Why the insistence on no apology offered?

[_wenglund]

Were your perception of the Church not projective and warped by your own evident bias and prejudice, then you may have a valid point. I see your comments instead as inadvertantly reinforcing the Savior's mote/beam counsel. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, do you think your own perception of the church is projective and warped by your own evident bias and prejudice?

To a degree, yes.

Why or why not?

It is, in some ways, unavoidable and a function of the interpretive lense shaped by our personal experience and worldview.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Yoda]

I am sorry, but your comments made me all the more confused.

If, as you suggested, the descendants were happy with the Church's heart-felt expression of regret, and didn't mistake it for an apology (or, in other words, they didn't mistake it for a tacit admission of guilt--whether by association or otherwise), then how could it be a slap in their face for the Church to clarify, for those who may have been mistaken, that it was not an apology/admission of guilt?

I just think it's poor social form. The descendants of these families have been waiting for years for some type of heart-felt acknowledgment from the Church. First of all, I don't understand why it took such a long time in coming, but I'm glad it did come. In my mind, this is the first part of bad PR. Acknowledging that this was a horrific act and that the Church, as an organization, regrets it happening, is something that should have been done immediately.
In not immediately acknowledging this regret, it looks like the Church had something to hide. Then, to follow this up with an immediate, "now you understand we're not apologizing.." is tacky and hurtful in the way it comes across. But who knows? Maybe I'm just being an over-sensitive female. LOL

As I was responding to you, I just saw your latest post:

In other words, if you want to apologize for MMM, then by all means have at it. But, if I and other members, or the Church itself, thinks an expression of regret (not to be confused with an apology) is sufficient, particularly in light of more immediate, pressing, and higher priority issue facing us all, then by all means let us have at it.

Is that agreeable to you?

Yes, it's agreeable, and has always been the case, as far as I'm concerned. I suppose, for me, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I was simply voicing my frustration and disappointment in how I perceive Church PR to have handled this situation. I think it was handled poorly.

I'll leave it at that.

;)

[_Jason Bourne]

I am sorry, but your comments made me all the more confused.

If, as you suggested, the descendents were happy with the Church's heart-felt expression of regret, and didn't mistake it for an apology (or, in other words, they didn't mistake it for a tacit admission of guilt--whether by association or otherwise), then how could it be a slap in their face for the Church to clarify, for those who may have been mistaken, that it was not an apology/admission of guilt?

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.). While I don't doubt that such solicitations are intended to heal. I believe they are terribly mis-directed (not only unjustly and unmercifully shouldering the innocent with inferred guilt and responsibility), but from what I have observed, they tend to do just the opposite (stirring up strife and greater divisiveness). It also shifts public focus from current conflicts and divisions (for which some of the living bear direct responsibility), as well as away from truly effectual avenues for healing (such as mediating, in good faith, mutually beneficial, contemporary resolutions), and towards relatively meaningless gestures that cannot change the past or positively influence the present and future. It's like were estranged siblings to, instead of working to resolve their own differences, went about soliciting apologies from each other for a dispute their parents had before the siblings were even born. Where is the sense in that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not surprisingly we disagree. It seems that you and other defenders go through such gyrations to avoid a simple "We are sorry about this." I guess it is like the book Everything I Needed to Know in Life I learned in Kindergarten. Just say you are sorry and move on. It seems the LDS Church would even get a lot of goodwill capital by so doing.

[_wenglund]

I am sorry, but your comments made me all the more confused.

If, as you suggested, the descendents were happy with the Church's heart-felt expression of regret, and didn't mistake it for an apology (or, in other words, they didn't mistake it for a tacit admission of guilt--whether by association or otherwise), then how could it be a slap in their face for the Church to clarify, for those who may have been mistaken, that it was not an apology/admission of guilt?

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.). While I don't doubt that such solicitations are intended to heal. I believe they are terribly mis-directed (not only unjustly and unmercifully shouldering the innocent with inferred guilt and responsibility), but from what I have observed, they tend to do just the opposite (stirring up strife and greater divisiveness). It also shifts public focus from current conflicts and divisions (for which some of the living bear direct responsibility), as well as away from truly effectual avenues for healing (such as mediating, in good faith, mutually beneficial, contemporary resolutions), and towards relatively meaningless gestures that cannot change the past or positively influence the present and future. It's like were estranged siblings to, instead of working to resolve their own differences, went about soliciting apologies from each other for a dispute their parents had before the siblings were even born. Where is the sense in that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not surprisingly we disagree. It seems that you and other defenders go through such gyrations to avoid a simple "We are sorry about this." I guess it is like the book Everything I Needed to Know in Life I learned in Kindergarten. Just say you are sorry and move on. It seems the LDS Church would even get a lot of goodwill capital by so doing.

I suppose that "gyration" is in the eye of the beholder. As I see it, the Church, on its own volition, has recently expressed heart-felt and genuine regret and soundly condemned what happened at Mountain Meadows. But, that "simple" jesture turns out to not be enough for you and others. For whatever reason, you and others are unable to gain peace or move on like the rest of us from this bit of ancient history until you hear the specific words: "We are sorry about this" or "We apologize for this", perhaps supposing that those specific words, unlike the heart-felt sentiment already expressed, will somehow make a positive difference to all parties concerned (i.e. those of us living today that were not in any way involved in what occured 150 years ago, nor should we be adversely affected by what happened 150 years ago). This, to me, is gyration.

But, as intimated earlier: "to each their own".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

I am reminded of the Book of Mormon's thoughts concerning the pertinence of the deep past. In that book, the past impacts the present all of the time, sometimes with positive, and sometimes with negative consequences. The Nephites think it is important to remember the traditions of their ancestors, their experiences in fleeing oppression in Egypt, and the role of God in bringing them out. Without a memory of God's role in their lives, they would become prey to false traditions, as they characterize them, like those of the Lamanites, who focus forever on what Nephi supposedly took away from Laman and Lemuel.

The problem with the Lamanites was not that they were stuck in the past. The problem was that they had an erroneous view of the past through which they justified their own wrongdoings and placed the blame on others. I think this Book of Mormon lesson has interesting applications to contemporary Mormonism's handling of the MMM. Even the most recent 'official' version of that history is self-serving and exculpatory. Little mention is made of the role Brigham Young did play in fostering an atmosphere of violence, both by preaching extreme ideas and using the Indians to disrupt emigrant travel through the territory.

Rather than face the consequences of acknowledging past excesses of the leaders, the LDS Church continues to shift the blame where it often ends up falling--on the regular members. Brigham placed all the blame on Lee. The new, official Mormon line simply spreads that blame a little wider, so long as it remains restricted to lower, local leadership. It is oddly reminiscent of apostles who call up stake presidents to haul in an apostate with instructions not to reveal the central Church's interest in the matter. It's all local. Sure. These are some of the consequences of a false identification of leaders with God to the point that leaders' faults and humanity remain hidden behind a cloak of secrecy and obfuscation.

As a historian, I think the evidence points to the responsibility of Mormon leaders from the 1830s to the 1850s for creating an atmosphere of violence and vengeance against outsiders and apostates whose almost inevitable end was some kind of tragedy like the MMM. Unfortunately, the Church yet lacks the ability to meet its responsibilities to the larger American society it wants to be embraced by in acknowledging past wrongs and faults. The 'I didn't do it' line could be technically correct, and it may be reassuring to those of tender faith, but it is simply not credible to discerning Mormons and non-Mormons. The impression it creates, which is neither totally justified nor totally unjustified, is that Mormons are arrogant and insensitive.

My hope is that the leadership of the LDS Church will learn that this approach will no longer work, and that it is time to bring real healing to the situation. The past is important to the present, as any astute reading of the Book of Mormon shows. It is a fullsome and honest representation of the past that is required to deal effectively with the present. Fairytales of self-justification do the community harm.

[_Jason Bourne]

I suppose that "gyration" is in the eye of the beholder. As I see it, the Church, on its own volition, has recently expressed heart-felt and genuine regret and soundly condemned what happened at Mountain Meadows. But, that "simple" jesture turns out to not be enough for you and others. For whatever reason, you and others are unable to gain peace or move on like the rest of us from this bit of ancient history until you hear the specific words: "We are sorry about this" or "We apologize for this", perhaps supposing that those specific words, unlike the heart-felt sentiment already expressed, will somehow make a positive difference to all parties concerned (I.e. those of us living today that were not in any way involved in what occured 150 years ago, nor should we be adversely affected by what happened 150 years ago). This, to me, is gyration.

But, as intimated earlier: "to each their own".

Thanks, -Wade Englund

]

Well Wade, here is the problem. I was quite pleased with what Elder Eyring said and I am still am. I even thought it was an apology until a Church spokesmen went out of his way to emphasize it was not an apology. For me that kind of took the air out of it all.

[_wenglund]

I am reminded of the Book of Mormon's thoughts concerning the pertinence of the deep past. In that book, the past impacts the present all of the time, sometimes with positive, and sometimes with negative consequences. The Nephites think it is important to remember the traditions of their ancestors, their experiences in fleeing oppression in Egypt, and the role of God in bringing them out. Without a memory of God's role in their lives, they would become prey to false traditions, as they characterize them, like those of the Lamanites, who focus forever on what Nephi supposedly took away from Laman and Lemuel.

The problem with the Lamanites was not that they were stuck in the past. The problem was that they had an erroneous view of the past through which they justified their own wrongdoings and placed the blame on others. I think this Book of Mormon lesson has interesting applications to contemporary Mormonism's handling of the MMM. Even the most recent 'official' version of that history is self-serving and exculpatory. Little mention is made of the role Brigham Young did play in fostering an atmosphere of violence, both by preaching extreme ideas and using the Indians to disrupt emigrant travel through the territory.

Rather than face the consequences of acknowledging past excesses of the leaders, the LDS Church continues to shift the blame where it often ends up falling--on the regular members. Brigham placed all the blame on Lee. The new, official Mormon line simply spreads that blame a little wider, so long as it remains restricted to lower, local leadership. It is oddly reminiscent of apostles who call up stake presidents to haul in an apostate with instructions not to reveal the central Church's interest in the matter. It's all local. Sure. These are some of the consequences of a false identification of leaders with God to the point that leaders' faults and humanity remain hidden behind a cloak of secrecy and obfuscation.

As a historian, I think the evidence points to the responsibility of Mormon leaders from the 1830s to the 1850s for creating an atmosphere of violence and vengeance against outsiders and apostates whose almost inevitable end was some kind of tragedy like the MMM. Unfortunately, the Church yet lacks the ability to meet its responsibilities to the larger American society it wants to be embraced by in acknowledging past wrongs and faults. The 'I didn't do it' line could be technically correct, and it may be reassuring to those of tender faith, but it is simply not credible to discerning Mormons and non-Mormons. The impression it creates, which is neither totally justified nor totally unjustified, is that Mormons are arrogant and insensitive.

My hope is that the leadership of the LDS Church will learn that this approach will no longer work, and that it is time to bring real healing to the situation. The past is important to the present, as any astute reading of the Book of Mormon shows. It is a fullsome and honest representation of the past that is required to deal effectively with the present. Fairytales of self-justification do the community harm.

In order to have "real healing", there first needs to be demonstrated that there are "real wounds". So, who today are supposedly "really wounded" by this ancient history? What is the extent and nature of their alleged "real wounds"? And, what caused the "real wound"?

Once that is reasonably demonstrated, there then needs to be demonstrated that: 1) the suggested way to "really heal" (i.e. the Church making an apology?) will "really heal"; 2) how the suggested way would "really heal" when expressions of regret and condemnation of the ancient actions in question supposedly haven't brought about "real healing"; and 3) the suggested way to "really heal" doesn't inadvertantly open other old or new wounds.

Good luck.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Well Wade, here is the problem. I was quite pleased with what Elder Eyring said and I am still am. I even thought it was an apology until a Church spokesmen went out of his way to emphasize it was not an apology. For me that kind of took the air out of it all.

Can you explain why it took the air out of it? Was it because you mistook Elder Eyring's comments to be an implicit apology, and an apology (as opposed to an expression of regret and condemnation of the actions in question) is really what you needed in order to have peace and be able to move on from this ancient history like the rest of us?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

It's instructive to compare MMM to the Missouri and Illinois persecution of Latter-day Saints. To this day people (myself included) get rather emotional discussing the murder and plunder and rape of our ancestors (my ancestors experienced mobs in Kirtland, Missouri, and Illinois). Recounting the murder of Joseph Smith stirs deep wells of emotions in church members (again, myself included), as it should. The state legislatures of Illinois and Missouri have publicly apologized for the state's involvement in driving the Mormons from their respective states.

And yet I don't hear people telling Mormons to put this "ancient history" behind them. No one questions whether there are "real wounds." And no one wonders if remembering our dead "opens up new wounds" instead of healing.

[_Yoda]

Well Wade, here is the problem. I was quite pleased with what Elder Eyring said and I am still am. I even thought it was an apology until a Church spokesmen went out of his way to emphasize it was not an apology. For me that kind of took the air out of it all.

Can you explain why it took the air out of it? Was it because you mistook Elder Eyring's comments to be an implicit apology, and an apology (as opposed to an expression of regret and condemnation of the actions in question) is really what you needed in order to have peace and be able to move on from this ancient history like the rest of us?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can't speak for Jason, but I can shed light on why the second statement deflated the first for me.

The Church came across as being more concerned about being "right" or being "blamed" than it did about the expression of regret.

Had the deafening silence regarding the regret of the issue not happened, then I don't think this would have stung as much as it did.

I'm a mother of 3 children...and the thought of two out of the 3 being slaughtered because they were over the age of 8, and the third being brought back and adopted out to another family after witnessing the murder of his mother, father, and two sisters, just doesn't sit well with me.

Yes, I'm personalizing it Wade, but that's what happened to those people.

It's wrong. It's evil.

And, no, I don't find the Church directly at fault.

The murderers who committed this heinous crime are, hopefully, rotting in hell.

However, the fact remains that these murderers were a body of members of our Church, and very wrongly vocally acting as representatives of that Church!

And I think that, number one, it was irresponsible of the Church to not address this before now.

But, when the Church finally decides to do the right thing and publicly acknowledge regret, they turn right around and make sure that their own ass is covered.

Sorry, Wade...I don't know how much clearer I can be in spelling out where this conflict is coming from.

Is it emotional? You bet it is.