church was in no way involved in MMM, what is the signifiance of that land to the church? Nothing in church history happened there. It would be like a group of Jews purchasing Haun's Mill and maintaining it for no apparent reason and refusing to give up ownership.

Ok. Now the Church is hateful for not selling its property, property long held by the Hamblin family. I get it.

Having actually been adverse to the Church in real estate negotiations, I can tell you the Church just does not sell its property, ever to rarely. It is not a real estate business. It exists to advance the purposes of God, no less and no more. For that reason you'll probably never see in your lifetime the disposition of any chapel, Cove Fort, Welfare Square, the mall, etc. etc. Acquisition is important to advance the kingdom; disposition not.

rcrocket

The Church sold our old chapel when we built a new one a few years ago. It sold another old building in our stake about 15 years ago as well.