Vengeance is Mine, and I have Taken a Little

[_Doctor Steuss]

Just posted by "Luigi" over on the other side:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695209108,00.html

[_Yoda]

Just posted by "Luigi" over on the other side:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695209108,00.html

This is a long time coming!

I am glad that the Church finally came out with this apology. I hope they do the right thing and turn this property over to the families of the victims.

[_moksha]

This apology was a vey good thing and was very appropriate for the occasion of this Mountain Meadows Massacre aniversery.

As Robert Kirby said:

As unforgivable as that was, just as troubling to me were our subsequent efforts to dodge The Truth, to cover it up, to water it down, to pretend that it never happened or, worse, to blame it on others.
I heard all the self-serving explanations for Mountain Meadows, ranging from the deliberately obfuscating to the patently ludicrous: "Indians did it." "The immigrants had it coming." "We only shot them a little."
Historians, notably the inestimable Juanita Brooks, who tried to bring the facts of the massacre to light, were ostracized by fellow Mormons and even threatened by church leaders. We couldn't, it seemed, handle The Truth about ourselves.
Considering what we believed about ourselves, it's understandable that we didn't want to talk about it. After all, if enduring persecution is all the proof we need of having The Truth, what's proven when we're the ones causing it?
Faith can be a tricky business. It's a valuable lesson we should have learned years ago. As we commemorate the 150th anniversary of Mountain Meadows next week, we can start by realizing that faith is something we owe God, not other human beings.

[_Runtu]

Just posted by "Luigi" over on the other side:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695209108,00.html

This is a long time coming!

I am glad that the Church finally came out with this apology. I hope they do the right thing and turn this property over to the families of the victims.

I'm happy they did the right thing and apologized. The descendants of the victims have waited a long time for this. Maybe now some healing can begin.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I am glad that the Church finally came out with this apology.

I hate to be a party-pooper, but I read the statement to place the blame only on local Church leaders, which is the position the Church has taken for some time now. Also, the fact the Church "regrets" the massacre is no different than the regrets the Brethren have expressed for a long time. I don't see it as an "apology" unless the Church institution accepts some responsibility for what happened -- and I just don't see it in Eyring's statement.

[_Doctor Steuss]

re•gret

Synonyms 1. deplore, lament, bewail, bemoan, mourn, sorrow, grieve. Regret, penitence, remorse imply a sense of sorrow about events in the past, usually wrongs committed or errors made. Regret is distress of mind, sorrow for what has been done or failed to be done: to have no regrets. Penitence implies a sense of sin or misdoing, a feeling of contrition and determination not to sin again: a humble sense of penitence. Remorse implies pangs, qualms of conscience, a sense of guilt, regret, and repentance for sins committed, wrongs done, or duty not performed: a deep sense of remorse.

From Dictionary.com

Or if I use my handy-dandy rick-click tool in Microsoft Word to give me synonyms, I get:

be sorry
be apologetic
apologize for
be repentant
feel sorry
be disappointed
be unhappy
lament

I'm sure Eyring didn't mean any of these though, (except for the ones that don't carry a connotation of apologizing).

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I'm sure Eyring didn't mean any of these though, (except for the ones that don't carry a connotation of apologizing).

By continuing to blame LOCAL Church leaders, it's obvious (at least to me) that the Brethren did not intend to offer an apology on behalf of the Church institution or accept any responsibility for what happened.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I'm sure Eyring didn't mean any of these though, (except for the ones that don't carry a connotation of apologizing).

By continuing to blame LOCAL Church leaders, it's obvious (at least to me) that the Brethren did not intend to offer an apology on behalf of the Church institution or accept any responsibility for what happened.

I just see this as a glass-half-full deal. Over at MA&D, I was disappointed when someone tainted the thread with the question “Will this be enough?” (signifying that critics that use this as a LDS bashing stick will never be happy). But, maybe they were actually asking in sincerity as it seems there are some that it isn’t enough.

What will it take? Seriously? An apology from the First Presidency? Do people who converted (or whose parents, or grandparents converted) to the church after MMM need to apologize too? Does it just need to be “We’re sorry for what our great-great-great ancestors did”? Do the words "apologize" need to be in there? Who does it need to acknowledge as blaimworthy?

What will be an acceptable apology? I'm dead serious. I'm guessing you have pain from this incident, so I'm asking, what kind of an apology will finally help lead to healing? I thought that Eyring was moving in the right direction, but from your comments (as someone who evidently has a vested interest in the event [I assume you are a descendent?]) it’s evident that this isn’t enough.

What will it take to move forward?

[_Mercury]

I am glad that the Church finally came out with this apology.

I hate to be a party-pooper, but I read the statement to place the blame only on local Church leaders, which is the position the Church has taken for some time now. Also, the fact the Church "regrets" the massacre is no different than the regrets the Brethren have expressed for a long time. I don't see it as an "apology" unless the Church institution accepts some responsibility for what happened -- and I just don't see it in Eyring's statement.

This was exactly my sentiment as well. There is no question that Brigham young initiated the attack, the coverup and the spirit of fanaticism leading up to the terrorist attack.

This "apology" is nothing more than a sugar coated continuation of the party line.

[Tator]

I hate to be a party-pooper, but I read the statement to place the blame only on local Church leaders, which is the position the Church has taken for some time now. Also, the fact the Church "regrets" the massacre is no different than the regrets the Brethren have expressed for a long time. I don't see it as an "apology" unless the Church institution accepts some responsibility for what happened -- and I just don't see it in Eyring's statement.

Rollo,

I think this is a step forward because I don't think the church has ever admitted that local leaders of the church, acting in their positions as leaders in the LDS church were responsible for the attack. In the past, they've wanted to attribute it solely to some rogue Mormons, acting as a militia, not as church leaders (as if the two weren't conflated). In fact, apologists on MAD have repeated that story line and resisted admitting what this statement does admit: that the attack was coordinated by leaders acting in their callings as leaders of the church.

It is simply unrealistic to ever expect that the church will lay even one particle of blame at BY's feet. For one thing, as far as I know, that cannot be proven, except indirectly. Plus, they're just not going to implicate the prophet. Despite MAD apologists' insistence that LDS do not view their prophets as not being allowed to lead them astray, we all know that's a deep part of the culture, so to admit he may have been involved in the murders is the equivalent of them admitting the church isn't true.

I do think the statement could have included admissions that the lGAs of the time period engaged in vitriolic rhetoric - they could even couch it as a reaction to past persecution, which is was, at least partly. But I don't think that will ever happen. I think this apology was as much as we'll ever get, and it's much better than the former denial and silence.

Edit on - I do think that admission of involvement in the cover up could be reasonable, because that's pretty obvious. I'm not an expert by any means, but from what I've read, I think the strongest case can be made for BY's involvement in the violent rhetoric of the time period, and the cover-up.

But, as Steuss pointed out, I think it is important to recognize this as a positive step forward. And maybe it should be enough.