Why the insistence on no apology offered?

[_beastie]

I'd just like to know what happened here in the first place. Did Eyring act outside of the knowledge of "The Brethren"?

[Guest]

In order to have "real healing", there first needs to be demonstrated that there are "real wounds". So, who today are supposedly "really wounded" by this ancient history? What is the extent and nature of their alleged "real wounds"? And, what caused the "real wound"?

Once that is reasonably demonstrated, there then needs to be demonstrated that: 1) the suggested way to "really heal" (I.e. the Church making an apology?) will "really heal"; 2) how the suggested way would "really heal" when expressions of regret and condemnation of the ancient actions in question supposedly haven't brought about "real healing"; and 3) the suggested way to "really heal" doesn't inadvertantly open other old or new wounds.

Good luck.

No, Wade, good luck to you. Why? Because the LDS Church will continue to suffer the consequences of its arrogance. No one needs to prove to you that they are wounded. If it is sufficiently persuasive to others that the descendants of the MMM victims have been wronged, then it matters very little to those who feel wounded, and those who feel their complaints have merit, that you aren't satisfied by the proof.

It continues to amaze me that Mormons complain about being persecuted, and then go out of their way to be obstinate in refusing to earn the good will of others. Your demands as stated above tell me a great deal. It tells me that you are more concerned about satisfying your own legalistic mindset than you are for forwarding the reputation of the Church as a concerned, caring organization. This is of course well reflected in the insistence of the Church spokesman to emphasize that no apology was intended in the statement of so-called 'profound regret.'

Man, we can both be happy that we don't have to hang around each other at the LDS Church. You may be a decent guy, but you would drive me up the wall. Indeed, it was this kind of attitude that drove me away in the first place. You simply can't get past the idea that blame is not of primary importance. Here you continue to insist that someone prove to you there was a wrong, prove to you they are wounded, prove that healing can take place... all of which is irrelevant.

The very fact that these issues continue to come up shows that the LDS Church has failed to put this behind them. In my opinion, they have failed yet again. They might have squeaked by had they let people imagine that an apology was offered. Instead, they had to focus on the same issue that bedevils you: blame. This is precisely the kind of attitude the Church needs to drop if it is going to put the issue behind them.

[_Runtu]

I'd just like to know what happened here in the first place. Did Eyring act outside of the knowledge of "The Brethren"?

Blixa was there, and she said no one at the memorial took it as an apology. The problem is that the press, including the Trib and the Deseret News, described it as an apology. And then the church PR folks went into overdrive.

[_beastie]

Blixa was there, and she said no one at the memorial took it as an apology. The problem is that the press, including the Trib and the Deseret News, described it as an apology. And then the church PR folks went into overdrive.

So it was just an unanticipated result? I thought the church researched their PR better than that.

And I also wonder if they didn't communicate their intent clearly to Eyring, who obviously thought it WAS an apology.

[_Yoda]

I am all for emotions as long as they are balanced with, and not devoid of, reason and fairness. And, since your emotions are quite apparent, perhaps you can help me to see your reasoning.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

1) Are you suggesting that if, as a seeming after-thought, someone clarifies a previous pro-active remark, this means they are more concerned with the clarification than the pro-active remark? And, if so, what criteria are you using to determine the disparity in concern? (I am asking this as a general rule so as to determine if you have capriciously applied your standard to the Church)

2) The Church is filled with members and leaders who have children that they deeply love and care about, and who may well have rationally and emotionally, on that basis, as well as in light of other things, viewed the MMM as wrong and evil. Are you any different or better than them?

3) Even though the Church has been flogged with this issue over the last 150 years, and has in various ways and at various times attempted to engage it (consistently admitting that members were involved, and taking some action related thereto, but reasonably denying that the Church as a whole, or its leaders in particular, are culpable), you have viewed them as being irresponsible in their alleged "deafening silence", and think yourself emotionallty justified in continuing now to hold that alleged silence over the Church's head, inspite of the recent heartfelt expressions of regret and condemnation, and this because the Church later thought to make a reasonable clarification. Is that correct?

There were other questions that came to mind, but I am not sure it wise to ask them (and I question even asking the ones that I have). As I see it, oftimes the first causualties in emotional and sensational disputes such as this, are healthy senses of perspective and purpose. We become embroiled in the manutia and haggle seemingly mindlessly and directionless over details (some of which are quite minor and meaningless), and too often loose sight of the bigger picture and matters of most significance.

With that in mind, perhaps the best questions to ask are: a) what purpose is this discussion intended to serve? b) is this the most efficatious way to serve that purpose? and c) is serving this purpose, rather than other purposes, the best use of our time?

To me, if people can't be at peace and "move on" from ancient history even given a heartfelt expression of regret and condemnation of past actions, or if they view the wind being taken out of the heartfelt expression of regret and condemnation because of the supposed untimelyness of the expression and a subsequent reasonable clarification, then I question whether any reasonable and emotional and mutually benefitial purpose can be served. But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade!

Thank you for your response.

:)

1) Are you suggesting that if, as a seeming after-thought, someone clarifies a previous pro-active remark, this means they are more concerned with the clarification than the pro-active remark? And, if so, what criteria are you using to determine the disparity in concern? (I am asking this as a general rule so as to determine if you have capriciously applied your standard to the Church)

Normally, when someone goes on to further clarify a pro-active remark, it is because they believe that their first remark was misunderstood. Therefore, I would say that the clarification would, indeed, hold more weight than the original remark, because it is clarifying what was misunderstood in the first.

I'm actually glad you asked this question, because it forced me to actually focus on why I had a problem with this situation instead of simply reacting emotionally. So yes, this is why the second statement affected me as profoundly as it did.

2) The Church is filled with members and leaders who have children that they deeply love and care about, and who may well have rationally and emotionally, on that basis, as well as in light of other things, viewed the MMM as wrong and evil. Are you any different or better than them?

I'm not better than they are. I am ONE OF THEM. I am a member of this Church, and when Church PR makes a statement, it affects me, as a member of that organization. I have to explain to non-member friends why the Church is acting as it does.

3) Even though the Church has been flogged with this issue over the last 150 years, and has in various ways and at various times attempted to engage it (consistently admitting that members were involved, and taking some action related thereto, but reasonably denying that the Church as a whole, or its leaders in particular, are culpable), you have viewed them as being irresponsible in their alleged "deafening silence", and think yourself emotionallty justified in continuing now to hold that alleged silence over the Church's head, inspite of the recent heartfelt expressions of regret and condemnation, and this because the Church later thought to make a reasonable clarification. Is that correct?

As far as I was aware, other than the Ensign article, this is the first time the Church has really come out and made such a statement. If they have addressed this in detail like this in the past, then I go on record as being misinformed. Do you happen to have a reference for me of where it was previously addressed in this public of a forum?

You and I have always seen eye to eye about moving on and looking to the future...making the best out of bad situations. I would really like to see that happen. I just felt like, in this situation, the Church "shot itself in the foot" in an attempt to do this from a PR standpoint.

[_wenglund]

I am not sure they have "wounds", let alone that are still open (could you be projecting?). However, even if they do, then were the wounds to continue to remain open, particularly after the descendants have been treated so graciously and consilatorily by the Church in recent days (via the heart-felt expressions of regret and condemnation for what happened way back then), that would be a function of their choice and not the reasonable treatment they have received from the Church.

I have no wounds as far as MMM goes. I have repeatedly said that my only opinion is that the church would do well to accept responsibility, apologize, and move on. I don't see that happening, and I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I just thought it was rather callous to dismiss the descendants' feelings the way you did. Yeah, I know. I'm willfully misinterpreting you again. ;)

I don't know about willfully misinterpreting, but you did misinterpret what I said in several ways. First, I wasn't suggesting that you have wounds as far as MMM goes. I had other "wounds" in mind--some you have mentioned on this board in the past. It is my impression from interacting with you that you are more inclined than some to feeling "wounded" and being "hurt" when hurt was not intended nor need you have been hurt. Accordingly, I naturally I wondered whether you may have projected your presumed sensitivity to being wounded and hurt onto the Fancher descendants).

Nor, for that matter, did I dismiss the descendants feelings. I have no knowledge what feelings they may or may not have. I was speaking hypothetically (note my use of the word "if"), and about what may be functional or not in light thereof, but not about what feelings should be dismissed or not.

I hope you now understand it correctly. ;-)

I could be wrong, but I don't see them reacting that way. Instead, I see them finding reconciliation (if reconciliation is needed) in the gracious things that have already been done, and this even if they may still hold the Chruch partially responsible. But, perhaps that may just be because I think more highly of them than you. ;-)

I have no doubt that you don't think particularly highly of me. That's OK.

And, I have no doubt that you are mistaken. While I may think you vulnerable to misunderstanding and hyper-sensativity, on balance I think you are a great guy with loads of wonderful and redeeming qualities.

Actually, the defensiveness is a result of making a concerted effort to move on, and being quite successful in doing so (as previously explained), but having the ancient history perpetually thrown in their face by those who haven't moved on, and who don't wish to move on because it wouldn't serve their dysfunctional or nefareous purposes (I am not here referring to the Fancher descendants, but to people not even genetically related thereto, but who get some warped pay-off from flogging the Church with this bit of ancient history).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If I have flogged the church with this bit of ancient history, please point out where and how. The only reason I commented on your last post was that it seemed inappropriately glib and dismissive.[/quote]

If I specifically accused you of flogging the Church with this bit of ancient history, please point out where and how. (I can save you the trouble searching, and as the ultimate authority on what I say and mean, tell you that I leveled no such accusation, whether implicitly or explicitly. In fact, I didn't even think of you in that way.)

And, while I didn't know for certain the reasons you commented on my last post, it wasn't hard to guess. I have grown accustomed to you misunderstand me and reacting somewhat over-sensitively to what I say, and so your thinking me inappropriately glib and dismissive was somewhat predictable and quite apart from my intent and purposes. Such is the dynamic between us two. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Engund-

[_beastie]

And, while I didn't know for certain the reasons you commented on my last post, it wasn't hard to guess. I have grown accustomed to you misunderstand me and reacting somewhat over-sensitively to what I say, and so your thinking me inappropriately glib and dismissive was somewhat predictable and quite apart from my intent and purposes. Such is the dynamic between us two. ;-)

It's like a sitcom with the same ending, over and over. Wade is once again the victor, the clear possessor of superior psychological health!

[_Runtu]

And, while I didn't know for certain the reasons you commented on my last post, it wasn't hard to guess. I have grown accustomed to you misunderstand me and reacting somewhat over-sensitively to what I say, and so your thinking me inappropriately glib and dismissive was somewhat predictable and quite apart from my intent and purposes. Such is the dynamic between us two. ;-)

It's like a sitcom with the same ending, over and over. Wade is once again the victor, the clear possessor of superior psychological health!

Yeah, and I'm left to ponder my hypersensitivity and tendency to be wounded. Hey, but at least I'm a great guy with redeeming qualities. :D

[_wenglund]

No, Wade, good luck to you. Why? Because the LDS Church will continue to suffer the consequences of its arrogance. No one needs to prove to you that they are wounded. If it is sufficiently persuasive to others that the descendants of the MMM victims have been wronged, then it matters very little to those who feel wounded, and those who feel their complaints have merit, that you aren't satisfied by the proof.

Since you appear to have lost your sense of proportion and perspective (having such an imbalanced and one-sided view of the issue so as to inanely judge, as "arrogance", the gracious expression of regret and condemnation by the Church) and are clueless about conflict resolution (one of the fundamental steps of CR is to vet and evince the nature of the conflict--which, in this case, would mean vetting and evincing the alleged "wounds", as I previously indicated), then unless I can see some workable change in you, I don't see any value in interacting with you further on the matter, and will respectfully leave you to your inconsequential and extrodinarily biased and seemingly cemented opinion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

It's like a sitcom with the same ending, over and over. Wade is once again the victor, the clear possessor of superior psychological health!

Well, now we know what it takes to stay TBM and in the LDS Church, after so much exposure to other viewpoints. I won't comment on whether it is entirely positive or not.