Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[_Buffalo]

Are you calling Dr. Gene Sessions a shameless hater now? Because I'm presenting the quote the same way Dr. Sessions did.

But are you interpreting it as he did?

This is the second time that you have wilfully misrepresented my position on these matters. When liars abuse sources for anti-Mormon purposes, it does not make those sources anti-Mormon.

But I think you already knew that.

Listen to the podcast and find out. I gave you the reference, do your own research.

I'll find a transcript and read it.

Regards,
Pahoran

Take responsibility for your own words. And there is no transcript. You'll just have to put on your big boy pants and listen to it.

[_Buffalo]

But, since I'm completely happy with what President Eyring said, and since what he said is entirely consistent with what I've been saying, .

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

:D

[_Buffalo]

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.

True. Maybe Young ordered the massacre, but we just don't know based on the evidence that survived the cover-up. Maybe the purpose of the cover-up was simply to save the church, not Brigham Young himself.

[_why me]

True. Maybe Young ordered the massacre, but we just don't know based on the evidence that survived the cover-up. Maybe the purpose of the cover-up was simply to save the church, not Brigham Young himself.

Maybe, maybe and more maybes. The tension at that time was quite high. And the persecuted saints were feeling threatened again. They separated themselves so they could worship freely but still the intolerant people in california and points east could not stand the Mormons. I think that you need to ask yourself why people just could not let a group of people to worship freely.

If Mormons were allowed to have religious freedom inside america, there would be a different LDS history today.

[_why me]

Like I said, the Saints were already compensated for that many times over via their own thefts and murders.

Hardly. But then again, you weren't there suffering the hardships. Much would have been different if the saints would have been given the religious freedom that others faiths had. But...such was america at that time. Critics seem to love MMM. But always ignore the persecution of the early saints and the trauma that this caused them. They were just human beings finding themselves surrounded by mobs and hatred. And it did affect their minds and emotions.

[_jon]

If Mormons were allowed to have religious freedom inside america, there would be a different LDS history today.

Yes, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints today would look an awful lot like the FLDS!

[_Buffalo]

True. Maybe Young ordered the massacre, but we just don't know based on the evidence that survived the cover-up. Maybe the purpose of the cover-up was simply to save the church, not Brigham Young himself.

Maybe, maybe and more maybes. The tension at that time was quite high. And the persecuted saints were feeling threatened again. They separated themselves so they could worship freely but still the intolerant people in california and points east could not stand the Mormons. I think that you need to ask yourself why people just could not let a group of people to worship freely.

If Mormons were allowed to have religious freedom inside america, there would be a different LDS history today.

Why do YOU think Mormons were disliked?

[_Buffalo]

Like I said, the Saints were already compensated for that many times over via their own thefts and murders.

Hardly. But then again, you weren't there suffering the hardships. Much would have been different if the saints would have been given the religious freedom that others faiths had. But...such was america at that time. Critics seem to love MMM. But always ignore the persecution of the early saints and the trauma that this caused them. They were just human beings finding themselves surrounded by mobs and hatred. And it did affect their minds and emotions.

The saints looted the Missourians. I don't know who stole more goods from whom, but they were both stealing from each other.

The saints also killed more "gentiles" than vice versa - something on the order of five times more, at least.

So the Latter-day Saints did more persecuting of others than they were ever persecuted themselves.

[_Chap]

I was a bit surprised that the post below drew no comment from DCP, possibly because immediately after I put it up there was a severe outbreak of Pahoran.

It may be, of course, that it is simply devoid of interest. But here it is again just in case.

===================================

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?

[_Buffalo]

The repentance steps are only for the lay members and for the Catholics. The church leadership gets a pass on that.