Vengeance is Mine, and I have Taken a Little

[_beastie]

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... -massacre/

[_Runtu]

I don't get it. Why not just take the regret at face value instead of trying to parse it into a denial of blame. Charity has outdone herself.

I would never question the judgment of someone with an IQ of 150... which, If I recall correctly, is what she self reported. :O

That means I have a higher IQ than charity. Cool. :-)

The vast majority of MADdite apologists have viewed the idea of the church issuing an apology as ludicrous. And now that the leaders of the church have decided to do just that, or something very near just that, proving themselves to buy into the "victimology" mind-set, Charity has to find a way for the world to make sense again.

Exactly.

[_moksha]

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.

Can anybody help explain the psychology or other reasoning behind this?

[_Polygamy Porter]

Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.
"[you]We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret[/you],'" church spokesman
Mark Tuttle told The Associated Press.

Can anybody help explain the psychology or other reasoning behind this?

?

You need an explanation of a statement like that from a Mormon spin doc?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

What will be an acceptable apology?

Here's my suggestion: "The church has too long nurtured its persecution complex. Themes of vengeance, loyalty and martyrdom have been exhalted as Christlike. Whether Brigham Young ordered the MMM or not, he encouraged an environment capable of violence. The church will now teach forgiveness of the persecutions it suffered in the past in order to heal itself. The church hopes in this way to deserve forgiveness from those it has wronged in turn. The following song (and others like it) will be substantially revised:

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus annointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

Praise to his memory, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Stain Illinois* while the earth lauds his fame.

Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.

Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know "brother Joseph" again.

Chorus:

Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

How much responsibility for the MMM should be placed on Brigham Young? Indeed, there is no evidence he orchestrated the massacre or even condoned it, but was he not the instigator of the so-called Mormon Reformation which had much of Utah in a frenzy?

I don't believe that he ordered the massacre (whether he "condoned" it is more questionable, in my opinion, given the title of this thread, which is a BY quote). Nevertheless, I think he played a significant role in setting events in motion that led to the massacre. For me, Dimick Huntington's journal entry of the Sept. 1 meeting between BY and southern Utah Indian chiefs is evidence of BY's war strategy to shut down overland travel through Utah by emigrants (and, of course, the U.S. Army) by encouraging the Indians to attack any trains on the trail and take the cattle. A few days before this, BY had said that he understood that engagements between Indians and emigrants could lead to violence and slaughter. Indeed, the initial attack on the Fancher train was by the Indians, but this attack failed and a seige resulted. It was then that the Mormons got involved. When 3 or 4 of the Fancher party snuck out to try and get help in Cedar City (from the Mormons), they came upon some Mormons who shot at them (killing at least one and wounding others). These wounded made it back to the Fancher wagons, and informed the party that the Mormons were involved. At this point, the Mormons pretty much panicked. They knew that the Fancher party now knew they were involved, and if allowed to leave the Fancher party would sound the alarm in California and make the situation even worse than it was, what with the Army already bearing down on Utah. So at that time, in my opinion, the strategy became to eliminate all witnesses who knew of Mormon involvement with Indians in attacking emigrants (well, at least those old enough who the Mormons thought would be able to remember). And that's exactly what happened. in my opinion, the massacre itself was more about 'CYA' than anything else. And it was BY that started the ball rolling, even if he never envisioned a massacre (although he clearly understood that siccing Indians on emigrants could have serious violent consequences).

Until the Mormon church confesses institutional culpability in the MMM and admits Brigham Young's role in creating the environment which triggered the violence, then their apologies ring hollow.

I agree 100%.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wire ... -massacre/

I sure hate being right all the time. ;)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Apparently Church historian Richard Turley didn't get the memo from Bro. Tuttle. Here is Bro. Turley's interpretation, as reported in today's Trib:

The words, "we're sorry," were not part of the statement, but Richard Turley Jr., the LDS Church's managing director of family and church history and co-author of the forthcoming book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, insisted after the ceremony that the statement was meant to be an apology. ''[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry,'' he said. ''What happened here was horrific.''

[_Runtu]

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.

Apparently Church historian Richard Turley didn't get the memo from Bro. Tuttle. Here is Bro. Turley's interpretation, as reported in today's Trib:

The words, "we're sorry," were not part of the statement, but Richard Turley Jr., the LDS Church's managing director of family and church history and co-author of the forthcoming book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, insisted after the ceremony that the statement was meant to be an apology. ''[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry,'' he said. ''What happened here was horrific.''

I'm glad Turley said that. The weasel statement by Mark Tuttle, echoed by charity, is more than a bit nauseating.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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)?