Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[_cinepro]

I don't know if it's been brought up yet, but it should be pointed out that the Church seemed more than happy to accept the apologies of Missouri and Illinois, even though none of the people doing the apologizing were actually involved in the 19th century persecutions.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/5950 ... o-LDS.html

http://bransonmissouri.missourinetizen. ... ology.html

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think Chap's proposed apology is quite eloquent, and I have no significant problem with it. (I do quibble with the idea that we can repent on behalf of others, which appears in its last paragraph. I simply don't know what that would mean.)

On the other hand, I don't know that it really goes all that far beyond what leaders of the Church have already said.

I don't know if it's been brought up yet, but it should be pointed out that the Church seemed more than happy to accept the apologies of Missouri and Illinois, even though none of the people doing the apologizing were actually involved in the 19th century persecutions.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/5950 ... o-LDS.html

http://bransonmissouri.missourinetizen. ... ology.html

It's not inappropriate for the State of Missouri to apologize officially and at the highest level for what the State of Missouri officially did at the highest level many decades ago.

It would be rather different for the Church to apologize officially and at the highest level for something that the Church did not do, neither as a Church nor at the highest level nor officially, many decades ago.

[_daheshism]

No...not for the massacre itself, but for the cover-up that followed!

Mountain Meadows:
Mormon militia killed 150 men, women, and children (over age 8). Ordered by Colonel Haight of the Mormon militia of Southern Utah. Piute Indians take part ONLY after being asked to by John D. Lee and others. Over 100 Mormons participate, but only John D. Lee executed. Colonel Haight later writes a letter in which he says he ordered the massacre because he wanted to steel their cattle and provisions. Descendant of Colonel Haight later becomes LDS apostle. The "crime" of the Francher Party: one or two of them insulted Mormons and thanked god for Joseph smith being killed, after Mormons refused to sell them grain. Should Church say: "We apologize, because it was the fault of the Church, because the Church ordered this?" Did Brigham Young order it? No evidence of that. Did he try to cover-it-up? Did he help Haight and Lee and other leaders who did order it "hide"? Absolutely he did. Should Church apologize for Mountain Meadows COVER_UP? Yes. The Church SHOULD say: "We do not apologize for the massacre itself, because the Church leaders at the time did not order it. However, we do apologize for the cover-up that followed, and the assistance Church leaders gave to Haight and Lee who were fugitives from justice."
But...the Church will NEVER SAY THAT, because they will be revealing to rank-and-file Mormons that Brigham Young HELPED these men excape justice (until Lee was finally caught....Haight was never caught). That will "look bad" for Brigham Young, and the Church will NEVER make Briggie look bad!

The Church should also say: "We also apologize for cancelling John D. Lee's excommunication, and granting him again full membership in the Church in 1963! We did this only because his famly is now wealthy and has donated alot of money to the Church."

Rape of Nanking:
Japanese troops kill up to 20,000 Chinese civilians: men, women, and children. Over 50,000 Chinese women and girls (some as young as one year old) are raped. Crime: some Chinese commandos had killed some Japanese soldiers and this was retaliation. Should Japan apologize, or say: "That was long ago. The people who did it are all dead. Only those who actually raped and killed should apologize. Japan as a nation did nothing wrong." Japan should say: "What Japanese commanders and soldiers did was horrible and against the Samuri code of ethics, and against the teachings of the great religions of Japan. We apologize for NOT prosecuting those responsible after the War was over."

[_jon]

It was a group of local civic/military/church leaders lurching from bungle to blunder to a crisis largely of their own making, at which point they panicked.

Regards,
Pahoran

And you can show that, with evidence, right?

Bumped because, yet again, Pahoran ducks, dives, dodges and runs away when asked to back up an authoritative statement.

Come on Pahorun, you can back your statement up surely..........

[_Daniel Peterson]

That's pretty much the way I read the Walker/Turley/Leonard book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

I would suggest that you look there.

[_why me]

Okay, the Mormons were traumatized and shell shocked. Granted, they had it tough for a few years there. What did their religion do to alleviate this? I submit that the church encouraged an atmosphere of hate and revenge. It was in the hymns they sang and the sermons they heard, it was in the temple ceremonies. IMHO, if Jesus were leading this church he would have taught that forgiveness starts now. If Jesus were leading that church, members would have developed spirituality, not persecution complex; peace, not PTSD. But that's just me. I believe in a God of Love, not vengeance, and not some insane hybrid of love and vengeance.

Bulldinky. Please tell this to the US govenment and the protestant churches who were persecuting the Mormons. Without that persecution, things would have been different. Mormons should have been allowed to worship freely without persecution. And so, where was the spirituality of the protestant mobs? When you have your houses burned and property destroyed over several years, lets see how you develop over time.

[_Willy Law]

That's pretty much the way I read the Walker/Turley/Leonard book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

I would suggest that you look there.

I am sure you realize that the only historians that take Massacre at Mountain Meadows seriously are those with temple recommends in their wallet. Even Sessions was disappointed at their efforts and their lightweight treatment of BY and The Church.
I'm guessing I do not need to ask your opinion of Bagley's book, but I am interested in what your overall thoughts are on Juanita Brooks' conclusion?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Okay, the Mormons were traumatized and shell shocked. Granted, they had it tough for a few years there. What did their religion do to alleviate this? I submit that the church encouraged an atmosphere of hate and revenge. It was in the hymns they sang and the sermons they heard, it was in the temple ceremonies. IMHO, if Jesus were leading this church he would have taught that forgiveness starts now. If Jesus were leading that church, members would have developed spirituality, not persecution complex; peace, not PTSD. But that's just me. I believe in a God of Love, not vengeance, and not some insane hybrid of love and vengeance.

Bulldinky. Please tell this to the US govenment and the protestant churches who were persecuting the Mormons. Without that persecution, things would have been different. Mormons should have been allowed to worship freely without persecution. And so, where was the spirituality of the protestant mobs? When you have your houses burned and property destroyed over several years, lets see how you develop over time.

So, why me, the church which was personally restored by Heavenly Father and Jesus might not be expected to meet higher standards?

I don't share your high opinion of the church, and you don't share my high opinion of God and Jesus.

[_Chap]

I think Chap's proposed apology is quite eloquent, and I have no significant problem with it. (I do quibble with the idea that we can repent on behalf of others, which appears in its last paragraph. I simply don't know what that would mean.)

I am glad to hear that. I'd happily drop the word 'repentance' that DCP points up - I think my rhetorical software felt it needed another few syllables there, and so it flowed from my keyboard. I share with him the doubt about repenting on behalf of others.

On the other hand, I do think the notion of an apology on behalf of others can be legitimate under certain circumstances, and I am glad that DCP sees no objection to that aspect of my piece - which can no doubt be improved in other ways, since it is only a quick first draft.

[_Buffalo]

Okay, the Mormons were traumatized and shell shocked. Granted, they had it tough for a few years there. What did their religion do to alleviate this? I submit that the church encouraged an atmosphere of hate and revenge. It was in the hymns they sang and the sermons they heard, it was in the temple ceremonies. IMHO, if Jesus were leading this church he would have taught that forgiveness starts now. If Jesus were leading that church, members would have developed spirituality, not persecution complex; peace, not PTSD. But that's just me. I believe in a God of Love, not vengeance, and not some insane hybrid of love and vengeance.

And yet, the God you believe in has failed to inculcate in you a spirit of forgiveness and understanding. Instead, you have a spirit of hectoring and lecturing and accusing, as you refuse to even try to live up to the advice you so generously dish out in our direction.

The survival value of interpreting "turn the other cheek" as "let those who would destroy you ride roughshod over you" is exactly zero. Evidently, in your mind, 19th century Mormons are to be blamed for not meekly climbing into the cattle cars.

Regards,
Pahoran

You heard it here first - Pahoran doesn't believe in Jesus.