What to do when you question a book of scripture?

[rameumptom]

Pray for forgiveness and hope you don't burn in hellfire.

Believe me - I've seen it more than once. The flames of Gozer burned hot that day I can tell you.

Yes, they did. Oh, and thanks Snow for ducking out and leaving me to toast the marshmallows all by myself!

[Elphaba]

2007 at the dedication of the MMM monument. Mountain Meadows massacre and Mormon public relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link:

Some, including Fancher Party descendants and historian Will Bagley, did not see this as an apology. Church spokesman Mark Tuttle agreed, saying "We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret.'

The wiki piece goes on to say that Richard Turley, who is employed by the Church as a historian and was in the process of writing a book about the MMM, said it was meant as an apology, but Turley was not the official church spokesman. Tuttle was, and he made it very clear it was not an apology.

Elphaba

[Finrock]

Good evening Elphaba! I hope you are well tonight. :)

From your link:

The wiki piece goes on to say that Richard Turley, who is employed by the Church as a historian and was in the process of writing a book about the MMM, said it was meant as an apology, but Turley was not the official church spokesman. Tuttle was, and he made it very clear it was not an apology.

Elphaba

This make sense considering the Church was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. An apology is appropriate when one has committed an offense towards another. Obviously an apology from the Church wouldn't have been appropriate, but "profound regret" for the massacre definitely is.

Regards,

Finrock

[Elphaba]

This make sense considering the Church was not responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. An apology is appropriate when one has committed an offense towards another. Obviously an apology from the Church wouldn't have been appropriate, but "profound regret" for the massacre definitely is.

What does any of that have to do with my post?

The only thing I addresssed was Ram's claim that the First Presidency had apologized for the MMM. I knew it had not, and demonstrated such. Beyond that, I made no assertions whatsoever as to whether it should, or should not, make an apology.

Elphaba

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Elphaba. How has your day been? I hope wonderful! :)

What does any of that have to do with my post?

The only thing I addresssed was Ram's claim that the First Presidency had apologized for the MMM. I knew it had not, and demonstrated such. Beyond that, I made no assertions whatsoever as to whether it should, or should not, make an apology.

Elphaba

Well, like you said you were saying that no apology was made. I agree. Not only was my post saying that I agree that no apology was offered, my post also provided a reason why I agree. I think your position makes the most sense in light of the fact that the Church wasn't responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Did this answer your question and help you to understand the purpose of my post better?

Regards,

Finrock

[Moksha]

Beyond that, I made no assertions whatsoever as to whether it should, or should not, make an apology.

Elphaba

Under the doctrine of Respondiat Superior, or even the Nuremberg ruling that superiors that ordered, or "should have known," of such violations yet failed to intervene are also criminally liable, wouldn't an apology have been very appropriate, as well as getting this monkey off our back for good?

During your time at Harvard, did you ever run across a scriptural reference regarding apologies being a good thing?