Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[_Baker]

That's good. I guess Pres. Eyring is a bigger man than DCP and Yahoo Bot.

At least he's not confused about whether "local church leaders" were responsible.

[_Chap]

And here is the Catholic Church in Poland apologizing for a massacre of Jews by Polish villagers, who were certainly not acting under the orders of their church. However:

Bishop Stanislaw Gondecki said that the Jews were victims of a crime and that there had been "Poles and Catholics" among the perpetrators.

Evidently the fact that those who committed the crime were members of his church was enough for the Bishop to feel that an apology from that church was called for. What nonsense, eh?

That's what happens when you have a church with priestcraft!

So far as I can tell of what he said, I have no problem with what Bishop Gondecki said, and feel that the LDS Church has "apologized" in very much the same way.

It has acknowledged that local members and leaders of the Church perpetrated the massacre, and it has regretted the massacre and described it as a crime.

What it has not done, however, is to plead guilty as a church, or to "admit" that leaders in Salt Lake ordered, approved, or caused it.

If the Catholic Church has declared that Rome ordered, approved, and/or caused a massacre of Jews by Polish villagers, I must have missed that.

You will find here the pdf of an interview with Cardinal Josef Glemp, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland, dated 15 May 2001, in which both the interviewer from the Catholic Information Agency and the Cardinal himself repeatedly made it clear that their church would issue 'apologies' and referred to 'our apology'. At one point the Cardinal says:

We want to ask God for his forgiveness first of all, but we also want to ask forgiveness of everyone who suffered, and to do so on behalf of those Polish citizens who committed evil acts against citizens of the Mosaic faith .... we want this prayer to be profound, and to contain a genuine apology to God and to his people.

There is no question in the interview of the the Cardinal admitting, in your words, "that Rome ordered, approved, and/or caused a massacre of Jews by Polish villagers". What is happening is that as the head of a corporate body to which the wrong-doers belonged, and which was probably the body which gave those wrong-doers the most important identity they knew, the Cardinal said he wanted to make a solemn apology on their behalf, to God and to people.

Has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints apologized (without scare-quotes) on behalf of those of its members who did wrong in the same way that the Roman Catholic Church said it would do in this instance?

When I read the report of President Hinckley's words from LDS Church News, I do not see even a frank statement from him of the fact that a group of members of his church were the people who massacred the men, women and (why?) children of the Fancher party (though he does take the time to state his belief that Brigham young bore no responsibility)- on the contrary, he seems to be saying that no-one really knows who did the killing:

"This is a solemn and significant occasion," President Hinckley told those in attendance. "This is an emotional experience for me. I come as peacemaker. This is not a time of recrimination or the assigning of blame. No one can explain what happened in these meadows 142 years ago. We may speculate, but we do not know. We do not understand it. We cannot comprehend it. We can only say the past is long since gone. It cannot be recalled. It cannot be changed. It is time to leave the entire matter in the hands of God who deals justly in all things. His is a wisdom far beyond our own."

The Cardinal said frankly that Polish citizens committed evil acts against Jews (despite the fact that under the communists it had all been blamed on the Germans, and many Poles would have liked to keep it that way). He said his church would apologize on their behalf. I don't see evidence in that news report that (changing the variables appropriately) President Hinckley said frankly that LDS militiamen committed evil acts against the Fancher party (despite the fact that for a long time it had all been blamed on the Indians). He did not say that his church would apologize on their behalf. Instead, the keynote of his speech, and the title of the official report from which I quote was 'Let the book of the past be closed'.

There really are significant differences there, surely?

[_Willy Law]

What more do the families want, and what are folks here looking for? Granted, it was a long time coming, but I don't get what it is that the Church is supposed to do beyond this.

If you have a chance, listen to the Mormon Expressions episode where Tom interviews Gene Sessions. He was involved in the private meeting between Hinckley and the families back in 99 (If I recall correctly). Apparently they had a closed door meeting at the COB that was very emotional and sincere. I think Sessions said there was not a dry eye in the room and the families left feeling like they had turned the page to a new chapter with the church.

They then drove down to the site of the massacre to dedicate a new monument or commemorate an anniversary. Sessions seems to think that on the drive down the church attorneys must have been in Hinckley's ear because his speech at the site fell well short of his private speech to the families. The families apparently left feeling somewhat betrayed.
The main thing the families have wanted from the church is for the massacre site land to be turned over to the families. They find it a slap in the face that the land their ancestors died on is owned and operated by the very church that carried out the massacre.

I think Eyring's regret statement was very heartfelt and sincere. The podcast I indicated above has the actual audio of the speech. I do, however, have a small problem with it. He cannot get through the speech without trying to exonerate Brigham Young and without presenting the church's position du jour, which is that the massacre was carried out by local leaders. Whether you believe Brigham Young was culpable or not, it seems in bad taste to use that opportunity to state your case.

[_cafe crema]

I think Eyring's regret statement was very heartfelt and sincere. The podcast I indicated above has the actual audio of the speech. I do, however, have a small problem with it. He cannot get through the speech without trying to exonerate Brigham Young and without presenting the church's position du jour, which is that the massacre was carried out by local leaders. Whether you believe Brigham Young was culpable or not, it seems in bad taste to use that opportunity to state your case.

He also can't get through it without telling folks what a great job church employees have done writing about the history, what a great job the church has done maintaining the site and how the perpetrators suffered too. Things in my opinion best left out of an apology.

[_Baker]

oh, well, if they "felt like they were being attacked" then its ok that they killed a bunch of innocent people (including women and children)...those little kids must have been terrifying and intimidating to all those armed Mormon men...

It would not be a wonderful situation to be in. The human being reacts in different ways to trauma. Antimormons never consider the trauma that these early saints experienced but if you use your imagination you may just be able to. First, heading to what is now Utah was no picnic in the park. Many saints lost their lives fleeing persecution. No one considers the impact this had on the Utah mindset when it comes to MMM or to the ending of polygamy. Second, warnings coming from california and points east about the Mormons would plant into the mind of these persecuted saints of mobs heading to Utah for hunting season.

But antimormons overlook such details that would definitely impact the utah mindset.

Regardless of mitigating factors (which I agree should be factored into our judgment, to the extent we feel compelled to judge, of the individuals involved), do you believe that the actions of the perpetrators were justified?

[_Pahoran]

Of course Brigham Young was not involved. He was in Salt Lake City.

Still, I wonder why he had the cross destroyed and the stones of the burial cairn strewn about and what did he mean by "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord and I have taken some"? As far as I know, he had never met any of the wagon train members and grave desecration is not sanctioned anywhere in Mormon Doctrine. Did he really view these departed souls as the enemy?

No, of course not.

There are scum people, I mean some people, who advocate that the "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little" comment refers to Brigham himself taking vengeance upon the MMM victims. The reality is that he was commenting upon the inscription made on the orders of Major Carleton: "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord and I will repay." This was a thinly-veiled threat against all Mormons then living in Utah territory and elsewhere.

Furthermore, while Dudley Leavitt claimed that the cairn was dismantled because Brigham gave some kind of non-verbal order, the fact is that other witnesses present on the occasion did not report such a destruction and still others saw the cairn still standing later on. Note that Leavitt was a massacre participant and had a motive to claim that Brigham was unsympathetic to the victims.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Buffalo]

Of course Brigham Young was not involved. He was in Salt Lake City.

Still, I wonder why he had the cross destroyed and the stones of the burial cairn strewn about and what did he mean by "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord and I have taken some"? As far as I know, he had never met any of the wagon train members and grave desecration is not sanctioned anywhere in Mormon Doctrine. Did he really view these departed souls as the enemy?

No, of course not.

There are scum people, I mean some people, who advocate that the "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little" comment refers to Brigham himself taking vengeance upon the MMM victims. The reality is that he was commenting upon the inscription made on the orders of Major Carleton: "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord and I will repay." This was a thinly-veiled threat against all Mormons then living in Utah territory and elsewhere.

Furthermore, while Dudley Leavitt claimed that the cairn was dismantled because Brigham gave some kind of non-verbal order, the fact is that other witnesses present on the occasion did not report such a destruction and still others saw the cairn still standing later on. Note that Leavitt was a massacre participant and had a motive to claim that Brigham was unsympathetic to the victims.

Regards,
Pahoran

The memorial was built, torn down, rebuilt, and torn down again.

[_Pahoran]

No, of course not.

There are scum people, I mean some people, who advocate that the "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little" comment refers to Brigham himself taking vengeance upon the MMM victims. The reality is that he was commenting upon the inscription made on the orders of Major Carleton: "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord and I will repay." This was a thinly-veiled threat against all Mormons then living in Utah territory and elsewhere.

Furthermore, while Dudley Leavitt claimed that the cairn was dismantled because Brigham gave some kind of non-verbal order, the fact is that other witnesses present on the occasion did not report such a destruction and still others saw the cairn still standing later on. Note that Leavitt was a massacre participant and had a motive to claim that Brigham was unsympathetic to the victims.

Regards,
Pahoran

The memorial was built, torn down, rebuilt, and torn down again.

Call for references, please. If you are asserting that the memorial was torn down and rebuilt in Brigham's time, I'd like to see some documentation for that.

Wilford Woodruff was present on the same occasion as Dudley Leavitt was. Interestingly, the haters frequently prefer his version of Brigham's words over Leavitt's, but they completely ignore the fact that he recorded no desecration of the monument.

The claim that Brigham was gloating over the murder the immigrants is a malicious, spiteful lie.

Just so you know.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Buffalo]

Call for references, please. If you are asserting that the memorial was torn down and rebuilt in Brigham's time, I'd like to see some documentation for that.

Wilford Woodruff was present on the same occasion as Dudley Leavitt was. Interestingly, the haters frequently prefer his version of Brigham's words over Leavitt's, but they completely ignore the fact that he recorded no desecration of the monument.

The claim that Brigham was gloating over the murder the immigrants is a malicious, spiteful lie.

Just so you know.

Regards,
Pahoran

The source for both the part about the memorial being torn down and rebuilt multiple times, as well as the BY quote, is Dr. Gene Sessions, LDS author and former president of the Mountain Meadows Association.

http://mormonexpression.com/2010/03/11/ ... -sessions/

[_Morley]

No, of course not.

There are scum people, I mean some people, who advocate that the "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little" comment refers to Brigham himself taking vengeance upon the MMM victims. The reality is that he was commenting upon the inscription made on the orders of Major Carleton: "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord and I will repay." This was a thinly-veiled threat against all Mormons then living in Utah territory and elsewhere.

Furthermore, while Dudley Leavitt claimed that the cairn was dismantled because Brigham gave some kind of non-verbal order, the fact is that other witnesses present on the occasion did not report such a destruction and still others saw the cairn still standing later on. Note that Leavitt was a massacre participant and had a motive to claim that Brigham was unsympathetic to the victims.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran, apparently I'm kind of unschooled in this. As you understand it, what revenge did Brigham Young take, when he said, "Vengeance is mine and I have taken a little," if, indeed, he didn't have the cairn torn down?