Why the insistence on no apology offered?

[_harmony]

Well, I disagree. I am a convert. I knew nothing about MMM until a couple of years ago. I am not responsible for anything that happened in Utah, where I have never lived. None of my ancestors was involved. Why should I have to apologize for something I had nothing to do with? Why should a member of the LDS church in France have to apologize for something that happened in Utah over a hundred years ago?

Leaders, yes. The general membership, no.

And I think we should give them the land with the monument. Otherwise the "regrets" is meaningless. If we had nothing to apologize for, then we have no reason to hold onto that land.

[_JAK]

As a Mormon in France, you might be interested in reading:

Recovery from Mormonism by a former Mormon in France.

JAK

[_Trevor]

Well, I disagree. I am a convert. I knew nothing about MMM until a couple of years ago. I am not responsible for anything that happened in Utah, where I have never lived. None of my ancestors was involved. Why should I have to apologize for something I had nothing to do with? Why should a member of the LDS church in France have to apologize for something that happened in Utah over a hundred years ago?

Leaders, yes. The general membership, no.

So, as a convert, you basically have the privilege of associating yourself only with those aspects of Mormonism you like and agree with, and leave it to the leaders of the LDS Church to take care of the stuff you weren't/aren't personally involved in? Sounds nice, but not terribly realistic.

I agree that is the special responsibility of leaders of the LDS Church, as its official representatives, to apologize on behalf of the organization, but I don't think that recent converts get a free ride on this stuff. You chose the identity, warts and all. You want to keep it? Then you deal with the whole thing. It's not a question of what is fair. It is simply a matter of belonging to a particular group. Are there limits to this? Yes. I would not find the present-day (or at any other time) persecution of Mormons over MMM just simply because Mormons were responsible for it, but I do think there is an obligation to mend fences where one can, and everyone who has chosen a Mormon identity is included in that.

I see that you do not agree. That is your prerogative, of course, but some Mormon or group of Mormons ought to summon the courage to make a real apology, not because they personally did it, but because they recognize the opportunity and obligation of the group to do right by the victims and their descendants. Somehow I don't find that too hard to understand. Of course, one can sit around, watch others continue to hold MMM against the LDS people and simply say, "well, I didn't do it, so I'm not going to do what needs doing," but that really doesn't help much, does it?

[_Yoda]

Well, I disagree. I am a convert. I knew nothing about MMM until a couple of years ago. I am not responsible for anything that happened in Utah, where I have never lived. None of my ancestors was involved. Why should I have to apologize for something I had nothing to do with? Why should a member of the LDS church in France have to apologize for something that happened in Utah over a hundred years ago?

Leaders, yes. The general membership, no.

So, as a convert, you basically have the privilege of associating yourself only with those aspects of Mormonism you like and agree with, and leave it to the leaders of the LDS Church to take care of the stuff you weren't/aren't personally involved in? Sounds nice, but not terribly realistic.

I agree that is the special responsibility of leaders of the LDS Church, as its official representatives, to apologize on behalf of the organization, but I don't think that recent converts get a free ride on this stuff. You chose the identity, warts and all. You want to keep it? Then you deal with the whole thing. It's not a question of what is fair. It is simply a matter of belonging to a particular group. Are there limits to this? Yes. I would not find the present-day (or at any other time) persecution of Mormons over MMM just simply because Mormons were responsible for it, but I do think there is an obligation to mend fences where one can, and everyone who has chosen a Mormon identity is included in that.

I see that you do not agree. That is your prerogative, of course, but some Mormon or group of Mormons ought to summon the courage to make a real apology, not because they personally did it, but because they recognize the opportunity and obligation of the group to do right by the victims and their descendants. Somehow I don't find that too hard to understand. Of course, one can sit around, watch others continue to hold MMM against the LDS people and simply say, "well, I didn't do it, so I'm not going to do what needs doing," but that really doesn't help much, does it?

What do you suggest individual members do?

Your comparison is like saying that all Jews should hate all Germans because of the Holocaust.

Members like Harmony and myself have stated publicly that the Church PR and leaders were wrong for not issuing a real apology on behalf of the Church organization, and we also feel that the Fauchers should have that land.

I suppose we could write letters to the editor of the SL Tribune and see if they get published.

[_Trevor]

What do you suggest individual members do?

Your comparison is like saying that all Jews should hate all Germans because of the Holocaust.

*****

I suppose we could write letters to the editor of the SL Tribune and see if they get published.

Maybe you could write the descendants of the victims letters of apology for the massacre and the failure of the church actually to apologize. Maybe you could write letters to the editor. Are you supposing these would be useless gestures? We are talking about healing old wounds, not raising the dead here, people.

It would be great if a group of Mormons got together next Sept. 11 and voluntarily went to MM to make their own symbolic gesture of amends for the way their church handled this non-apology (and it seems that it just continues to get better, if you have seen DCP's reference to the "so-called Mountain Meadows Massacre").

You have characterized my comparison in a completely ludicrous way. It is not at all like saying that "all Jews should hate all Germans because of the Holocaust." It is like saying that a/some Mormon(s) should follow the example of a morally courageous German, Willy Brandt, who, although he had *no part* in the Holocaust, and in fact opposed Hitler, got on his knees before a Polish WWII monument as a symbolic act of contrition as a German.

It is not about someone else's license to hate you. It is about your capacity to search for collective healing for Mormons and the descendants of the victims. The simple fact of the matter is that Mormons can only gain by seeking this healing. Their failure to do so leaves a mark on their history and collective identity. If it did not, we would not be having this discussion.

[_Yoda]

Maybe you could write the descendants of the victims letters of apology for the massacre and the failure of the church actually to apologize. Maybe you could write letters to the editor. Are you supposing these would be useless gestures?

Not at all.

It just seemed like you were saying that current members of the Church should shoulder the blame for MMM.

Many members don't even know about it!

I think it was a horrible tragedy, and that the situation was handled badly.

I think that what Harmony was pointing out was that it was the Church leaders and PR who really screwed up most recently. The members cannot be blamed for that. The members also cannot be blamed for the actual massacre. (Hence, my example with the Germans and the Jews....modern day Germans are certainly not responsible for the Holocaust).

My thought about writing to the Trib editor was actually me thinking out loud while writing. It's something tangible that could be done. Your idea of writing to the families is another good idea.

I'm seriously going to consider this.

[_barrelomonkeys]

You can contact the descendants through their various websites if anyone wants to extend a personal apology or their regards.

[Gadianton]

I just think the situation was handled poorly. I don't understand why the Church PR felt the need to come back and make a big point about the statement not being an apology. If they had left well enough alone, and just gone with the first statement, I think everyone, or at least the majority, would have been happy with that.

It just seems that the second statement was a slap in the face.

What are your thoughts on the necessity of the second statement, Wade?

Actually, whether you are correct about the majority being happy with the first statement (see comments above from KimberlyAnn and Infamous for at least some evidence to the contrary), I think the second statement may have been in response to the Church either having been slapped in the face (false presumptions of guilt), or perhaps to prevent the Church from being slapped in the face.

Anyway, I am not sure I understand your position. Whose face are you supposing is being slapped by the Church's seeming reasonable clarification, and how is it being slapped? And, why do you think it bad handling to clarify in this way?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I am a bit puzzled by this kind of self-righteousness. I would think that if one were of a mind to resort to snubbery in this way, it would be for something more immediate (rather than something that occured 150 years in the past), it would be for something the snubbed party is demonstrably responsible for (rather than something based on mere rumors and conjectures regarding members who have long been dead that are indirectly tied to those being snubbed), and for something of significance like rank bigotry (rather than for an expression of deep regret in lieu of an apology for something the snubbed parties never did). But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, Wade, the decision not to apologize, and then to put an exclamation mark on that decision by saying, "in case you misinterpreted what we did say as an apology, it wasn't," happened today, not 150 years ago. I would not snub the Church for the MMM. People and groups make mistakes. I snub them for how they behave in the present. Whether you agree with me or not, please do not pretend as though I am talking about 150 years ago, when I am clearly referring to present events.

Okay. Then let me rephrase my point. I am still puzzled by this kind of self-righteousness. I would think that if one were of a mind to resort to snubbery in this way, it would be for something far more serious and significant than a well-intending party making a simple and reasonable clarification following a heart-felt expression of regret for a 150-year-old event. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

I just think the situation was handled poorly. I don't understand why the Church PR felt the need to come back and make a big point about the statement not being an apology. If they had left well enough alone, and just gone with the first statement, I think everyone, or at least the majority, would have been happy with that.

It just seems that the second statement was a slap in the face.

What are your thoughts on the necessity of the second statement, Wade?

Actually, whether you are correct about the majority being happy with the first statement, I think the second statement may have been in response to the Church either having been slapped in the face (false presumptions of guilt), or perhaps to prevent the Church from being slapped in the face.

Anyway, I am not sure I understand your position. Whose face are you supposing is being slapped by the Church's seeming reasonable clarification, and how is it being slapped? And, why do you think it bad handling to clarify in this way?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

First of all, Wade, thank you for responding to my question...and for responding in a civil way. Maybe Bob can learn from your example.

I'll answer your second series of questions first:

The Church came out with a statement of regret concerning the murders of MMM. I think that this meant a lot to the families of those that were killed. I know that if my family had been killed in this type of ordeal, it would have meant a lot to me to have the organization that spurned this, say something.

Let's face it. If the Church had not existed....had those members not been so hyper due to what had happened at Haun's Mill, and to Joseph Smith, what happened at Mountain Meadows wouldn't have happened. I think everyone can agree on that point.

I personally don't believe that Brigham Young gave any type of order; I think he did honestly try to stop it, and his orders arrived too late. The individual members involved in MMM are the ones to blame for what happened...but the fact remains that they were members of the Church, and acting (wrongly and perversely) as representatives of the Church.

This is why, I think, that the Church's first statement was a Christ-like, charitable thing to do. The Church acknowledged that this should not have happened.

The second statement, however, seemed to be a slap to the very people the Church was trying to console.

What was the necessity of making this huge point that this was not an "official" apology? What purpose did this serve? Why did Church PR feel a need to do this? Was it the land issue?

I'm late for a student-teacher conference, so I will have to address the rest of this later, but I did want to at least clarify where I was coming from.

More later...

Thanks again, Wade.

:)

Liz