Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Guest]

I think we are all stunned that your views would mimic the brethren.

Thank you for your important response.

First, I was attacked because President Eyring's response to Mountain Meadows was supposedly so much "bigger" and better than mine. Now that it's been pointed out that my response to Mountain Meadows is essentially indistinguishable from his, I'm attacked because there's no substantial difference between them.

The consistency is instructive, in its way.

***

But back to the subject of the Mountain Meadows Massacre itself: There is simply no persuasive evidence -- despite their zeal, neither the nineteenth-century federal prosecutors nor even Will Bagley ever turned up any, even after years of searching -- that those who perpetrated the massacre were following the Prophet's orders.

[_Willy Law]

I think we are all stunned that your views would mimic the brethren.

Thank you for your important response.

First, I was attacked because President Eyring's response to Mountain Meadows was supposedly so much "bigger" and better than mine. Now that it's been pointed out that my response to Mountain Meadows is essentially indistinguishable from his, I'm attacked because there's no substantial difference between them.

The consistency is instructive, in its way.

Attacked? Don't try and be a martyr, it's not your style.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Attacked?

"Mocked," if you prefer.

I don't really care much.

[_Willy Law]

Attacked?

"Mocked," if you prefer.

I don't really care much.

Not my intent to mock you, although I guess it sounded that way. Sorry.

[_Yoda]

This sounds like an apology to me. What more do the families want, and what are folks here looking for?

LDS church spokesman Mark Tuttle clarified that Eyring's statement was not an apology and should not be understood as such:

Church leaders were adamant that [Eyring's] 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.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... 7941_x.htm

That's a game of legalese. It's obvious what was said.

It's unfortunate that Tuttle felt the need to do that. Maybe there were threats of lawsuits behind the scenes that we are not privy to?

[_RayAgostini]

That's a game of legalese. It's obvious what was said.

It's unfortunate that Tuttle felt the need to do that. Maybe there were threats of lawsuits behind the scenes that we are not privy to?

Once an admission of liability or blame was conceded (in an "apology"), that could have opened the doors to $millions in compensation. Someone already said that the Church leaders' private "apologies" were very different to their "public" "expressions of regret". Well I suppose it could also be argued that the Church has the monetary wherewithal to provide this. This was the greatest fear in an apology to Australia's "stolen generations".

So far, most compensation claims have failed, with some exceptions:

Stolen Generations.

In spite of the Church leaders' possible fears, and carefully wording "regret" and "apology" because of legal implications (advice they would have received from Church lawyers), those fears were probably unfounded.

[_cafe crema]

LDS church spokesman Mark Tuttle clarified that Eyring's statement was not an apology and should not be understood as such:

Church leaders were adamant that [Eyring's] 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.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... 7941_x.htm

That's a game of legalese. It's obvious what was said.
It's unfortunate that Tuttle felt the need to do that. Maybe there were threats of lawsuits behind the scenes that we are not privy to?

Tuttle was the spokesman for the church he did not just do what he felt, his job was to speak for the church. It's quite clear from this statement . "We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'""that Mr. Eyrings words are not an apology. Church leaders have never taken exception to Tuttles statement or contradicted it in anyway so it stands as they wish it to, "not to be construed as an apology". Their spokesman, their words, not an apology. Though I do think it qualifies as the public relations tool "non-apology.

On the other examples brought up the Australians they apologized, the Japanese they apologized, neither of them shied away from the word, they said we apologize. The Catholics I don't know, nothing I've found shows the text so I don't know if "we apologize" was actually used, the closest I could find was "We will apologize to God and people who suffered from this evil," Schulz said, did they actually ever say "we apologize"?

Does everyone need to apologize for every wrong their national/ethnic/religious ancestors did? I don't really think so, history is filled with things that could use an apology but many feel otherwise and find that a true apology can help in dealing with the past. So although I don't see a need for all this apologizing I do believe that if one is going to participate a real apology is in order, not this weasly non-apology PR stuff.

[_MsJack]

That's a game of legalese. It's obvious what was said.

It's unfortunate that Tuttle felt the need to do that. Maybe there were threats of lawsuits behind the scenes that we are not privy to?

Liz, Tuttle is a church spokesman. I doubt this was his idea.

I personally think that expressing regret and apologizing are not automatically one and the same. I guess people are free to believe that the church would really, really like to apologize, but can't due to threats of legal action, but I'm skeptical.

[_RayAgostini]

Does everyone need to apologize for every wrong their national/ethnic/religious ancestors did?

I, personally, won't rest until I hear President Obama apologise for African slavery.

:)

[_RayAgostini]

I guess people are free to believe that the church would really, really like to apologize, but can't due to threats of legal action, but I'm skeptical.

So am I, because the threat of legal action is only one possibility. They haven't apologised for the treatment of Blacks, and considering American history, that seems beyond litigation. In this area, I agree with Armand Mauss - that an apology will be essential before the Church can really move forward with "people of colour". The only way to quell "residual racism" in the Church, considering they "don't know" "the cause of the Ban", is to apologise for racist statements like those issued by Mark Petersen, Alvin Dyer, and others. In my view, this far outweighs an MMM apology in importance. Except perhaps, for those who feel that the "fence sitting" belief still applies. That would not at all surprise me, that some Mormons still believe this utter codswallop.