Why the insistence on no apology offered?

[_KimberlyAnn]

That pertained to Nazi leaders, not to the soldier in the army who had nothing to do with the concentration camps. That's how I see church members today: as soldiers in the army who had nothing whatsoever to with the massacre.

Sure, the average soldier would not be prosecuted for what took place in the concentration camps, but the best of them would do, and did do, what they could to make it right. Why? Because they would (and did) understand the point I am trying to make about shared burdens and group responsibilities. It really would not surprise me if many Mormons, like you, do not understand them. It isn't because you are bad people. It is because of a radical individualism that is blind to group responsibility.

And again, I add that the very rush to avoid blame is disconcerting. It is this tendency to disassociate from atrocities that contributes to their reoccurrence.

Hmmm, Trevor, you're sounding remarkably like Don Bradley. Are you certain you're not his sock puppet? LOL

I disagree that most Mormons are loathe to apologize for the MMM because of radical individualism. The culture of Mormonism is one of the least individualistic cultures out there, and has a very strong sense of community, in my opinion. Too strong, really. Of course, radical individualism can be dangerous, but so can extreme group association which sacrifices too much individualism for the good of the group, especially when that group is a controlling, damaging organization like Mormonism. A moderate compromise between individualism and group association may be best. Moderation seems to be the right approach for most things.

The Mormon church, as an institution, will not apologize because it cannot afford to be perceived as fallible by it's members. The Mormon church sees itself as the Kingdom of God on earth, and doesn't make mistakes and has no need to apologize. It's modus operandi is shifting blame to the members. "The church is perfect; the members are not." And the members, possibly subconsciously, even, are hesitant to apologize for something that may then belie the fact that their church isn't really ran by a man who receives special direction straight from God.

Several states have apologized for slavery, Germans for the Holocaust - why can't Mormons apologize for the MMM? I believe Mormons have as strong a group association as anyone else, yet they cannot seem to make proper amends. Could it be that it is a reluctance to admit their leaders aren't guided by God? That God, if He exists, has not given any special direction to their prophet? Or could it be that they've taken cues from their leaders that accepting responsibilty for the MMM is verboten? I don't know for certain, but I don't see most Mormons as radical individualists, and feel their need to resist apology is the result of something else.

KA

[_beastie]

KA has a good point.

In theory, the LDS church does not teach that its prophets are infallible. But, in practice, they are treated as if they are. (and I have to add the necessary qualifier so no believer creates a strawman: the LDS practice of treating their leaders as infallible has only to do with the statements and guidance the prophet extends while functioning in his role as prophet, not to every statement the prophet ever makes in any setting)

So for the LDS church to admit serious error on the part of past prophets would be very unsettling to members who are used to the practice of infallible leaders.

[Gadianton]

Furthermore, I am a bit baffled by the modern need, typically felt by the PC folks, to solicite apologies from, and to, descendants, each of which are only loosely connected to things that occured in the very distant past (I have mostly in mind the Arab/Israeli conflict, the movement for black reparations, etc.). Thanks, -Wade Englund-

For those who think primarily in terms of individuals, all of this may be baffling. What seems hard for you and others to grasp is that groups have a collective responsibility in which each individual member may be implicated to an extent. This responsibility does not end when one generation passes and another takes the lead. I call it long-term social responsibility. As a member of a particular group, with all of its history, I incur the responsibilties of being a member, not only in terms of inner-group dynamics, but also in terms of the group's dealings with outsiders.

It is not surprising to me that those people who like to see responsibility in highly individualistic terms should have a problem understanding the idea of such a long-term, social responsibility. If the theology tells you that you are responsible for your own sins, not for those of others, then I can see how apologies for MMM would seem strange. It is not that there is a necessary relationship between the two concepts, but it is nevertheless easy to conflate them. Still, I see the potential in LDS theology for recognizing the good that can be done across generations. If the righteousness of the parents can save the children, and the righteousness of the children can save the parents, or ancestors, then perhaps people can in a sense right wrongs committed long ago.

What I have seen, in my personal experience, is an LDS tendency to ignore or avoid past and present problems with the LDS Church. The organization has a certain teflon quality that best insulates those closest to the top, but which also affects attitudes throughout the membership. It is not so unusual really, but in modern democratic society there has been a real backlash against this kind of elite privilege. The idea that all people in a society, regardless of their position, should be held responsible for their actions is, imho, a real improvement on the past.

Complete justice takes the past as well as the present into account has some utility, when it comes to righting certain kinds of wrongs. When it comes to murder, for example, there is no statute of limitations. There was no reprieve for those responsible for the Holocaust simply because they moved to South America and lived there in comfort for decades. I would add that when a certain wrong is associated sufficiently with a group as a whole, the group should do what is necessary to heal these wounds. I think it is part of the group's larger responsibility to humanity, and that goes for individuals in the group as well. Why? Because healing wounds, and lifting burdens is the right thing to do.

While I am keen on viewing things in terms of individual responsibility, I am not averse to considering group or social responsibility as well--though in a very limited way. Why? Because were one to take your "logic" to its fullest extent, one then must conclude that since a rape victim is as much a part of a social group or society as the rapist, then the rape victim is partially responsible/guilty for her own rape, and thus obliged to apologize. The same may be said for slaves, the holocaust, victims of drunk driving, victims of abuse, those massacred at Mountain Meadows, etc. To me, such conclusions are morally repugnant, thereby rendering your argument logically unreasonable, if not irrational.

What ways, then, would I limit the extent of social responsibility so as to be reasonable and rational? Well...I would tie the limits to the capacity of societies to effect positive change for the society as a whole. In other words, I would not make social responsibility a function of assigning social guilt and calling for public apologies, but rather as a means for mobilizing social action for the good of all parties concerned. That, to me, is the right thing to do.

The point being, the objective should be to stive for real social healing and health, and not some meaningless and fruitless PC gesture.

To me, for a variety of reasons, and on a variety of levels, it would be inane to have German children today apologize to Jewish children today for what happened more than a half a century before either of them were even born, particularly in lieu of addressing the currently growing problem of anti-Semitism in Germany. The same, I believe, is true in principle, and to some extent, for MMM, slavery, etc.

But, others may see it differently. And, if so, I would hope they would be consistent, and we will then be able to read their self-righteous calls to the current citizens of Illinois to apologize for the deaths and harm to the saints who were illegally expelled from Nauvoo; and their call to current Missourians to apologize for the extermination order; or their call to current Ohioans to apologize for the persecution of the saints in Kirtland; or the whole United States today to apologize for the sending an army to attack the saints in the Salt Lake valley, etc. I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

KA has a good point.

In theory, the LDS church does not teach that its prophets are infallible. But, in practice, they are treated as if they are. (and I have to add the necessary qualifier so no believer creates a strawman: the LDS practice of treating their leaders as infallible has only to do with the statements and guidance the prophet extends while functioning in his role as prophet, not to every statement the prophet ever makes in any setting)

So for the LDS church to admit serious error on the part of past prophets would be very unsettling to members who are used to the practice of infallible leaders.

Whether your's and KA's stereotyping of LDS is accurate or not, I think it a healthy aspect of human nature to be very unsettle when placing blame for (or admit to) serious errors when the blame or guilt for those serious errors has not been reasoanbly established. In fact, it is the basis of the fundamental precept of jurisprudence called "presumption of innocence".

Unfortunately, not everyone is guided by this healthy precept. Instead, they may be guided by personal prejudice and animosity. Consequently, we have some people here illegitimately and self-righteously calling for apologies from other people far removed from the "serious error" of MMM, and on behalf of leaders who have been unreasonably presumed guilty of the "serious error" of MMM (sans compelling evidence in support thereof, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt).

Ironic, huh?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_capt jack]

And, if so, I would hope they would be consistent, and we will then be able to read their self-righteous calls to the current citizens of Illinois to apologize for the deaths and harm to the saints who were illegally expelled from Nauvoo; and their call to current Missourians to apologize for the extermination order

Illinois apologized in 2004; in fact, it was reported that Mr Hinckley was moved to tears over their asking for forgiveness.

Missouri apologized in 1976 for the extermination order, at the same time they officially took removed it from the books.

[_Trevor]

All of you have offered interesting responses to my post. Unfortunately I am preparing for a job review, and I do not have time to offer a proper response to everyone. Still, I will offer a few brief thoughts.

I am not the person who continues to bring up blame. I only note that some seem overly concerned with avoiding it. Why? Do you fear that someone is going to punish you for the murders at Mountain Meadows?

Second, "since when and who" are such big questions that they would require a book to answer. I think it comes down to recognizing, or failing to recognize, one's implication in a group identity and group responsibility. Perhaps these things don't have a since when or who about them. They simply exist, from my point of view.

Third, on the individualism vs. conformity issue. Mormons, in general, are very group think when it comes to relations within the organization. When it comes to how they view their rights and responsibilities within society as a whole, and in relation to the government, they tend toward a libertarian stance. In other words, in dealing with the outside world they are highly individualistic. With this kind of mindset, Mormons are not likely to see their group responsibility in relation to the outside world.

As for 150 years, the time is always now to do the right thing. It has not been done, and 150 years does not mean it is past necessity. Until wrongs have been made right, people ought not to rest fat and happy saying "it's not my fault; I'm not to blame." They should push to get the right thing done or do it themselves.

[_wenglund]

And, if so, I would hope they would be consistent, and we will then be able to read their self-righteous calls to the current citizens of Illinois to apologize for the deaths and harm to the saints who were illegally expelled from Nauvoo; and their call to current Missourians to apologize for the extermination order

Illinois apologized in 2004; in fact, it was reported that Mr Hinckley was moved to tears over their asking for forgiveness.

Missouri apologized in 1976 for the extermination order, at the same time they officially took removed it from the books.

Can you document this? (I ask out of curiousity so as to see if they were explicit apologies or expressions of regret, and to find out specifically what was being apologized for and on behalf of whom)

Whatever the case, the point of my comments wasn't to question whether these states had apologiezed or not, but whether those here, who have been calling for the Church to apologize, also actively petitioned those states to do the same. I deriously doubt that they did.

Even still, as a descendant of the saints who lived in those days, I am not sure what difference these alleged apologies have made as contrasted with circumstances prior to the apologies. Now that I am aware of them, I don't feel or think any differently about those states and the current citizens thereof. But, maybe that is because I already thought highly of them (or at least held no ill-will towards them, nor considered them quilty and in need of apology), and for me contemporary apologies for things that those expressing the apologies had nothing to do with, and are far removed therefrom, is a somewhat meaningless and valueless jesture, particularly in light of all the unwarranted prejudice still being expressed by individuals today towards my sacred beliefs. In other words, the alleged apologies didn't undo past wrongs, nor have they improved, in any significant or meaningful way, the present, nor likely the future.

Now, if you can show me where PP, and Mercury, and Schmo, and KimberlyAnn, (not to mention numerous others at RFM)., have genuinely apologized for their demonstrable and unwarrantedly denegration of my faith, then that may be a different story.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

So Wade, can you provide a link to where you apologized for linking homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia?

[_capt jack]

And, if so, I would hope they would be consistent, and we will then be able to read their self-righteous calls to the current citizens of Illinois to apologize for the deaths and harm to the saints who were illegally expelled from Nauvoo; and their call to current Missourians to apologize for the extermination order

Illinois apologized in 2004; in fact, it was reported that Mr Hinckley was moved to tears over their asking for forgiveness.

Missouri apologized in 1976 for the extermination order, at the same time they officially took removed it from the books.

Can you document this? (I ask out of curiousity so as to see if they were explicit apologies or expressions of regret, and to find out specifically what was being apologized for and on behalf of whom)

Whatever the case, the point of my comments wasn't to question whether these states had apologiezed or not, but whether those here, who have been calling for the Church to apologize, also actively petitioned those states to do the same. I deriously doubt that they did.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Illinois's statement can be read about here. It is reported they asked for "pardon and forgiveness".

Also from the byunewsnet article:

"We acknowledge the disparity of those past actions and suspicions, regretting the expulsion of the community of Latter-day Saints, a people of faith and hard work... we ask the pardon and forgiveness of the community of Latter-day Saints for the misguided efforts of our citizens, Chief Executive and General Assembly in the expulsion of their Mormon ancestors from the gleaming city of Nauvoo and the State of Illinois."

The statement from Missouri, issued in 1976, is the following:

WHEREAS, on October 27, 1838, the Governor of the State of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, signed an order calling for the extermination or expulsion of Mormons from the State of Missouri; and

WHEREAS, Governor Boggs' order clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and

WHEREAS, in this bicentennial year as we reflect on our nation's heritage, the exercise of religious freedom is without question one of the basic tenets of our free democratic republic;

Now, THEREFORE, I, CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Governor of the State of Missouri, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Missouri, do hereby order as follows:

Expressing on behalf of all Missourians our deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering which was caused by the 1838 order, I hereby rescind Executive Order Number 44, dated October 27, 1838, issued by Governor W. Boggs.

In witness I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the great seal of the State of Missouri, in the city of Jefferson, on this 25 day of June, 1976.

(Signed) Christopher S. Bond, Governor.

[_Jason Bourne]

The LDS Corporation is very much responsible and owes an apology for the MMM

.


I think apologizing would be a good thing. But for reasons different then yours.

It's 2nd leader in command, one Brigham Young, ordered the MMM.

I assume you have evidence for this declaration. Other wise shut up already.

The current corporation while not legally culpable is most assuredly just as guilty for trying so hard to bury it.

And Infyntus, just how are they trying to bury it.

Why is it so many exmo's are so angry that they turn into blathering idiots?