harmony wrote:If the church had nothing to do with the tragedy, why are they at all interested in having anything to do with the monument? If they are indeed just bystanders, what interest do they have in something that doesn't concern them?
Inconceivable wrote:Several years ago when the new memorial was being erected, remains were found. It is shameful that little was done to recover/identify and properly bury loved ones. You would well give your own ancestors greater respect.
10:14 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
My suggestion is that we just get used to the fact that this is how it is and it will continue. After all Laman and Lemuel are sitting somewhere, still mad at Nephi for taking what "rightly belonged to them", if you want to know how long things like this will last, read the Book of Mormon and see when the Lamanites stopped hating the Nephites for what Nephi did. Or maybe you could go back and see how Satan is still brewing over losing out in the pre - existence, and that saga continues..... My suggestion is to be kind, and go on with our lives doing the best we can. The best way to put out a fire is not to fan it. If we can't put it out, at least don't jump into it.
10:19 p.m. Sept. 12, 2007
we once put out a fire with a water hose. maybe not the best way, but worked faster than "not fanning it"...
thestyleguy wrote:It's likely and very possible that Virgina did pass a resolution apologizing for slavery.
rcrocket wrote:You all anonymous non-believers and non-contributors have a lot of opinions about what the Church should and shouldn't do.
The "Church" is not a corpus like a corporation. It is a "corporation sole" which means that it is not owned by anybody. It exists as a body of believers.
There is no living person alive in the Church responsible for the massacre.
Yet, you ard your friends are so willing to mock and point fun, anonymously, at the Church for a horrendous tragedy for which it was not responsible.
In terms of deriding the Church for not conveying its property to the Fanchers, there just simply is no reason to do so.
I think the massacre a tragedy, and the Fanchers did not deserve their fate, but no living person today is responsible for that.
I am in receipt of a letter from a man who is not a member of the Church. He says that his little daughter has been [purposely left out of things] by her schoolmates who are Latter-day Saints. He sets forth another instance of a child who had a religious medal ripped from his neck by a Latter-day Saint child. I hope this is not true. If it is, I apologize to those who have been offended.
Gadianton wrote:Though I think my friend rcrocket might be right about the lack of involvement of the church in an official capacity in the MMM incident, I think it's odd he's using legal responsibility as a way out of an apology. It's true that UPS wouldn't be responsible for a driver with a machine gun. I have a feeling though even UPS would apologize to the victims and immediatly launch an investigation. Probably, they'd set up a panel or something to create measures that may prevent such incidents in the future.
Let me cite an example of how apology works somewhat independent of legal or even moral culpability.
President Hinckley's remarks
Gordon B. Hinckley says,I am in receipt of a letter from a man who is not a member of the Church. He says that his little daughter has been [purposely left out of things] by her schoolmates who are Latter-day Saints. He sets forth another instance of a child who had a religious medal ripped from his neck by a Latter-day Saint child. I hope this is not true. If it is, I apologize to those who have been offended.
Was Gordon B. Hinckley and the first presidency directly responsible for ripping a religious medal from a non-lds child?