Should the Church apologise for Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[_RayAgostini]

Ray, I don't know your history or background, so I wasn't aware you knew about the apology. The lead up to it was a big deal, years ago, when I was there. My apologies if the link offended.

I've lived in Australia for 37 years, and like most political decisions, there are many factors influencing what happens. The "apology" has a lot more to do with politics than sincerity. I think it was a generous gesture, but it sadly fails to address contemporary problems, and why racism continues in Australia. Why someone with one-tenth Aboriginal blood can get government concessions, subsidised housing, and a raft of benefits not available to "whites". You have no idea how contentious this issue is, way beyond "feelgoodism". In these circumstances apologies are worth about a rat's arse. "Public opinion" will of course support it, but read any letters column, in any newspaper in Australia, about "Aboriginal issues", and then you'll get the true measure. Do you know why Pauline Hanson was so popular?

I haven't suggested that the church apologize for Mountain Meadows; in fact, if you read through the thread, you'll see where I said as much.

I have no agenda with the Church, in fact, part of me kind of hopes they don't change too much. They are so entertaining, so fascinating, just they way they are. The church is a deep part of my heritage and culture and history--they belong to me (and others here) as much as they do to anyone. And I do love to discuss and learn. Pax, Ray.

From what cinepro quoted, I think that was sufficient. 21st century Mormons don't need to grovel because of what some of their misguided ancestors did.

[_Chap]

Ray, I don't know your history or background, so I wasn't aware you knew about the apology. The lead up to it was a big deal, years ago, when I was there. My apologies if the link offended.

I've lived in Australia for 37 years, and like most political decisions, there are many factors influencing what happens. The "apology" has a lot more to do with politics than sincerity. <SNIP>

None the less, here is the full text of what was solemnly stated by the Prime Minister of Australia, standing in the national parliament.

One can 'contextualize' this historic statement as much as one likes, and a statement is of course just a statement, but in the context of the present discussion, its directness and frank assumption of institutional responsibility for historic wrongs done is very clear, and I would say admirable in itself. I cannot imagine for a moment that it would have been better not to have made such a statement:

I give notice that, at the next sitting, I will move: Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations -- this blemished chapter in our nation's history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.

We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

[_jon]

Elder Henry B. Eyring’s remarks at the Mountain Meadows Massacre Sesquicentennial on 11 September 2007, in Washington County, Utah.

Dear Friends—

I speak today, by assignment, on behalf of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In so doing, I express their appreciation for the invitation to participate on this program.

It is important and appropriate that we meet together on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We gather as relatives of the massacre victims and perpetrators and as unrelated but interested and sympathetic parties. We gather to remember and to honor those whose lives were taken prematurely and wrongly in this once lush and pastoral valley.

We believe it is our obligation to understand and learn from the past. For this reason, the Church responded favorably several years ago to the request of three experienced and able historians, Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Jr., and Glen M. Leonard, to cooperate with their researching of a book about the awful event that occurred here a century and a half ago. The book they are writing is nearly complete and will be published in coming months by Oxford University Press under the title Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

Although they are Church employees, the authors have retained full editorial control and have drawn their own conclusions from the exhaustive body of historical material they assembled. They have been given full access to all relevant materials held by the Church. Two of the significant conclusions they have reached are (1) that the message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late, and (2) that the responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the Church acting under their direction.

Although no event in history can fully be known, the work of these three authors has enabled us to know more than we ever have known about this unspeakable episode. The truth, as we have come to know it, saddens us deeply. The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse, abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.

We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time.

A separate expression of regret is owed to the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local Church leaders and members.

We know, too, that many of those who carried out the massacre were haunted all their lives by what they did and saw on that unforgettable day. They and their relatives have also suffered under a heavy burden of guilt. No doubt Divine Justice will impose appropriate punishment upon those responsible for the massacre. Nevertheless, our continued prayer for their relatives is that knowledge of a God who is both just and merciful will bring a measure of peace to their souls.

In 1999, President Gordon B. Hinckley returned and joined with many of you in dedicating the monument that stands near our place of assembly today. The Church has worked with descendant groups since then to maintain the monument and surrounding property and continues to improve and preserve these premises and to make them attractive and accessible to all who visit. We are committed to do so in the future.

Having reflected and commented on both the past and future of this hallowed meadow, we conclude by expressing our love and desire for reconciliation to all who have in any way been affected by what occurred at Mountain Meadows 150 years ago today. May the God of Heaven, whose sons and daughters we all are, bless us to honor those who died here by extending to one another the pure love and spirit of forgiveness which His Only Begotten Son personified, is our prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

[_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!

[_why me]

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.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

[_Yoda]

Elder Henry B. Eyring’s remarks at the Mountain Meadows Massacre Sesquicentennial on 11 September 2007, in Washington County, Utah.

Dear Friends—

I speak today, by assignment, on behalf of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In so doing, I express their appreciation for the invitation to participate on this program.

It is important and appropriate that we meet together on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. We gather as relatives of the massacre victims and perpetrators and as unrelated but interested and sympathetic parties. We gather to remember and to honor those whose lives were taken prematurely and wrongly in this once lush and pastoral valley.

We believe it is our obligation to understand and learn from the past. For this reason, the Church responded favorably several years ago to the request of three experienced and able historians, Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Jr., and Glen M. Leonard, to cooperate with their researching of a book about the awful event that occurred here a century and a half ago. The book they are writing is nearly complete and will be published in coming months by Oxford University Press under the title Massacre at Mountain Meadows.

Although they are Church employees, the authors have retained full editorial control and have drawn their own conclusions from the exhaustive body of historical material they assembled. They have been given full access to all relevant materials held by the Church. Two of the significant conclusions they have reached are (1) that the message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late, and (2) that the responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the Church acting under their direction.

Although no event in history can fully be known, the work of these three authors has enabled us to know more than we ever have known about this unspeakable episode. The truth, as we have come to know it, saddens us deeply. The gospel of Jesus Christ that we espouse, abhors the cold-blooded killing of men, women, and children. Indeed, it advocates peace and forgiveness. What was done here long ago by members of our Church represents a terrible and inexcusable departure from Christian teaching and conduct. We cannot change what happened, but we can remember and honor those who were killed here.

We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time.

A separate expression of regret is owed to the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local Church leaders and members.

We know, too, that many of those who carried out the massacre were haunted all their lives by what they did and saw on that unforgettable day. They and their relatives have also suffered under a heavy burden of guilt. No doubt Divine Justice will impose appropriate punishment upon those responsible for the massacre. Nevertheless, our continued prayer for their relatives is that knowledge of a God who is both just and merciful will bring a measure of peace to their souls.

In 1999, President Gordon B. Hinckley returned and joined with many of you in dedicating the monument that stands near our place of assembly today. The Church has worked with descendant groups since then to maintain the monument and surrounding property and continues to improve and preserve these premises and to make them attractive and accessible to all who visit. We are committed to do so in the future.

Having reflected and commented on both the past and future of this hallowed meadow, we conclude by expressing our love and desire for reconciliation to all who have in any way been affected by what occurred at Mountain Meadows 150 years ago today. May the God of Heaven, whose sons and daughters we all are, bless us to honor those who died here by extending to one another the pure love and spirit of forgiveness which His Only Begotten Son personified, is our prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

This sounds like an apology to me. 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.

[_Buffalo]

Descendants of the Baker-Fancher wagon train have fought for years to memorialise their ancestors and to wrestle an apology from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those words have not come. (from The Daily Mail online newspaper article about the new memorial)

Please feel free to provide supporting references for your vote

I think that the federal govenment owes the LDS church an apology for not protecting the early saints from the mobs. I also think that the good state of Missouri and the other states were Mormons were victims should pay compensation to the LDS church for property loss and suffering.

What about the property that the Danites stole from the Missourians?

Still, in terms of body count, the Mormons beat the gentiles, 5 to 1.

[_Buffalo]

I know you won't be around for a while to respond, but when you return:

Maybe I did not understand your earlier comment. You and I tussled about MMM a while ago and you said,

You didn't ask me about a cover-up. Yes, there was plenty of cover-up, ranging from the perps themselves to many high-ups.

I am not trying to play gotcha, just interested in what you believe happened post MMM.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13114&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=21

It looks like Yahoo Bot was playing the disingenuous MAD CFR game. Apparently he knows about the cover-up too.

[_Baker]

Sorry, but yes they were.

Sorry, but no they weren't.

There. I've refuted you.

They were agents of the church, acting in their authorized capacities,

They were militia commanders, agents of the territorial government, abusing their offices to carry out a horrific event.

They were whatever you need them to have been, I guess, to support the unnecessarily defensive claim that the "church" should bear no responsibility for the massacre. Unless you can demonstrate a meaningful separation of church and state in Utah during the applicable period, I think you're SOL. But, in the end, I really don't think it matters. It was a terrible event, but it's well in the past and, in my opinion, should not stain the modern church.

ETA: The idea that an organization should only bear responsibility for actions taken by its members with the sanction of top leadership is, in my opinion, extremely narrow minded and without much support - at least not in recent history. As the church is not on trial, we can all be wise enough to understand the scope of that responsibility and assign proper blame where it lies. That is how one can conclude that there is a basis for the church to apologize (which I am satisfied it has done), while understanding that the actions were actually undertaken by subordinates, and not the church as a whole.