Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[_Buffalo]

Great, then the church should have no problem apologizing, since they have nothing to fear by way of a lawsuit.

I guess I'm the Church. I'm an Elder. I apologize.

Don't apologize to me. Apologize to the families of those murdered in cold blood.

[_Yahoo Bot]

First off, I am not viewing this a 21st century legal matter - although I disagree with your analysis. Put on your prosecutor's hat and try again.

I did. Same result. And, I might remark, the prosecution brought cases against at least 5 people and dismissed all of the cases except one for lack of evidence. The DoJ obtained funds for ten years thereafter for private investigators to attempt to pin Brigham Young to the crime and couldn't.

The prosecutor offered John D. Lee a presidential pardon to turn against Brigham Young, and his proposed evidence wasn't enough to satisfy the prosecutor.

When the SL Tribune tore into the prosecutor for not prosecuting the higher-ups, the prosecutor sent a letter to the DoJ explaining that there wasn't any evidence but he still tried for years after that to find it.

The first major historian on the scene, Bancroft, concluded the Church and its leaders were innocent under whatever standards then prevailed. Bagley, himself, failed to dig into Bancroft's files; I know; I was there and saw the files myself.

[_Baker]

But that would be rather like holding my grandfather responsible if my great granddaughter embezzles from a bank: If he hadn't existed, she wouldn't have existed, either. At least, not in precisely the same way. Which means, very arguably, that the embezzlement wouldn't have occurred.

To clarify one thing, I see limited utility in any apology - except for PR purposes. No victim or perpetrator is alive today. The descendants of both victims and perpetrators are neither still victimized nor guilty.

[Guest]

But that would be rather like holding my grandfather responsible if my great granddaughter embezzles from a bank: If he hadn't existed, she wouldn't have existed, either. At least, not in precisely the same way. Which means, very arguably, that the embezzlement wouldn't have occurred.

To clarify one thing, I see limited utility in any apology - except for PR purposes. No victim or perpetrator is alive today. The descendants of both victims and perpetrators are neither still victimized nor guilty.

I don't see any utility in an apology, either. I really don't even care if the Church takes responsibility or not. I do think it's open to debate as to whether or not the organization, itself, was morally responsible. On that question, I'd probably lean toward, "yep."

[_moksha]

Richard Turley did offer a type of apology for the Mountain Meadows Incident, without an admission of guilt (probably on the advice of Church lawyers who did not want to to furnish any lawsuit ammunition to those wagon train familes - just in case). Consider it a Church mea culpa. This sort-of-apology was in conjunction with the anniversary rememberance and right before his offically sanctioned book on the MMI.

[_Baker]

First off, I am not viewing this a 21st century legal matter - although I disagree with your analysis. Put on your prosecutor's hat and try again.

I did. Same result. And, I might remark, the prosecution brought cases against at least 5 people and dismissed all of the cases except one for lack of evidence. The DoJ obtained funds for ten years thereafter for private investigators to attempt to pin Brigham Young to the crime and couldn't.

The prosecutor offered John D. Lee a presidential pardon to turn against Brigham Young, and his proposed evidence wasn't enough to satisfy the prosecutor.

When the SL Tribune tore into the prosecutor for not prosecuting the higher-ups, the prosecutor sent a letter to the DoJ explaining that there wasn't any evidence but he still tried for years after that to find it.

The first major historian on the scene, Bancroft, concluded the Church and its leaders were innocent under whatever standards then prevailed. Bagley, himself, failed to dig into Bancroft's files; I know; I was there and saw the files myself.

You proffered the 21st century vicarious liability analysis - which has absolutely nothing to do with the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. If you were, in our day, offered a plaintiff's case for vicarious liability against the church based on the same facts, absent loyalty to the church, doubt you wouldn't chomp at the bit to get engaged.

[_Fifth Columnist]

Did "the Church" do it?

We need a little perspective to answer that question.

In 1857, the Church was governed by the First Presidency (primarily) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Brigham Young was the president and also the governor of the territory.

In 1857 there were four stakes including the Parowan stake headed by William Dame (also the district militia commander) and the Cedar City stake headed by Isaac Haight (also a militia major and mayor of Cedar City). The position of stake president reported directly to the apostles and first presidency. In effect, the stake presidents were the next in line below the apostles and first presidency.

At the time, the Church/territory was facing off with the federal government. BY threatened the government that he would unleash the indians to attack wagon trains as they passed through the territory. Apostle George A. Smith had recently traveled through southern Parowan and Cedar City to make sure everyone knew Young's plan.

Now that the stage is set, let's consider the involvement of each leader. Haight helped plan the massacre with John D. Lee and presented the idea to the rest of the local leaders. When the plan went bad (Indians weren't killing the immigrants), Haight convinced Dame to send out the militia, local members of the parowan and Cedar City stakes, to fix the problem. The massacre followed.

So basically, two stakes out of a churchwide total of four massacred those people at the direction of their stake presidents, people whose authority was second only to the apostles and first presidency. Granted, the entire Church didn't participate and it is questionable whether the governing bodies directly ordered it (although they most certainly created the environment for it), but I think this is enough to conclude that the church did, in fact, do it and should apologize for it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the Parowan stake headed by William Dame (also the district militia commander) and the Cedar City stake headed by Isaac Haight (also a militia major and mayor of Cedar City)

Are you demanding apologies from the municipal government of Cedar City and from the Utah Highway Patrol and/or the Utah National Guard?

[_flackerman]

I have a hard time believing that something like this could have happened in the Utah territory at that time without Young's knowledge, or that the Mormons who carried out the killings did not think that they were acting on his authority. I suppose that it is possible that Grant, or Klingonsmith, was acting on their own and lied to the people that these were "orders from headquarters" (Young).

Reguardless, the killers did what they did because they were being obediant to their priesthood leaders. The church took the goods and children and attempted to covered up the whole affair. The church and its doctrines played a significant role in the MMM whether Young ordered it or not.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I have a hard time believing that something like this could have happened in the Utah territory at that time without Young's knowledge, or that the Mormons who carried out the killings did not think that they were acting on his authority. I suppose that it is possible that Grant, or Klingonsmith, was acting on their own and lied to the people that these were "orders from headquarters" (Young).

Reguardless, the killers did what they did because they were being obediant to their priesthood leaders. The church took the goods and children and attempted to covered up the whole affair. The church and its doctrines played a significant role in the MMM whether Young ordered it or not.

That's the theory all right. Not proven: Young knew in advance. Brooks said he didn't. Not proven: The perps thought they had authority. Otherwise, why did they send Haslem for guidance? Proven: The perps acted rashly.