Last Tuesday I attended the memorial service commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The day before, I had the pleasure of meeting several of the descendants of the Fancher family in Cedar City. Suffice it to say that the memorial service was a somber occasion. Short speeches were given by both descendants of the victims and the perpetrators. Several times the word forgiveness was invoked.
The service began when relatives and friends carrying large pennants walked behind a lone covered wagon down the gravel road from Dan Sill Hill to the rock cairn memorial built in 1999. Each pennant contained the last name of a family whose lives ended on this very spot. A few days prior, another service was held at the site. Here, participants had hung white crosses on the metal fence surrounding the memorial. Larger crosses represented the adults that were killed, while smaller crosses represented the many children who died that day.
I had just returned to Salt Lake City from the memorial service, when I read the headline of an article by Carrie A. Moore in the online edition of the Deseret News. It read, “Church issues apology for massacre.” Another article written in the Salt Lake Tribune by Jessica Ravitz, was headlined, “LDS Church apologizes for Mountain Meadows Massacre.” Moore wrote that Mormon Apostle Henry B. Eyring issued “a long-awaited apology today for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah.” Ravitz echoed s similar conclusion when she wrote, that a Mormon Apostle, “apologized for the church’s role.” He did? I was sitting barely ten rows away from Mr. Eyring when he spoke – how did I miss that? Several speakers received standing ovations for the comments they made, but not a single person stood to applaud Eyring’s comments. Given the fact that descendants have been longing for such an announcement, I can’t imagine Mr. Eyring receiving anything less if he did, in fact, express such a message.
[SWF]http://www.youtube.com/v/kUktFZCP238,425,353[/SWF]
Instead, we heard Mr. Eyring “express profound regret” for the “undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims and their relatives.” We heard Mr. Eyring offer a “separate expression of regret” to the Paiute people “who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre.”
He also made it clear that the “responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders” of the LDS Church. In his short speech he also put in a plug for the new book being written by three LDS historians that is due to be published by Oxford Press. No doubt this book, like Mr. Eyring’s speech, will offer nothing really new about this tragic event. Why should the Church assume that this will be the definitive work on this subject? Why should the public readily accept the statements of these three Church employees, when for the past 150 years the LDS Church has shown itself to be anything but honest and cooperative when it comes to the MMM? Why not at least let qualified historians have access to all of the documents the LDS Church now keeps in its archives?
Reader responses to both the Deseret News, and Salt Lake Tribune articles were incredibly mixed. Some Mormons expressed their contempt at the descendants for making this an annual issue purposely designed to embarrass their Church. Others expressed profound joy that their Church had finally apologized to the families. A few admitted they were indeed shocked, given the fact that the LDS Church never apologizes for anything.
Having been there and hearing Eyring myself, my shock was limited primarily to the conclusion drawn by the two journalists. Regret is not always synonymous with apology, and while Eyring did appear to be emotionally moved by the circumstances, he never spoke those simple words that the descendants have wanted to hear.
No doubt many of those Latter-day Saints who rejoiced when they read the headlines were utterly disappointed to later hear that the two journalists had drawn an incorrect conclusion. In an Associated Press article that has been circulating in several major media outlets, it stated quite clearly that “Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.” Said LDS Church spokesman, Mark Tuttle, “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’ We used ‘profound regret.'”
Such a comment speaks volumes. It not only confirms in the minds of many that the leadership continues to display a type of infallible arrogance, but it will also be understood by many that the LDS Church is not sorry for what happened under Brigham Young’s watch. For me that is the big issue. I fully understand that there is no one currently living who was personally responsible for the MMM. However, there is a corporate responsibility that the LDS leadership wants to continue to deny. Brigham Young was the “prophet, seer, and revelator” of the LDS Church and he was also the ultimate head of every LDS militia in the Utah territory. True leaders understand that when things go wrong, the “buck” has to stop somewhere, and in a real world it usually stops with those who are in charge. The LDS Church must certainly understand this concept given the huge monetary settlements paid by the LDS Church regarding child abuse cases perpetrated by Church personnel.
Furthermore, are we really expected to believe that Young’s fiery reformation speeches on blood atonement and absolute loyalty to the leadership had no affect on those same leaders? It is difficult for me to believe that his sermons were given with the intent that they should be understood only as “revival rhetoric.” Respected historian Juanita Brooks noted on page 219 of her book, The Mountain Meadows Massacre,
“while Young and George A. Smith, the church authorities chiefly responsible, did not specifically order the massacre, they did preach sermons and set up social conditions which made it possible.”
Young may not have pulled a trigger or bludgeoned a small child with a gun butt, but I find it very difficult to side with Mormons who insist that he did not play any role in this awful event.
One last thought. Mr. Eyring, towards the end of his speech, stated, that “divine justice will impose appropriate punishment” for those who carried out the massacre. Does appropriate punishment await John D. Lee, the only man who paid for this crime with his life on March 23, 1877? Lee was ex-communicated in 1870, but in 1961 the LDS Church First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve reinstated Lee’s membership and temple blessings. I could be wrong, but I tend to think that most Mormons would see this as a reward, not a punishment.
Or it could just be seen as leaving judgment in the hands of the Lord. I mean… didn’t John D. Lee die by firing squad (ie wasn’t he blood atoned?)
Dear Bill:
You state: I fully understand that there is no one currently living who was personally responsible for the MMM. However, there is a corporate responsibility that the LDS leadership wants to continue to deny.
==But blaming Brigham Young isn’t about “corporate responsibility,” is it?
==And does this concept of “corporate responsibility” extend to Protestantism’s persecution of Latter-day Saints in Missouri and Illinois?
You state: Brigham Young was the “prophet, seer, and revelator” of the LDS Church and he was also the ultimate head of every LDS militia in the Utah territory. True leaders understand that when things go wrong, the “buck” has to stop somewhere, and in a real world it usually stops with those who are in charge.
==So much for “corporate responsibility,” eh?
==And how do you account for Brigham Young’s written and verbal instructions carried by James Haslam. The letter told the Cedar City Mormons that they “must not interfere with” and “must not meddle with” the Fancher train. His verbal instructions to Haslam were likewise clear: “He [Brigham Young] asked if I could stand the trip back; he said the Indians must be kept from the emigrants at all cost, if it took all of Iron County to protect them.” Young also told Haslam “to start and not to spare horseflesh, but to go down there just as quick as possible.”
==The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a terrible, evil event. But it’s wrong to try to exploit the murder of innocents to score cheap polemical points against a religion with which you disagree. That’s all you’re doing here.
Thanks,
Spencer Macdonald
In a courtroom that would be called a leading question.
Either Brigham Young was the top leader of an institution that the mainstream Mormon sect claims to be a continuation of… or not.
Maybe you don’t get what Bill saying. Bill isn’t demanding that the mainstream Salt Lake sect apologize for everything bad a professing Mormon has ever done. Rather, this is an issue of the hierarchy and institution of Brigham’s Mormonism fostering “social conditions which made [the MMM] possible.” How many of the relevant Mormon Reformation sermons have you read concerning this issue?
Last time I checked the presidents of institutions represent their institutions. Or maybe you would say that Hinckley doesn’t represent the LDS Church?
Also, I fail to see any evidence that others in LDS leadership extended significant effort to temper Brigham Young’s reckless, irresponsible, violence-inciting rhetoric at the Tabernacle pulpit. Also, you seem to be ignoring the larger evidence pointing to how Brigham treated the emigrants. Maybe you could summarize for us in your own words what you think George A. Smith was doing in southern Utah before the massacre, and how it related to the wishes of Brigham and treatment toward emigrants? There is more to the bigger picture than your church historians intimate.
Have you read the differing views on this? Some think it was theatrical, something designed to get Young off the hook. There is circumstantial evidence used to argue this point. See Bagley’s book on the subject. In any case, this misses a big point of the blog post. Where in this post did you see Bill accuse Brigham of ordering the massacre? Did you read the quote of Juanita Brooks?
You said,
Cheap polemical points? This is just silly. Or even asinine. As your own church has said, “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’” What’s “cheap” here seems to be the Mormon church’s response to the murder of 120 innocent people that, like all PR responses from the Salt Lake sect, portrays an “infallible arrogance”.
This all reminds me of Stephen Robinson and Robert Millet admitting to the rampant perfectionism found in Mormonism, and then ignoring that it has been fostered by traditional Mormon theology, institutional, church-correlated literature, and popular works by Mormon leaders like Miracle of Forgiveness.
Taking the issues seriously,
Aaron
I sometimes grow weary of the insistence that public apologies be issued for all sorts of historical occurences. For example, should white Americans apologize for slavery and pay reparations to our citizens who’s ancestors suffered under this terrible practice? Should the German government apologize for the attempted extermination of the Jews carried out under the Nazi’s? Does the length of time since the event make a difference? If the Mormon Church apologizes, are they taking responsibility for the massacre? Maybe they don’t think they were responsible. Saying “I’m sorry” can be very simple and complex at the same time. But it can also free people up to move on. I’ve often thought that an appropriate heart felt apology frees people up to move on. If both parties are willing to move on.
Zak, your inappropriate comment was deleted.
Falcon, I think a key issue is that the mainstream Mormon sect refuses to take any institutional responsibility. So of course they won’t apologize.
Why Aaron… You said…
[quote]Last time I checked the presidents of institutions represent their institutions. Or maybe you would say that Hinckley doesn’t represent the LDS Church?[/quote]
Was Not Christ the “Head/President” of the Twelve and did he not instruct them to Buy weapons?
[quote]Luke 22
35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. [/quote]
Did his men not ask him what he wanted them to do with the swords he told them to buy?
[quote]Luke 22
49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 ¶ And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. [/quote]
So then according to you and Bill Chriost is direectly responsible for the Military actions of his men.
Why are you unwilling to use the same ruler?
I’m a lay Mormon with no authority to speak for my Church in the slightest. For the most part, I agree with Aaron’s analysis of the speech. I myself noted how the only blame was laid on LOCAL leadership.
I find this irritating. It seems quite likely to me that inflammatory rhetoric from top LDS leadership contributed to the climate in Utah which lead to the massacre, and caused the mixed signals that local Mormons in Southern Utah took advantage of. So, in my mind, these leaders in Salt Lake do bear responsibility.
I see no point in further denying this. This ought to be old history. The main reason the issue persists is because the LDS Church continually gives unsatisfactory responses on the issue. Just apologize and get it over with!
I’m irritated, like many Mormons, that people keep trying to rub the Mormons’ noses in an old and isolated incident like this. I also get irritated that other American groups with similar histories of wrongdoing are not held up to the same standard that the LDS Church is.
But that is beside the point. Wrong was done, and there ought to be an apology, even if the peanut gallery is going to mock you about it. Just let the descendants have their crosses, turn the location over to the Federal Government, apologize for the top leadership’s role in the massacre, both known and unknown, and MOVE ON! No need to apologize for things we don’t know Brigham Young actually did (like actually ordering the massacre), but leaving him out of this isn’t going to work either.
Zak, I’m not going to spend much time entertaining your parallel. Telling people to buy weapons for self-defense and to fulfill prophecy hardly seems akin to fostering many of the conditions that led to the murder of 120 innocent people.
And according to you, Zak, the skin-whitening Lamanite Placement Program was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and China has a great democracy. Come on man, if you simply want to put words in our mouth, we’re going to delete your comments.
And yet you and Bill hold Masters degrees in putting words and thoughts in Mormon mouths/minds.
I’ll remember that in the future.
[i]I could be wrong, but I tend to think [u]that most Mormons[/u] would see this as a reward, not a punishment.[/i]
[i]He also made it clear that the “responsibility for the massacre lies with local leaders” of the LDS Church. In his short speech he also put in a plug for the new book being written by three LDS historians that is due to be published by Oxford Press. No doubt this book, like Mr. Eyring’s speech, will offer nothing really new about this tragic event. Why should the Church assume that this will be the definitive work on this subject? Why should the public readily accept the statements of these three Church employees, when for the past 150 years the LDS Church has shown itself to be anything but honest and cooperative when it comes to the MMM? Why not at least let qualified historians have access to all of the documents the LDS Church now keeps in its archives?[/i]
PS. Can I take it from your last remark…
[quote]Telling people to buy weapons for self-defense and to fulfill prophecy…[/quote]
That you feel JS was justified in using the pepper boxs?
Please let us know.
If Turley’s upcoming book is anything like the article he wrote in the September Ensign, believe me, most average Mormons will find it PLENTY upsetting.
Aaron:
You state: Either Brigham Young was the top leader of an institution that the mainstream Mormon sect claims to be a continuation of… or not.
==There is no dispute that he was the leader of the Saints.
==The disputed issues are (1) whether he ordered the massacre (as so many of your compatriots are want to claim); (2) whether the LDS Church as an institution is morally culpable for the wrongful conduct of its members; and (3) whether the Church should apologize for that wrongful conduct.
==As to #1, I think the weight of historical evidence militates in favor of exoneration.
==As to #2, if the LDS Church bears such moral culpability, then so do all other institutions and individuals whose actions contributed to, and indirectly led to, the massacre. For example, Buchanan bears some of this attenuated culpability, and in a portion much larger than that of the LDS Church or Brigham Young. But for Buchanan’s actions, Brigham Young would not have been forced to put the Saints on a war footing. But for that war footing, the massacre would not have occurred.
==As to #3, if the LDS Church should apologize for the wrongful conduct of its members 150 years ago, then so should President Bush apologize for Buchanan’s conduct. But we don’t see any calls for such an apology. Why? Because many of the people calling for an apology (people like you, Aaron) aren’t *really* interested in the apology for its own sake, or in the peace of mind of the descendants of the massacre victims. Rather, you and yours are looking for an apology because you hate the LDS Church and want to use such an apology as a weapon against it. And you are willing to exploit the murder of innocents to facilitate that.
You state: Maybe you don’t get what Bill saying. Bill isn’t demanding that the mainstream Salt Lake sect apologize for everything bad a professing Mormon has ever done. Rather, this is an issue of the hierarchy and institution of Brigham’s Mormonism fostering “social conditions which made [the MMM] possible.”
==I get it. So where is Bill’s demand of an apology from President Bush for Buchanan’s actions that – far more than Young’s – “[fostered] social conditions which made [the MMM] possible?”
==There is no such demand.
==And he’s made no such demand because he’s not interested in such an apology.
==And he’s not interested in such an apology because he’s not interested in using such an apology as a weapon with which to attack the United State of America.
You state: Also, I fail to see any evidence that others in LDS leadership extended significant effort to temper Brigham Young’s reckless, irresponsible, violence-inciting rhetoric at the Tabernacle pulpit.
==The “rhetoric” was in response to 2,500 federal troops marching against the citizenry of the Territory of Utah. It was a call to self-defense.
You state: Also, you seem to be ignoring the larger evidence pointing to how Brigham treated the emigrants.
==The territory was on a war footing. He told the Saints to store up food against a seige by the U.S. Army. And storing up food isn’t exactly equivalent to ordering a massacre, is it?
You state: Maybe you could summarize for us in your own words what you think George A. Smith was doing in southern Utah before the massacre, and how it related to the wishes of Brigham and treatment toward emigrants?
==He was putting the Saints on a war footing ahead of an invasion by the U.S. Army.
==Was it his, or Brigham Young’s, intention to foment violence against the Fanchers? No.
You state: Have you read the differing views on this?
==Yes. They are unpersuasive. In Bagley’s case, he flagrantly misrepresents his so-called “troubling new evidence.” And his theory of Haslam as a second messenger (sent to countermand the order for the massacre sent with a first, unidentified messenger) has nary a scintilla of credible evidence to support it. And his interpretation of the meeting with the Indian chiefs on September 1 is patently flawed.
You state: Some think it was theatrical, something designed to get Young off the hook.
==The evidence militates against such a conclusion.
You state: There is circumstantial evidence used to argue this point.
==No, there is not. Conjecture and baseless speculation are not “circumstantial evidence.”
You state: See Bagley’s book on the subject.
==I have. Sheer conjecture and fabricated evidence do not a convincing argument make.
You state: In any case, this misses a big point of the blog post. Where in this post did you see Bill accuse Brigham of ordering the massacre? Did you read the quote of Juanita Brooks?
==I have. And if an when I see you critics look for an apology from President Bush, I’ll consider your demand for an apology as being made in good faith. As it is, however, your demand is made in bad faith. You don’t care about an apology except insofar as it can be used as a weapon against the Church of Jesus Christ.
Thanks,
-Smac
Spencer, please refrain from back-to-back comments. You might want to review our Comment Policy.
When overkill is not a synonym with reasonable
when a story title is not synonymous with interesting
when i start to sing “cry me a river”
Bill and Aaron,
at the end of the day, if the church gives in to all of your obscure demands, that will not accomplish anything. all it will do is give you one more reason to put this subject to rest–and even then i don’t think that will satiate your endless appetite for gossip and grandstanding.
be the bigger people you claim to be capable of- and i know you are capable of…let it go.
Amanda, even the Catholic pope has apologized for the church’s lack of initiative during the Nazi years, right? If the Catholic church leadership (pope) can apologize for things previous church members did (or didn’t do), than it’s not unreasonable for the LDS prophet to apologize for their members’ slaughter of these people.
That’s what apologies are for: acknowledgement of the pain of others, acknowledgement of responsibility, and acknowledging that those people mattered. It’s not for your sake; it’s for the sake of the victims’ families and simply *what is right*. That is partly what leadership is about.
And to another comment I read from either Amanda or Lisa, something about “Did God appear to you and tell you that the BOM isn’t true?”:
It is not up to us to prove that Mormonism isn’t true – it is up to God to show that is *is* true. So far based on everything I’ve read about Smith and the BoM, I’d say you’re a long way from that.
And just so you know – I’ve prayed about many religions, and when I pray about Mormonism, asking God if this is true, all I get is a very empty feeling. So how could this be? If it was true, why doesn’t God impress that on my spirit?
This is why I don’t follow my feelings or emotions, and rely instead on what the Word says.
Falcon, Seth, and lillym,
You are wrong to think that an “apology” from the LDS Church will finally allow people to move on.
Don’t you find it strange that people (i.e. Bill, Sharron, Aaron and others) who are not from Arkansas, are not decendents of those who were killed, and are not associated with the LDS Church have taken on the MMM as a cause?
Maybe they are just real interested in history. More specifically, maybe they are just interested in Mormon history. If this were the case, why is there not more on the Haun’s Mill Massacre? I mean, we always have to look at both sides. MRM does briefly discuss Haun’s Mill, but only enough to say that the Mormon’s brought that on themselves.
My point is, an apology will not end this issue. Mountain Meadows is too important to anti-mormons and their quest to prove that the LDS Church is false. An apology will only be seen as an admission of guilt, meaning that the LDS Church did something wrong. The LDS Church did nothing wrong, rather a group of its members did. Trust me, an apology will only be used against the LDS Church. It will not end this issue.
so that’s why the LDS won’t apologize? Just because they think that it will give “fodder” to people who are “anti-Mormon”???
That is a sick and very UN-CHRISTIAN reason to withhold an apology for something like this.
Also, if the BoM is true, then why do you fear “anti-Mormons”? What do you care if other people attack your theology? Shouldn’t it stand up to scrutiny, if it is in fact God’s truth? It’s not as if anyone if the culture in Amreica would allow great hordes of Christians to rise up and physically persecute Mormons (as if they even have that desire, which obviously they do not)
This persecution/anti-mormon thing is really getting old, and I’ve only been listening to it from a few people lately.
Seems like there’s bigger issues at play here even beyond the hideous and brutal killing of those innocent people. I could name several, but I think John Calvin hit it pretty well on the head with the first letter of TULIP i.e. the total depravity of man. Serious sin needs a serious remedy and it was provided by the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. Confronting our sin is the first step in the redemptive process. Is there “corporate sin” that needs to be confronted beyond individual sin? I don’t know.
pastors, ministers, “shepards of the flock”, etc, are held to a higher standard of behavior, and if they lead the flock into sin then they bear responsibility for that, beyond just the principal players. true?
lillym,
Please read my entire post before you decide to respond. You completely missed what I was saying.
Again. . . to think that an apology from the LDS Church will allow everyone to move on, is an incorrect assumption.
If an apology was needed and issued, how long before I would read the following on MRM:
“If the LDS Church felt that Brigham Young and other leaders didn’t have involvement in the MMM, then why did they feel the need to apologize? Wasn’t this an admission of guilt?”
See how that works.
By the way, I have no fear of anti-mormons. Criticize and critique all you want. Just tell the truth when you do it. Why do I care? Because I hate when people deceive others.
I don’t believe in allowing your enemies to define your moral actions.
Wrong was done. The LDS Church should apologize for it.
If the “anti-Mormons” want to still push the issue, they can go play in the food processor for all I care. I’m more concerned that my own Church have a clear conscience.
Robert Kirby did an article on this in the Salt Lake Tribune:
http://www.sltrib.com/columnists/ci_6897227
burt says: ” Because I hate when people deceive others.”
Let me give you an example of what I am dealing with with one of your Mormon sisters, and you’ll see why I’m here.
I belong to an internet forum elsewhere that has nothing to do with religion. There is a small group of us who have been posting on a private forum together for years now, brought together on another subject.
Within this group, several of us are devout Christians, several of us have no faith in anything, and one of us is Mormon.
The Mormon continually makes statements about how she is a “christian too”. Those of us on the forum who are followers of Christ see what she is doing, but don’t want to get into a discussion about her Joe Smith/BoM theology.
Said Mormon uses every opportunity to milk sympathy for her faith by claiming that she is persecuted, and that she’s really a christian. The women on this forum who are ignorant of spiritual things then jump to her side, stroking her and telling her that “of course you’re a Christian, some people are just ignorant, you poor thing.”
Me and the other Christians on this small forum have to hold our tongues, while this Mormon purposely deceives the others. We know why she does it; it’s clear, and it’s pretty impressive.
She likes to say things like “my faith is all about FAMILIES” and other inoccuous, seemingly innocent things. She likes to pretend she is some innocent lamb that is being targeted by evil evangelicals for persecution.
The whole thing is disgusting. It’s to the point where I’ve had to back away from that forum.
When I’m able to speak privately with the other Christian women there, we all have the same thoughts: she’s purposely deceiving people about her faith, but why? Is she just trying to muddy the waters, as far as outsiders’ perspectives on her sect?
Or is she trying to convert some of them?
It’s to the point where I’m thinking about posting the links to some of these sites I’ve found about Mormonism.
lillym
What about “Deep Regret” doens’t meet your check list?
1) The church has acknowledge the pain of others
2) It pointed out those responsible (Local Leaders)
3) And if the people didn’t matter would the church be pariticpating at all in 150 year aniversary of the tragic event? Nor would it care that there was a muldering pile of rocks down there instead of the monument that has been placed to remember them by.
“anniversary of a tragic event”
that’s what you say about earthquakes.
lillym said
And just so you know – I’ve prayed about many religions, and when I pray about Mormonism, asking God if this is true, all I get is a very empty feeling. So how could this be? If it was true, why doesn’t God impress that on my spirit?
I find that when I tell the LDS I prayed and did not get a feeling, they simply tell me that I was not praying hard enough or was not sincere about my prayer. Rick b
Spencer,
I don’t have a position on whether Brigham was as intimately connected with the massacre as Bagley argues, and I don’t think Brigham Young could be indicted in a court of law over the issue, but I think the Mormon dismissal of the circumstantial evidence is too quick of a brush-off, and the shrug of the shoulders towards Brigham’s cover-up is frightening.
This really isn’t an argument (it’s just a naked assertion). It sneaks something in, specifically the insinuation that if one in some way contributes to a condition leading up to such a massacre then it is automatically an immoral contribution that demands moral culpability. From what I know Buchanan doesn’t bear the kind of moral culpability that Brigham did. But even if he did, it is a red herring because it seeks to distract from the issue of whether the mainstream Salt Lake Mormon sect bears any institutional culpability for fostering the conditions that lead up to the massacre, including law-breaking, rebellious polygamy, Brigham’s reckless, violence-inciting rhetoric, Utah’s theocracy, and culture of blind submission to priesthood authority.
As your own church has said, “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’” This whole issue is wrapped up in Mormonism’s arrogance and attitude of infallibility. It can also be reasonably said that what past LDS leaders (who are supposed to prophets, seers, and revelators) did and said helps answer the question of whether Mormonism itself is true. Unlike evangelical Christianity, Mormonism is part of an ordained priesthood authority succession where the top leaders in every generation are supposed to be God’s very mouth pieces. You cannot separate Mormonism from its prophets.
The attempt to paint this as the “exploit[ation of] the murder of innocents to facilitate” hatred is not only unwarranted, it is also inappropriate on this blog. Charges of personal hatred on this site will be tolerated just about as long as Joseph Smith’s alcohol and Brigham Young’s spittoons would be in a modern Mormon temple. 🙂
Take care,
Aaron
With respect to the excellent article that Bill wrote, “When Regret is not a Synonym with Apology”, he captured the emotions of the majority of the non-LDS who attended and many of the LDS there. I didn’t speak with all 400 attendees, but I got a good sampling from each position, and some unsolicited ones.
I stood for the entire event, videoing from different locations, observing reactions during the speeches. I spoke with members of the Lee, Fancher, Baker, Dunlap and Pruitt families,and from my Mormon family. I had to listen to some interviews of journalists and media, who jabbered disrespectfully during speeches and prayers. When Jessica Ravitz, from the SL Trib, started to interview me during a presentation and w/out my permission, I quickly told her I was not a family member and she moved on. Hope she had a partner, because she interviewed the whole time. Maybe that’s why she “heard” apology when the word was never spoken…
#1- I don’t know if those of us who are Biblical Christians (different Mormon “Christians”) are guilty of wanting more than the situation deserves, but we aren’t even families of the victims and we were upset and critical of Eyring: Both of things he said and those he omitted.
#2- I’m still soul-searching over this, because I am obligated to obey Jesus and accept a true apology. I can’t read a man’s heart, or a church’s, so I don’t know why we are quibbling over possible semantics here. Regret and Sorry are almost identical in Webster’s vernacular, but most of us there just wanted to hear the “sorry” word as opposed to the profuse(almost blathering) “regret”.
#3- In my opinion, it is simply a matter of too little, too late. Kinda like the Clinton-Monica apology: By the time he got around to a scripted admission, who cared?
The sad fact: Why virtual silence from any LDS voice until public opinion prods their conscience? A monument of rocks by U.S. militia in 1859 or 1999 never originated from The Brethren in SLC…
2 Chronicles 7:14 says “and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” I’m thinking if I was a leader of a religion and members of that religion who went before me had done such a thing (as this massacre), I would call on the present day members to meet at the place where it took place, fast, pray and ask God for forgivness for this wicked deed. Problem is, it says “humble yourselves”. Some folks have trouble with that.
Aaron, if a court of law couldn’t indict Brigham Young, then where is all the fuss coming from? are we suppose to apologize for him JUST IN CASE he actually did anything? that is so self-righteous, honestly.
this might not come as a surprise to any of you, but i have to side with Burt on this…this is just another crusade against the restored gospel…nothing more.
Illylylium (sorry, i get cross-eyed trying to make those letters out, forgive me)
it is not MY burden to prove to you, nor is it God’s burden. It is our individual burden to call upon God and seek His word…since this site is all about disproving the restored gospel, the burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders (whomever sides with the premise of this site)–
it’s ok if you simply do not believe the gospel-you prayed about it and say you are convinced–it isn’t what it claims to be…that’s fine..but the reason i don’t believe you is because you attack it like it hurt your feelings or something–there is no reason for this unless you are compensating for something.
to those who negate mormons and their faith constantly on this site,
i promise you aren’t going to “save” any mormons with this approach…it’s abrasive. but the truth isn’t that you are trying to minister to mormons–you are simply trying to undermine what they know to be precious- and you are completely ineffective.
Given the evidence available, a court of law couldn’t specifically indict Young for directly ordering the massacre. But other things are public record and are overwhelmingly clear. For example, his Mormon Reformation sermons on blood atonement and revenge are the kind of rhetoric that would incite violence and contribute to the mindset that “if Brigham were here he just might well approve of this massacre.” Hence, the notion that folks in Southern Utah even would have to ask Brigham if such a massacre was to his approval. If the local leaders were upset when they heard a negative response back from Brigham, ask yourself: Why didn’t they just assume that Brigham wouldn’t approve of it in the first place?
If I were commander in chief, I would hope my troops would know better than to even have to ask. If they have to ask about such a thing, then something has gone horrible wrong in the way I have communicated my attitude, vision, direction, goals, purposes, ethics, etc.
where does the greater power lie… in the one who apologizes or the one who forgives?
since no sin is greater or lesser than another(there are no misdemeanors with God), He forgives all sins. my experience with those who demand an apology for something is that they are still living their life in that moment- the actions of someone else are controlling their life and thus they are a prisoner to this.
it is definitely easier said than done, but to forgive someone their wrong without even having been asked holds tremendous power, freedom, and love than holding ransom the acceptance of that individual for their apology.
Christ accepted you and me long before we knew him and that love and grace was transformative for me. i believe it can be for the mormon people as well.
i have to agree with amanda when she states, “i promise you aren’t going to “save” any mormons with this approach…it’s abrasive. but the truth isn’t that you are trying to minister to mormons–you are simply trying to undermine what they know to be precious- and you are completely ineffective.”
some are firm and this is wonderful and others are abrasive and this comes across as a bullhorn- i know noone that was saved by the bullhorn. i’m not sure if the goal of this forum is to enlighten with the truth of Christ or to be right.
Amanda said: “..but the reason i don’t believe you is because you attack it like it hurt your feelings or something–there is no reason for this unless you are compensating for something.”
Now this I truly do not understand. What have I said that implies that I’m attacking it because I’m “hurt”? I have no hurt feelings re: Mormonism. The only reason I am attacking it is because I think it is a false religion. It comes from no base of hurt feelings or emotions on my part – I just got annoyed with a Mormon chick who is in my social orbit, and decided to look into this for my own education.
I’m curious by nature and I like to research things I’m not familiar with. That led me here, and other sites like it.
But I understand why you can’t believe me when I say that I felt nothing when I prayed about Mormonism.
lillym,
So don’t sign up. Seems easy enough to me.
As for the Brigham Young thing, I don’t really think the “court-of-law” argument is the strongest one Mormon apologetics has. It sounds too much like an OJ Simpson style defense – everyone knew he did it, but he beat the rap!
I think Mormons are better off not using it as a primary defense of Brigham Young. But there is pretty rock-solid evidence that Brigham sent out a messenger to call off any impending violence on the date that he said he did. It’s right there in the onionskin duplicates in the exact order it should be in his official records. I’m not saying one way or the other whether he ordered the event. But I don’t think there’s any basis for taking the position that he did, or the position that he didn’t. We’re not just talking a “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” criminal standard of evidence here, we’re also talking a “preponderance-of-the-evidence” standard and under either test, there’s no cause to take a stand on Brigham Young.
Bottom line – he said some pretty inflammatory things and the Church ought to apologize for that. The rest is just conspiracy theories and vague unsupported accusations.
oh and btw, since I’m new to this whole scene, I have to say that this site (mrm) is by far the nicest one. Meaning I think it is the least hurtful, and seems to come from a genuine place of concern for mormons.
Some others that I’ve run across, like that exmormon.org, seems to be much more incendiary. There are a lot of bitter people over there; I take it that this site is not run by “ex mormons”? (i have to go look at the about page again, sorry)
Not that I’m belittling their experiences or their bitterness; just saying that the Mormons here who think this site is hateful and anti-Mormon apparently haven’t visited those other sites!
I don’t hate mormons. I don’t hate *anyone*. But from what I’ve read here so far, it appears that no matter how “enlightening” and “non-confrontational” someone tries to be, we are going to be accused of hate regardless.
Case in point: the Mormon woman who brought me to this blog (although she doesn’t realize it) has spent much of her time complaining about being a victim and “bashing” christians and ex-mormons. I have NOT, in return, said anything negative about her faith.
Guess I saved it all up, and came here to rant instead. 🙂
Amanda has a great point: How did Jesus say to witness His Love and His Gospel? Abrasiveness has been used by many here, and I think some of you just like to see your points and counter-points in print, maybe?
If you win the battle but lose the war, what good was your sounding gongs?
For those of us who claim to be Blood-bought, Born-again Christians, can we use some more of God’s Words and less of our own? Speak the Truth in love, don’t speak harmful words and don’t retaliate, if you follow 1 Peter 3:9.
My point: The Word of God is the two-edged sword, and the convicting is done by the Holy Spirit. We all know what Peter said concerning being ready with a defense for the hope that we have in Christ Jesus, “yet with gentleness and respect”… (1 Peter 3:15.)
I know it’s frustrating witnessing to lost souls- I used to be one. For 35 years I used much of the arguments and strange logic used here. (Hang in there, lillym!) When I tried to share with my LDS family re the joy of finding the real God, they attacked me with same tactics I used to employ! Very humbling.
I understood their beliefs, but they couldn’t see mine. They took my “sharing” as attacks &/or bashing. I was following Peter’s instructions in his 2nd book, chapters 2 and 3 to expose false teachers and deceivers, & despair for their eternal folly. They wanted to shoot the messenger.
‘Nuff Bible-thumpin’? It would be refreshing to have the exchanges elevated to sharing, minus the attacks. I’ve been loving and praying for my Mormon family for the past 21 years. I’ve made all the mistakes, still lose it & scratch my head sometimes, but at the end of the day we all know it’s because we want the Truth for loved ones.
1 Peter 3:8-12 will help with patience: “Have unity of spirit, sympathy, love, a tender heart and a humble mind. Do not return evil for evil, reviling for reviling.” Heck- everybody just read both books if you want God’s instructions!
A couple observations here. It might just be me, but it seems like poor form to plug a book at a rememberence ceremony (even one about the incident that warrants the rememberance ceremony).
I find the wording of this statement very telling, “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’ We used ‘profound regret.’” Maybe I am making too much of an issue of grammar but this guy used the word “don’t” as in present-and-ongoing. Can anyone point to an instance in LDS church history where the Mormon Church has officially used the word “apology”?
Also, I am with the Mormons that have accused Christians of trying to get polemical mileage out of MMM. HOWEVER, that sword cuts both ways. How many times have Mormons put themselves in the postion of being the victim, only to gain sympathy and brownie points? How many times have we seen in print, in film, or in a play Mormon pioneers portrayed as (only) victims and (only) martyrs at the hands of non-Mormons?
Lastly,(and I might need some help from the MRM guys on this) was it not Brigham Young who DESTROYED the first monument that was erected on the site of the MMM?
Yes:
Deut. 3: 6
6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
Does this really sound like the action of a heartsick people?
Deut. 3:6 hmmmmmmmmmm……..I guess that pretty much ends the argument. The Mormons were justified in killing those people! Bible says so. See, if you look long enough, you can find a Bible verse to justify just about anything. No more of this demanding an apology stuff.
Zak,
There we go with that context thing again…look up to Deut. 3:2 and see what God commanded. You can’t even compare the two instances. I wouldn’t say the Israelites were a “heartsick” people…
“He shoots!…. Ooooh, airball!” nice try buddy.
Hi, this is my first time posting on this site. I have been reading the articles and people’s comments for about a month, and I just want to say that I am sick of the few posters who continually give ad hominem attacks (I’m particularly thinking of you, Amanda). Please stop doing this. It is a cop-out. Please stick to well-reasoned arguments with hard evidence. Thanks.
Mormon posters, please know that we evang. Christians genuinely care about you and your eternal salvation. That is why we get so hot and bothered about theological issues. (What a person believes determines eternity). This shouldn’t be seen as “abrasive”. Wouldn’t you try to rescue someone if a train was heading towards them? You don’t have to agree with us, but please, please take our theological concerns seriously. Investigate our arguments against Mormonism and we will investigate your arguments FOR Mormonism. (Or I will, at least). Okay, glad I got that off my chest.
Daniel,
So… then your are saying God can order the wholesale slaughter of men and women and children?
Zak,
Why did you use Deut. 3:2-6? I’m trying, but I don’t see the connection to MMM, unless you’re saying God commanded it.
2 points-
#1- Which was it: God commanded Brigham’s boys to destroy the gentile wagon-train, or somebodies oopsed?
Using Old Testament commandments aren’t viable under the New Covenant,aka New Testament. Jesus said protect, but He never gave orders to annihilate. (Side point: Although Joseph Smith said the “New and Everlasting Covenant” is Plural Marriage, the Bible says His Shed Blood is the New Covenant- see Hebrews,Galations, Luke 22:20.All languages still translate New T. passages on Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross as being the New & Ev. Covenant.)
A- If God commanded the massacre, no Mormon leaders should express any “profound regret” from this “terrible and inexcusable departure” of Christian conduct.
B- If communications/emotions/hatred got in the mix, then it is up to the descendants to choose if the regret was an apology, & no one else here, myself included, need agonize over the intent.
#2- I was there, and all families made a public acceptance of the regrets offered. However, Burr Fancher, later speaker, made it clear that “We will forgive, but we will not forget the memory of our loved ones.”(paraphrase mine ’til transcript).
By the way, his comment so infuriated my Mormon mother, who was sitting right behind him in the choir, that she couldn’t wait to tell me “if they don’t forget, they never will truly forgive”. I was dumbfounded so we had a long discussion of all the monuments, pageants and remembrances erected and/or dedicated to prophets, pioneers and saints, including Nauvoo…
She watched U. of U. history prof’s documentary made w/ both families, “Burying the Past” & never said another word. Henry Eyring committed to “improve and preserve” this hallowed ground, so let’s watch if they do.
They admitted regret, more than Brigham ever said.
So let’s move to another subject, “Christians”.
“Using Old Testament commandments aren’t viable under the New Covenant,aka New Testament. ”
Hmmm… so then All the quoting and commandment Giving by the Apostles in the New Testament is Null and Void? I think Paul must have missed your memo.
Romans 13
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
““He shoots!…. Ooooh, airball!” nice try buddy.”
Tad juvenile aren’t we?
Zak, I’m not sure why you’re invoking the Israelite genocides here. According to the Old Testament, many of those were specifically ordered by God. Even if we were to admit, for the sake of argument, that Brigham Young directly ordered the wagon train massacre, I have not yet heard anyone try to make the case that God personally ordered the massacre.
So are you suggesting that God Himself wanted the Fancher train dead? Or is your point just to say “well you Protestants have crazy-go-nuts stuff too, so nyah-nyah” ?