Church Issues Statement about MMM

[_Runtu]

As I mentioned, my daughter brought this up last night. She said, "Dad, did you hear that the church apologized for the Mountain Meadows Massacre? I know that whole episode bothers you, but now the church has done the right thing and apologized." I told her I had heard and that I appreciated the apology; I agreed that it was the right thing to do. Then I went home and read that Mark Tuttle and charity were insisting that it wasn't an apology after all, and I was really disheartened. I'm kind of hoping my daughter never finds out about that part of it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Why is the church so defensive about this?

Simple. The Church institution is perfect and incapable of error. Think about it -- the Church has never apologized for anything in 177 years!

[_rcrocket]

I speak in legal terms to demonstrate that there is no need (compelling or otherwise), in terms of advancing the Church's mission, to offer an apology. There is no moral code which describes the circumstances under which an apology is required; it is only your subjective hatred of the Church which compels here.

There is no need to "accept responsibility" because there is no institutional responsibility to accept. You make a big deal of the Church's role in laying the table for the atrocity, but I note that the U.S. government was pretty quick to issue a blanket pardon for these table-laying activities.

The Commonwealth of Virgnia was responsible for slavery, but I don't see any compelling need for an apology to further any institutional need or compensate any victims.

As to Lee's reinstatement being a "big" deal or otherwise, the factors that lead to the reinstatement of an excommunicant have nothing to do with condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense. For instance, a serial child molester, excommunicated by the Church, may be (and they are) reinstated. The Church is neither condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense in doing so.

rcrocket

[cacheman]

I speak in legal terms to demonstrate that there is no need (compelling or otherwise), in terms of advancing the Church's mission, to offer an apology. There is no moral code which describes the circumstances under which an apology is required; it is only your subjective hatred of the Church which compels here.

I figured that was what was behind your post, Bob. You see us as using MMM as a club with which to beat the church. Why? Because we have a compulsive, subjective hatred of the Church. I can't speak for anyone else, but I agree that an apology is not "required," but I do believe that it would be the right thing to do, if nothing else to help end a century and a half of bad feelings. But hatred of the church? I think you've got the wrong people here.

There is no need to "accept responsibility" because there is no institutional responsibility to accept. You make a big deal of the Church's role in laying the table for the atrocity, but I note that the you.S. government was pretty quick to issue a blanket pardon for these table-laying activities.

That we disagree as to responsibility says nothing about people's motivations, Bob.

The Commonwealth of Virgnia was responsible for slavery, but I don't see any compelling need for an apology to further any institutional need or compensate any victims.

And there are people who disagree with you. Do they have a subjective hatred of the Commonwealth of Virginia?

As to Lee's reinstatement being a "big" deal or otherwise, the factors that lead to the reinstatement of an excommunicant have nothing to do with condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense. For instance, a serial child molester, excommunicated by the Church, may be (and they are) reinstated. The Church is neither condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense in doing so.

rcrocket

I don't really have an opinion about Lee's reinstatement, so I'll let you guys argue amongst yourselves.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I speak in legal terms to demonstrate that there is no need (compelling or otherwise), in terms of advancing the Church's mission, to offer an apology.

So, in other words, no apology is forthcoming because it wouldn't "advance the Church's mission"? You're just digging the hole deeper, Bob. And if this were the case, then I guess we cannot even consider the Church's expression of "profound reget" as sincere, right?

There is no moral code which describes the circumstances under which an apology is required; it is only your subjective hatred of the Church which compels here.

If BY and GAS played a role in setting the stage for the ultimate massacre (as I believe they did), any "moral code" would favor the Church's acknowledgement and apology. I have no hatred toward the Church -- I simply believe the Brethren ought to get off their infallibility obsession and admit the truth and apologize for the role(s) general Church leaders played in events that led to the massacre.

There is no need to "accept responsibility" because there is no institutional responsibility to accept.

This is precisely the Church's position, which is why Eyring's statement was not an apology, as so many seemed to think.

You make a big deal of the Church's role in laying the table for the atrocity, but I note that the you.S. government was pretty quick to issue a blanket pardon for these table-laying activities.

There was no "quick" about it. The peace conference went on for some time.

The Commonwealth of Virgnia was responsible for slavery, but I don't see any compelling need for an apology to further any institutional need or compensate any victims.

I never said anything about compensation. I simply believe an apology is in order.

As to Lee's reinstatement being a "big" deal or otherwise, the factors that lead to the reinstatement of an excommunicant have nothing to do with condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense. For instance, a serial child molester, excommunicated by the Church, may be (and they are) reinstated. The Church is neither condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense in doing so.

Then why were the Brethren so upset about the news getting out that they threatened to revoke Lee's reinstatement (essentially ex'ing him for a second time)?

[_rcrocket]

I am not very good a cut-and-paste repartee.

Why don't you just tell me the rule, or Biblical principle, or ethical code, which governs the Church and compels an apology? Then we'll dissect it and see it if applies to an institution that neither directed nor condoned it.

rcrocket

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Why don't you just tell me the rule, or Biblical principle, or ethical code, which governs the Church and compels an apology?

Do you really need a written rule somewhere in order to 'stand for something' and do the right thing?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I speak in legal terms to demonstrate that there is no need (compelling or otherwise), in terms of advancing the Church's mission, to offer an apology. There is no moral code which describes the circumstances under which an apology is required; it is only your subjective hatred of the Church which compels here.

There is no need to "accept responsibility" because there is no institutional responsibility to accept. You make a big deal of the Church's role in laying the table for the atrocity, but I note that the you.S. government was pretty quick to issue a blanket pardon for these table-laying activities.

The Commonwealth of Virgnia was responsible for slavery, but I don't see any compelling need for an apology to further any institutional need or compensate any victims.

As to Lee's reinstatement being a "big" deal or otherwise, the factors that lead to the reinstatement of an excommunicant have nothing to do with condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense. For instance, a serial child molester, excommunicated by the Church, may be (and they are) reinstated. The Church is neither condoning, approving or ratifying the original offense in doing so.

rcrocket

You are correct, the church may not need to apologize, just like Illinois didn't need to apologize to the LDS church in 2004, and Missouri didn't need to apologize to the LDS church in the 1970s, but both State legislatures did. Why would they do something that they weren't compelled to do? This may blow your mind but maybe they did it because they thought it would be a nice thing to do. Imagine that.

[_Inconceivable]

What is the relevance of John D. Lee's posthumous reinstatement? A person's lifetime crimes play almost no role in the Church's decision to reinstate somebody. The Church reasons that trying to ascertain whether the Lord will forgive the person is impossible, as the proxy work is contingent upon the moral worthiness of an individual beyond the Church's control. I imagine that Pres. McKay authorized the work to placate Lee's descendants, and not to approve the work. The more cogent question than Lee's reinstatement was why the Church reinstated Haight during Haight's lifetime, while Haight was a fugitive. Another time on that issue.

Your argument is very convincing and logical. I would agree wholeheartedly if there were not a precedence.

There is at least one signer of the Declaration of Independence that has been prohibited from receiving their temple work. He (they) remain unforgiven by the church.

(for those not aware of LDS doctrine, in order to qualify for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom where God, his wives dwell, you must be baptised into the Mormon church, sealed to your spouse (s) and children, and make covenants of abedience and sacrifice. If these ordenances are not completed while mortal, Mormon will provide these for you posthumously (by proxy).

In essence, John D. Lee was stripped of these saving ordinances (excommunicated) because he was deemed responsible for the murder and piliage of 120 souls, but then forgiven for murder by the church in order to reinstate these blessings/ordanences posthumously.

An example of Blood Atonement in our time? Was his penence his capital punishment? If so, why was he not reinstated immediately following his death? Time heals or history forgets?

Anyway, nearly great point.

[_christopher]

Why does the church own the land anyway? What would the interest or need be if "the church" had no involvement in the killings?

Chris <><