Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

Post by **_jon** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:18 am

Descendants of the Baker-Fancher wagon train have fought for years to memorialise their ancestors and to wrestle an apology from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those words have not come. (from The Daily Mail online newspaper article about the new memorial)

Please feel free to provide supporting references for your vote

Post by **_Buffalo** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:02 pm

I think GBH wanted to apologize, but the church lawyers advised against it. So I guess he didn't want to apologize THAT much.

Post by **_Morley** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:02 pm

I think the Church believes in following the manly man attitude of "Never apologize and never explain--it's a sign of weakness.*"

*John Wayne, in the 1949 film She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

Post by **_Daniel Peterson** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:07 pm

Why should "the Church" apologize?

Did "the Church" do it?

Post by **_flackerman** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:18 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:Why should "the Church" apologize?

Did "the Church" do it?

Well, they did take all their stuff back to the bishops storehouse (or whatever), including the children.

Post by **_Yahoo Bot** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:24 pm

flackerman wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:Why should "the Church" apologize?

Did "the Church" do it?

Well, they did take all their stuff back to the bishops storehouse (or whatever), including the children.

"They" being the perps themselves, of course. I guess if you consider the lowest priesthood holder -- deacons and teachers and the like -- as "the Church" I get your point. Those perps should apologize and I think "we" or "somebody" or maybe the government should order the descendants of the perps to apologize.

Post by **_LDS truthseeker** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:25 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:Why should "the Church" apologize?

Did "the Church" do it?

I tend to agree with DCP on this one, However I do think the church has a very real need to apologize to the blacks for denying them the priesthood for so long - OR at the very least explain what exactly the doctrine is regarding blacks and why the prophets said what they said and simply if what the prophets said is true or not.

I am listening to a mormonstories podcast right now by a black man in the church and it seems that there are many black members that can't reconcile the issue unless the church answers some questions about it.
http://mormonstories.org/?p=1639

Post by **_Morley** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:26 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:Why should "the Church" apologize?

Did "the Church" do it?

Excellent question. I'm sure that my answer would be different than yours. Part of the answer would depend, of course, on a definition of terms. If "the Church" consists of, in part, its members in leadership and lay positions, then it (the LDS Church), may indeed, have some culpability.

Post by **_Morley** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:32 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:Why should "the Church" apologize?

Did "the Church" do it?

By the way, Daniel, I note that you have the phrase "the Church" in scare quotes. Do you have a problem with the use of the term as a shorthand (on this board) for LDS Church or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I'm happy to discontinue the usage, if you find it to be offensive.

Post by **_Baker** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:34 pm

Daniel Peterson wrote:Why should "the Church" apologize?

Did "the Church" do it?

Am I wrong that church appointed leaders, including then stake president and militia leader Isaac Haight, organized and carried out the massacre? Or does your definition of the "church" stop at the prophet?

DiscussMormonism.com