- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I came across this news article I wasn’t aware of. Apparently the Church owned up to the fact that local Church leaders were responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Also, apologized to the Indians on whom the entire massacre was erroneously blamed. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695209359/LDS-Church-issues-apology-over-Mountain-Meadows.html While I would rather this masscare didn’t happen in the first place, the fact there was a forthright apology and a taking-of-ownership is encouraging to me. This is how an organization with a claim to divine inspiration should act when it makes mistakes, in my view.
My only regret was that it too so long to actually happen. What do you think prompted it? The passage of time? The fact that it is being shouted from the rooftops via the Internet?
Quote:What do you think prompted it?
My guess?
1) The designation of the site as a National Historic Site – which the Church and the descendants of those killed jointly supported and which precipitated a deeper institutional study of the facts.
2) An institutional understanding of the facts.
Church leaders, by and large, are sincere people who try to act in accordance with how they see things. I think there was an institutional paradigm shift once the facts were understood better, just like what happened with OD2 and the lifting of the Priesthood ban.
I have no problem with the church apologizing and it’s wonderful to see. I’m not sure if I remember this from 2007 but I’m glad you refreshed my memory. People ARE fallible aren’t they? Even Mormons!
I’m glad that the mainstream church issued an apology. Now let’s wait for apologies from the folks that raided our settlements, killed our prophet, etc. I’m not holding my breath. Bruce in Montana wrote:I’m glad that the mainstream church issued an apology. Now let’s wait for apologies from the folks that raided our settlements, killed our prophet, etc. I’m not holding my breath.
Good to see you Bruce,
I do have the following example:
Quote:WHEREAS, on October 27, 1838, the Governor of the State of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, signed an order calling for the extermination or expulsion of Mormons from the State of Missouri; and
WHEREAS, Governor Boggs’ order clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and
WHEREAS, in this bicentennial year as we reflect on our nation’s heritage, the exercise of religious freedom is without question one of the basic tenets of our free democratic republic;
Now, THEREFORE, I, CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Governor of the State of Missouri, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Missouri, do hereby order as follows:
Expressing on behalf of all Missourians our deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering which was caused by the 1838 order, I hereby rescind Executive Order Number 44, dated October 27, 1838, issued by Governor W. Boggs.
In witness I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the great seal of the State of Missouri, in the city of Jefferson, on this 25 day of June, 1976.
(Signed) Christopher S. Bond, Governor.
I think there are several elements of “the extermination order” that make receiving an apology on this point easier than it would be on say, the actions of disorganized mob violence from 150 years ago.
I also think that the elements that prompted the extermination order apology are also present in the MMM apology.
Quote:While I would rather this masscare didn’t happen in the first place, the fact there was a forthright apology and a taking-of-ownership is encouraging to me. This is how an organization with a claim to divine inspiration should act when it makes mistakes, in my view.
It’s a good thing.
The Vatican has apologised for its role in WWII, which is a good thing too.
This is wonderful news. Just wonderful news. In fact, my heart did leap for joy when I read this. Mountain Meadows was one of the major things that started my downward spiral in the Church. I wish it had never happened, but I wished more that they would just apologize so all could move on. I’m glad this finally happened. Doubtingthomas: It actually happened in 2007. Observant — why is it not surprising that even long-time, dedicated members in the Church at large aren’t aware of the apology, and therefore think it’s news? Not to besmirch the goodness of the apology, but this isn’t something the general membership at large knows about…I think it’s part of our Church culture to censor what the members actually know. Faith generates commitment. The brethren are very conscious of this and would rather tiptoe around issues, or soft-play them unless they are confronted with them publicly — usually by outside news and documentary sources, and now, the Internet. Yes, the balance is swinging toward the power that govern our Church having to confront issues since the members live in far less data isolation than they did twenty years ago.
Frankly, I’ve never understood the insistence on, nor the benefit of, apologies by people distantly, if at all, related to the original offense. Elder Eyring’s family certainly wasn’t involved, as far as I know (not that it would have mattered if it was), and the organization he represents technically didn’t even exist at the time. I’m sure that personally, Elder Eyring, along with every other church leader and/or rational member of the church is sorry that the tragedy at MM ever occurred, both because it was unthinkably brutal and because of the implications on the church, or on any other such organization, which we now have to accept is potentially capable of eliciting such behaviour. But all the “official” church apology proves is that it was, politically, the astute thing for the church to do at the time, given the circumstances. doug wrote:But all the “official” church apology proves is that it was, politically, the astute thing for the church to do at the time, given the circumstances.
BINGO!!! oh, and it was the right thing to do.
:think: doug wrote:Frankly, I’ve never understood the insistence on, nor the benefit of, apologies by people distantly, if at all, related to the original offense.
For me, this said more about the organization than about the individual members. They are all dead who made those bad decisions. But you are right — to have someone with no part in the offence to apologize for the behavior of other people varries very little weight when the offenders are still living. This happened to me once and and it didn’t seem to help, the apology from the disinterested third party.
Quote:Observant — why is it not surprising that even long-time, dedicated members in the Church at large aren’t aware of the apology, and therefore think it’s news?
Well, I don’t know exactly how this type of thing is announced. I remember “kinda” hearing something about it when the actual apology happened but I didn’t spend a lot of time thinking about it. I really don’t think it would have been appropriate to announce over the pulpit that the apology happened. It was published in the Church News and so I’m guessing that is how the church disseminates this type of information to the members.
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/51052/Expressing-regret-for-1857-massacre.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/51052/Expressing-regret-for-1857-massacre.html
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.