Runtu wrote:I'm glad Turley said that. The weasel statement by Mark Tuttle, echoed by charity, is more than a bit nauseating.
But isn't the spokesman's statement the official position of the Church (at least for today)?
Who knows? At least Turley had the character to sincerely apologize. The man has gone way up in my estimation. On the other hand, it's disappointing that the spokesman would backpedal like that. But I'm sure charity is happy with Mr. Tuttle.
Runtu wrote:At least Turley had the character to sincerely apologize. The man has gone way up in my estimation. On the other hand, it's disappointing that the spokesman would backpedal like that.
From what I hear (and read in his Ensign article), Turley's book will keep the blame for the massacre with the local Church leaders, but I also think he will write that BY's and George A. Smith's prior actions helped enflame the situation. So that is a positive step, and the reason Turley seems fine with the Church's offering an apology (even if the Church now seems to back away from an apology). I'm looking forward to Turley's book.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Runtu wrote:At least Turley had the character to sincerely apologize. The man has gone way up in my estimation. On the other hand, it's disappointing that the spokesman would backpedal like that.
From what I hear (and read in his Ensign article), Turley's book will keep the blame for the massacre with the local Church leaders, but I also think he will write that BY's and George A. Smith's prior actions helped enflame the situation. So that is a positive step, and the reason Turley seems fine with the Church's offering an apology (even if the Church now seems to back away from an apology). I'm looking forward to Turley's book.
I thought his book about the Hofmann affair was less self-serving than it could have been, and I basically agree with his assessment of MMM: I do not believe BY ordered the attacks, but he and his associates created the war hysteria and religious fervor that resulted in the massacre. So, by that measure, yes the church is responsible, whether they choose to admit it or not.
Runtu wrote:I do not believe BY ordered the attacks, but he and his associates created the war hysteria and religious fervor that resulted in the massacre.
I agree, but would go one step further. I believe that the initial skirmish between the Indians and the Fancher party (which led to the siege, and ultimately to the massacre) was a direct result of BY's war strategy to engage the Indians to shut down overland travel through Utah. This, in my opinion, certainly warrants an acknowledgement and apology by the Church institution for any role played by general Church leaders (such as BY and George A. Smith) that may have contributed to the attack and ultimate massacre of the Fancher train. Just my $.02.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
beastie wrote:Actually, it turns out that charity is right, and the church never intended this to be construed as an apology:
"He seemed to genuinely regret what happened _ and that's more than we have gotten in the past," Patty Norris, president of the group Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants. "This is as close as we've ever gotten to an apology, so for the time being, we'll take it."
Church leaders were adamant that the 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.
A portion of my post from another LDS (non-apologetic) board (regarding this):
I think Tuttle is wrong. I'd imagine Turley had a hand in drafting up the message (as it was predominantly his and co. research that contributed to some of the words). If Turley thinks it was an apology (which he does), and if my heart tells me it was an apology, then I’m not too concerned what a media-savvy PR spin-doctor that just happens to be on the Church's payroll has to say about it.
---------
Harumph!
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
So is Tuttle's denial of an apology the official position or not? Were Turley's thoughts and wishes over ruled by a thought that admitting anything is a sign of weakness, especailly in view that "rules of Blood and Iron are eternally the same"? Did President Packer have a hand in this?
moksha wrote:So is Tuttle's denial of an apology the official position or not?
I think we have to accept it as such unless and until an official retraction or clarification is issued -- Tuttle is an official LDS spokesman.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)