Why the insistence on no apology offered?

[_Dr. Shades]

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).

It's my understanding that no Mormons were raped throughout the Kirtland, Missouri, or Illinois periods, and the notion that there were any is just an urban legend.

Do you (or does anyone else) have sources which document any instances of rape during the persecution eras?

[_Runtu]

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).

It's my understanding that no Mormons were raped throughout the Kirtland, Missouri, or Illinois periods, and the notion that there were any is just an urban legend.

Do you (or does anyone else) have sources which document any instances of rape during the persecution eras?

A couple of citations:

Our people are kidnapped, and carried into Missouri, and there are insulted and whipped (as many have been) and cast into prison, and left to get out as they could. All this without the forms of trial. Missouri is by these brutal means endeavouring to make the public think that they have cause for this barbarity. But, let me ask your honorable body, what excuse can be pled for such inhuman barbarity and brutal recklessness? Let me further ask the attention of your honorable body to the fact, that all the before described outrages were committed by a body of men calling themselves militia, called out by order of the governor for the professed object of seeing that the laws were kept, and their supremacy maintained. Such was their pretended object, and under this cover they put at defiance the laws of both God and man; of nature, humanity, and decency; and in these unhallowed abuses of all the laws of civilized society in the world, they were upheld by the authorities of the state, and actually paid by the state, for committing theft, robbery, rapine, violence rape, and murder, with innumerable cruelties, painful to mention. (Nauvoo Neighbor Jan. 31, 1844).

Taken together, these petitions "tell a unified story of murder, rape, beating, thievery, and general lawlessness perpetrated upon the Saints while they were in Missouri. They make clear that the abuses which the Mormons suffered were not the result of spontaneous uprisings led by drunken town rabble (although there were clearly opportunists among the mobbers) but that these uprisings carried the sanction of the local and state governments. The petitions imply that the mobbing had a twofold objective: first, to drive all the Mormons into Caldwell County; and second, to drive them from the state. Both objectives were achieved. The petitions also indicate--at least from the petitioners' point of view--that religious differences were central to the conflict. Time and time again mobbers asked the Mormons if they were followers of Joseph Smith, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or believers in the Book of Mormon" ("The Missouri Redress Petitions: A Reappraisal of Mormon Persecutions in Missouri," BYU Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1986, pp. 36-43).

I'll have to see if I can find the actual redress petitions, which should give details.

Here's more:

Times and Seasons, May 1, 1844:

Is it a republican form of government where such a blood-chilling tragedy as this, is acted in the face and eyes of all the authorities of this nation, and no redress be had? Let your honorable body give the answer. Is it a fact that in this boasted land of liberty, that a man's crimes, either pretended or real, are sufficient to subject his bosom companion to insult, his daughters to rape, himself and family to starvation and exile? Let it be answered by every virtuous man and woman in letters of gold, big with meaning, No! Yet all these outrages have been committed upon us without there being the first crime proved against us; and yet after repeated application to the authorities of Missouri, for redress, we can obtain none.-Then to say the least, had she ought not to be made to feel the chastening hand of a parent nation, and as far as in her power, be made to restore to us, not only our rights and property, but damages for all the injury she has done us. This is our claim, and a just one too.

Times and Seasons, July 15, 1844:

They also named one or two individual females of our society, whom they had forcibly bound, and twenty or thirty, one after another, committed rape upon. One of these females was a daughter of a respectable family, with whom I have been long acquained [acquainted], and with whom I have since conversed, and learned that it was truly the case. Delicacy at present forbids my mentioning the names. I also heard several of the soldiers acknowledge and boast of having stolen money in one place, clothing and bedding in another, and horses in another, whilst corn, pork, and beef, were taken by the whole army to support the men and horses; and in many cases, cattle, hogs and sheep were shot down, and only a small portion of them used, the rest left to waste. Of these crimes, of which the soldiers boasted, the general officers freely conversed, and corroborated the same. And even General Doniphan, who professed to be opposed to such proceedings, acknowledge the truth of them; and gave us several particulars in detail. I believe the name of the man whose brains they knocked out, was Carey; and another individual who had his chest broken open and several hundred dollars in specie taken out, was the same Smith Humphrey whose house the mob burned at De Witt.

[Gadianton]

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.

I am all for emotions as long as they are balanced with, and not devoid of, reason and fairness. And, since your emotions are quite apparent, perhaps you can help me to see your reasoning.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

1) Are you suggesting that if, as a seeming after-thought, someone clarifies a previous pro-active remark, this means they are more concerned with the clarification than the pro-active remark? And, if so, what criteria are you using to determine the disparity in concern? (I am asking this as a general rule so as to determine if you have capriciously applied your standard to the Church)

2) The Church is filled with members and leaders who have children that they deeply love and care about, and who may well have rationally and emotionally, on that basis, as well as in light of other things, viewed the MMM as wrong and evil. Are you any different or better than them?

3) Even though the Church has been flogged with this issue over the last 150 years, and has in various ways and at various times attempted to engage it (consistently admitting that members were involved, and taking some action related thereto, but reasonably denying that the Church as a whole, or its leaders in particular, are culpable), you have viewed them as being irresponsible in their alleged "deafening silence", and think yourself emotionallty justified in continuing now to hold that alleged silence over the Church's head, inspite of the recent heartfelt expressions of regret and condemnation, and this because the Church later thought to make a reasonable clarification. Is that correct?

There were other questions that came to mind, but I am not sure it wise to ask them (and I question even asking the ones that I have). As I see it, oftimes the first causualties in emotional and sensational disputes such as this, are healthy senses of perspective and purpose. We become embroiled in the manutia and haggle seemingly mindlessly and directionless over details (some of which are quite minor and meaningless), and too often loose sight of the bigger picture and matters of most significance.

With that in mind, perhaps the best questions to ask are: a) what purpose is this discussion intended to serve? b) is this the most efficatious way to serve that purpose? and c) is serving this purpose, rather than other purposes, the best use of our time?

To me, if people can't be at peace and "move on" from ancient history even given a heartfelt expression of regret and condemnation of past actions, or if they view the wind being taken out of the heartfelt expression of regret and condemnation because of the supposed untimelyness of the expression and a subsequent reasonable clarification, then I question whether any reasonable and emotional and mutually benefitial purpose can be served. But, I could be wrong.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

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.

You evidently misunderstand what I mean by "moving on" from ancient history. I am not suggesting that people not continue to consider ancient history or be touched, per se, by what may have occured back then. In fact, I hope we all do often consider ancient history and are appropriately moved by it.

However, to me, "moving on" has to do with making effectual choices in response to what may touch us about ancient history. To me, that doesn't include becoming personally "wounded" by what happened to others centuries ago, or by looking to blame or extract apologies from people today who had nothing to do with what happened centuries ago. But rather it is a matter of honoring the memory of the dead by working to assure that the wrongs and evil aspects of ancient history don't repeat themselves. The fact that there since hasn't been another MMM involving Church members, or anything close thereto, is evidence that the Church and its members have "moved on" in this way. (The same, to some degree, can be said about the citizens of Missouri, Illinois, and Ohio).

I view this as a worthy point of consideration that is too often obscured by frequent attempts of critics, throughout the Church's history, to continually throw MMM in the Church's face, typically with the intent of sullying the Church's reputation. Such actions are far from "moving on" and honoring the memory of the dead, but ironically serve to open old and new wounds--though I won't expect an apology. ;-)

I hope I have made myself a little more clear now. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

As long as you have one group (the Fancher descendants) who believes the church bears some responsibility and another group (the church and people like you) who believes it doesn't, it will be impossible to move on.

[_wenglund]

As long as you have one group (the Fancher descendants) who believes the church bears some responsibility and another group (the church and people like you) who believes it doesn't, it will be impossible to move on.

That depends on how the Fancher descendants may choose to respond, today, in light of their unsubstantiatable belief about the Church's culpability 150 years ago. If they choose to make this bit of ancient history significant in their lives today, and do so in spite of history not repeating itself, and in spite of numerous contemporary issues that are far more signigicant (to the here and now) and pressing and worthy of current consideration; and if they choose to be "wounded" by something that did not happen to them, but happened to their ancestor hundreds of years ago; and if they choose to not to have their "wounds" healed by genuine and heartfelt expressions of regret and condemnation; then you are probably right about them not possibly moving on.

I, personally, don't believe they are that shallow or dysfunctional.

As for me and the Church, we moved on long ago (as explained in my previous post), showing that not only is it not impossible to move on, but probable.

By the way, and contrary to what you suggest, the conventions of professional mediation (which has a 75 to 95 percent success rate) suggest that agreement on historical facts is not requisite to successfully working out a mutually benefitial resolution (i.e moving on). In fact, it happens that way more often than not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

That depends on how the Fancher descendants may choose to respond, today, in light of their unsubstantiatable belief about the Church's culpability 150 years ago. If they choose to make this bit of ancient history significant in their lives today, and do so in spite of history not repeating itself, and in spite of numerous contemporary issues that are far more signigicant (to the here and now) and pressing and worthy of current consideration; and if they choose to be "wounded" by something that did not happen to them, but happened to their ancestor hundreds of years ago; and if they choose to not to have their "wounds" healed by genuine and heartfelt expressions of regret and condemnation; then you are probably right about them not possibly moving on.

I, personally, don't believe they are that shallow or dysfunctional.

As for me and the Church, we moved on long ago (as explained in my previous post), showing that not only is it not impossible to move on, but probable.

By the way, and contrary to what you suggest, the conventions of professional mediation (which has a 75 to 95 percent success rate) suggest that agreement on historical facts is not requisite to successfully working out a mutually benefitial resolution (I.e moving on). In fact, it happens that way more often than not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no doubt that as long as the church and its members treat the Fancher descendants thus, the wounds will stay open. Besides, I doubt very much the church has moved on, or it wouldn't be so defensive about the whole issue.

[_wenglund]

That depends on how the Fancher descendants may choose to respond, today, in light of their unsubstantiatable belief about the Church's culpability 150 years ago. If they choose to make this bit of ancient history significant in their lives today, and do so in spite of history not repeating itself, and in spite of numerous contemporary issues that are far more signigicant (to the here and now) and pressing and worthy of current consideration; and if they choose to be "wounded" by something that did not happen to them, but happened to their ancestor hundreds of years ago; and if they choose to not to have their "wounds" healed by genuine and heartfelt expressions of regret and condemnation; then you are probably right about them not possibly moving on.

I, personally, don't believe they are that shallow or dysfunctional.

As for me and the Church, we moved on long ago (as explained in my previous post), showing that not only is it not impossible to move on, but probable.

By the way, and contrary to what you suggest, the conventions of professional mediation (which has a 75 to 95 percent success rate) suggest that agreement on historical facts is not requisite to successfully working out a mutually benefitial resolution (I.e moving on). In fact, it happens that way more often than not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no doubt that as long as the church and its members treat the Fancher descendants thus, the wounds will stay open.

I am not sure they have "wounds", let alone that are still open (could you be projecting?). However, even if they do, then were the wounds to continue to remain open, particularly after the descendants have been treated so graciously and consilatorily by the Church in recent days (via the heart-felt expressions of regret and condemnation for what happened way back then), that would be a function of their choice and not the reasonable treatment they have received from the Church.

I could be wrong, but I don't see them reacting that way. Instead, I see them finding reconciliation (if reconciliation is needed) in the gracious things that have already been done, and this even if they may still hold the Chruch partially responsible. But, perhaps that may just be because I think more highly of them than you. ;-)

Besides, I doubt very much the church has moved on, or it wouldn't be so defensive about the whole issue.

Actually, the defensiveness is a result of making a concerted effort to move on, and being quite successful in doing so (as previously explained), but having the ancient history perpetually thrown in their face by those who haven't moved on, and who don't wish to move on because it wouldn't serve their dysfunctional or nefareous purposes (I am not here referring to the Fancher descendants, but to people not even genetically related thereto, but who get some warped pay-off from flogging the Church with this bit of ancient history).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

I am not sure they have "wounds", let alone that are still open (could you be projecting?). However, even if they do, then were the wounds to continue to remain open, particularly after the descendants have been treated so graciously and consilatorily by the Church in recent days (via the heart-felt expressions of regret and condemnation for what happened way back then), that would be a function of their choice and not the reasonable treatment they have received from the Church.

I have no wounds as far as MMM goes. I have repeatedly said that my only opinion is that the church would do well to accept responsibility, apologize, and move on. I don't see that happening, and I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I just thought it was rather callous to dismiss the descendants' feelings the way you did. Yeah, I know. I'm willfully misinterpreting you again. ;)

I could be wrong, but I don't see them reacting that way. Instead, I see them finding reconciliation (if reconciliation is needed) in the gracious things that have already been done, and this even if they may still hold the Chruch partially responsible. But, perhaps that may just be because I think more highly of them than you. ;-)

I have no doubt that you don't think particularly highly of me. That's OK.

Actually, the defensiveness is a result of making a concerted effort to move on, and being quite successful in doing so (as previously explained), but having the ancient history perpetually thrown in their face by those who haven't moved on, and who don't wish to move on because it wouldn't serve their dysfunctional or nefareous purposes (I am not here referring to the Fancher descendants, but to people not even genetically related thereto, but who get some warped pay-off from flogging the Church with this bit of ancient history).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If I have flogged the church with this bit of ancient history, please point out where and how. The only reason I commented on your last post was that it seemed inappropriately glib and dismissive.

[_Runtu]

I guess the reason that this has bothered me at all was that it was my daughter who brought it up to me. She was quite pleased that the church had, in her words, "apologized" for MMM. We talked for several minutes in the car about this, and she was genuinely proud of the church. (And for what it's worth, I have never talked to her about the MMM before, so don't think I've been teaching her it was the church's fault.) I can't bring myself to tell her that the church almost immediately insisted on denying that it was an apology.

Even if I were a believer, I would still be disappointed, as I'm sure my daugher would be.