Mountain Meadows Massacre, Tomorrow Is The

[Elphaba]

Attached is an article written by Richard Turley on the eve of the 150th anniversary of the darkest moment in Church history. (Thanks to Doctor Steuss for bringing it to my attention.)

MMM/Turley newspaper article

I searched to see if there were going to be a memorial tomorrow, and apparently there was already one held on September 8.

I also found this intersting article regarding John D. Lee. Apparently New Harmony, Utah is considering placing a statue of John D. Lee somewhere on its property. Proponents feel its long past time to have forgiven him for his part in the massacre, and that he played such an important role in all other aspects of the Church's beginnings that he deserves to be honored.

I'm going to have to think about that one, becase it is true, he was one of the most important members of the early Church, from Nauvoo to Utah. He was absolutely devoted to Brigham, and like so many other Saints, was almost inhuman in his efforts to make the desert bloom, especially in Southern Utah. IMO, however, while he loved the Chuch deeply, he was somewhat of a hothead, which caused a few problems here and there, the most obvious being his participation in the MMM.

However, Juanita Brooks believed he was treated very badly in this instance and was the scapegoat of the MMM. Maybe a statue isn't a bad idea afterall. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

John D. Lee Statue in New Harmony, Utah

Anyway, I'm going to take a moment tomorow, and read the names of those massacred. I do that often when I'm in the mood to study more about it. It always puts things into perspective.

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

This one was just posted over at MA&D: Massacre services reopen wounds.

Turley's comments in the other article are wise, and extremely good counsel IMO.

[onyx]

Attached is an article written by Richard Turley on the eve of the 150th anniversary of the darkest moment in Church history. (Thanks to Doctor Steuss for bringing it to my attention.)

MMM/Turley newspaper article

I searched to see if there were going to be a memorial tomorrow, and apparently there was already one held on September 8.

I also found this intersting article regarding John D. Lee. Apparently New Harmony, Utah is considering placing a statue of John D. Lee somewhere on its property. Proponents feel its long past time to have forgiven him for his part in the massacre, and that he played such an important role in all other aspects of the Church's beginnings that he deserves to be honored.

I'm going to have to think about that one, becase it is true, he was one of the most important members of the early Church, from Nauvoo to Utah. He was absolutely devoted to Brigham, and like so many other Saints, was almost inhuman in his efforts to make the desert bloom, especially in Southern Utah. IMO, however, while he loved the Chuch deeply, he was somewhat of a hothead, which caused a few problems here and there, the most obvious being his participation in the MMM.

However, Juanita Brooks believed he was treated very badly in this instance and was the scapegoat of the MMM. Maybe a statue isn't a bad idea afterall. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

John D. Lee Statue in New Harmony, Utah

Anyway, I'm going to take a moment tomorow, and read the names of those massacred. I do that often when I'm in the mood to study more about it. It always puts things into perspective.

Elphaba

Just looking at the link regarding the September Dawn movie:

http://www.muskogeephoenix.com/archivesear..._248011610.html

One of the survivors of the massacre has a great-grandaughter - Doris Peavler. This lady feels that President Brigham Young was somehow involved in the murders.

However, the current Ensign (September 2007) refutes this by way of a letter from Brigham Young to Isaac C. Haight.

Ref: Brigham Young to Isaac C. Haight, Sept. 10, 1857, Letterpress Copybook 3:827–28, Brigham Young Office Files, Church Archives.

President Young stated in the letter that the emigrants should be “not interfered with”, “not meddled with” and “let go in peace.”

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu..._&hideNav=1

I am mindful that you guys probably already know this though.

[Snow]

I also found this intersting article regarding John D. Lee. Apparently New Harmony, Utah is considering placing a statue of John D. Lee somewhere on its property. Proponents feel its long past time to have forgiven him for his part in the massacre, and that he played such an important role in all other aspects of the Church's beginnings that he deserves to be honored.

I'm going to have to think about that one, becase it is true, he was one of the most important members of the early Church, from Nauvoo to Utah. He was absolutely devoted to Brigham, and like so many other Saints, was almost inhuman in his efforts to make the desert bloom, especially in Southern Utah. IMO, however, while he loved the Chuch deeply, he was somewhat of a hothead, which caused a few problems here and there, the most obvious being his participation in the MMM.

However, Juanita Brooks believed he was treated very badly in this instance and was the scapegoat of the MMM. Maybe a statue isn't a bad idea afterall. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

Elphaba

Yes - let's take up the cause. As soon as you get that statue of Ted Bundy erected and get the Golden Gate Bridge renamed for Charles Mason...

[Moksha]

I also found this intersting article regarding John D. Lee. Apparently New Harmony, Utah is considering placing a statue of John D. Lee somewhere on its property. Proponents feel its long past time to have forgiven him for his part in the massacre, and that he played such an important role in all other aspects of the Church's beginnings that he deserves to be honored.

Elphaba

Sometime in the future there may be a fan club and statue waiting for Timothy McVeigh as well. In the meantime, Utah and the Church could not buy worse publicity than this statue of John D. Lee.

[Elphaba]

Yikes!

I take that as a big NO!

Elphaba

[Snow]

Yikes!

I take that as a big NO!

Elphaba

Some people are fans of mass murders and serial killers. I am not.

[Doctor Steuss]

Yikes!

I take that as a big NO!

Elphaba

Didn't the First Presidency (under Ezra Taft Benson) reinstate Lee's temple blessings? I think that's probably more than enough for the fellow.

[Doctor Steuss]

Church Issues Apology for Massacre

May this help lead to healing by both the descendents of the victims and the descendents of those who perpetrated the act.

[Elphaba]

Church Issues Apology for Massacre

May this help lead to healing by both the descendents of the victims and the descendents of those who perpetrated the act.

I feel incredibly moved by Elder Eyring's comments. What a wonderful step for the Church to take. This is huge, and I hope the descendants of those murderd feel a sense of peace and closure.

I wish Juanita Brooks had been alive to have heard Elder Eyring's words. They would have made her so happy.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

From The Huffington Post:

Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.

"We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'" church spokesman Mark Tuttle

told The Associated Press.

[shanstress70]

From The Huffington Post:

Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.

"We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'" church spokesman Mark Tuttle

told The Associated Press.

Well, there went my 'warm fuzzies'. What's the point of making sure no one thinks it's an apology? Very Christlike.

[Doctor Steuss]

From The Huffington Post:

Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.

"We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'" church spokesman Mark Tuttle

told The Associated Press.

I think Tuttle is wrong. I'd imagine Turley had a hand in drafting up the message (as it was predominantly his and co. research that contributed to some of the words). If Turley thinks it was an apology (which he does), and if my heart tells me it was an apology, then I’m not too concerned what a media-savvy PR spin-doctor has to say about it.

It may not have been an apology in the strictest sense of the word (how do you truly apologize for something you had no part in[?]). But, it was a vicarious apology for the actions of those who strayed from the Christian teachings of our church, and I think it was a humble act befitting of G-d's church.

[Moksha]

From The Huffington Post:

Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.

"We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'" church spokesman Mark Tuttle

told The Associated Press.

I feel sad that the Church did not issue an undeniable apology for this tremendous mass murder committed by their members and put this horrible tragedy behind them.

I do not understand the psychology or reasons behind being unwilling to offer such a healing apology.

[Elphaba]

I think Tuttle is wrong. I'd imagine Turley had a hand in drafting up the message (as it was predominantly his and co. research that contributed to some of the words). If Turley thinks it was an apology (which he does), and if my heart tells me it was an apology, then I’m not too concerned what a media-savvy PR spin-doctor has to say about it.

Hello "Professor" Steuss,

I tend to agree with you. I'm curious, though. Do you have anything we can link to that indicates Turley intended it to be an apology?

Thanks,

Marmie

[Doctor Steuss]

Hello "Professor" Steuss,

I tend to agree with you. I'm curious, though. Do you have anything we can link to that indicates Turley intended it to be an apology?

Thanks,

Marmie

Who told you about my "Professor[ship]"? I was saving that for a Mother's Day surprise.

LDS Church historian Richard Turley said that while Eyring's words didn't go so far as to say the church is "sorry," the remarks were an apology. "[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry," he said. "What happened here was horrific."

From: this article.

Hugs,

Your Smarmy Son

[Moksha]

<div class='quotemain'>

From The Huffington Post:

Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology.

"We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret,'" church spokesman Mark Tuttle

told The Associated Press.

I think Tuttle is wrong.

Tuttle is completely wrong, but he is the official spokesperson.

[Elphaba]

I cannot believe the heavens are not open in celebration today!

I wish I had thought to check out if there were going to be such a memorial. I would have drugged myself, hired a wheelchair, Made a body bag full of ice to sit in so I wouldn't be hot, whatever! My son and brother live only about an hour away from the site. I could have done it!

For me, this is a watershed moment in the history of the MMM. Perhaps I'm being too sentimental. Additionally my opinion matters little as I have no connection to any of the involved parties.

But I've studied the massacre extensively, and have read the names of those murdered in cold blood often. I find this connects me to the events in a visceral manner and I feel as if I'm there when I read all the available literature.

I also found, once I believed I had come to know the victims as much as possible, that I could turn to the perpetrators and come to understand, while not condoning, what could turn decent, God-loving men who would never think of such a thing into cold-blooded murderers.

Anyway, an apology! I honestly never thought I'd see the day. The murdered's ancestors have waited for so long, and now it has come! I am very glad and very moved. I sincerely hope they know there are those of us who have always been sincerely sorry, and now we have the Church's apology to back us up.

I also hope it helps the ancestors of those who committed the crime to know their Church stands behind them, acknowledges their pain, and helps in their healing as well.

As you know I have been somewhat distrustful of Turley and his work on the upcoming book. My respect for him has just grown tremendously. An apology!

Elphaba

[shanstress70]

An apology!

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but again, "We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret." I think if someone goes out of his way to say that something is not an apology, it's not to be considered an apology. I don't understand why he's so adamant about that.

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

An apology!

Don't mean to rain on your parade, but again, "We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret." I think if someone goes out of his way to say that something is not an apology, it's not to be considered an apology. I don't understand why he's so adamant about that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I’m feeling very foolish today.

On September 11, in The Salt Lake Tribune, it reads: “The words, "we're sorry," were not part of the statement, but Richard Turley Jr., the LDS Church's managing director of family and church history and co-author of the forthcoming book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows, insisted after the ceremony that the statement was meant to be an apology.

"[The church] is deeply, deeply sorry," he said. "What happened here was horrific."

Yet on September 12, in the Foxnews.com, it states:

Eyring's statement stopped short of making an apology — a word he didn't use, a church spokesman said. Nor did Eyring take responsibility on behalf of the church for the massacre. Instead, he blamed "local leaders" of the church in Cedar City, Utah, for taking matters into their own hands."

Clearly church officials are once again distancing themselves from a formal apology, which supercedes Turley’s claim that it was meant to be an apology. My enthusiasm was based on Turley's words, but I hadn't checked out the timing, nor had I seriously looked at The Huffington Post article.

I feel ridiculous for being so happy and unburdened somehow by Turley’s words. I’m back to feeling as if those of us who care about MMM are being played because Church officials think we’re all really gullible and are going to be satisfied with word games. It’s either officially "I'm sorry," or it's not.

I do believe Turley believes it was meant to be an apology, however, and that Church offcials should give one. That does mean something to me, especially given he knows more about MMM than Brother Eyring ever will.

I wrote what I'd been waiting to write for years. My hands are held out for anyone who wants to slap them.

Elphaba

[Doctor Steuss]

The Deseret News called it an apology. The Deseret News is owned by the Church. I'll keep my wishful (and hopeful) thinking that it was an apology, and the media-savvy spin-doctor was speaking out of turn.

[Elphaba]

The Deseret News called it an apology. The Deseret News is owned by the Church. I'll keep my wishful (and hopeful) thinking that it was an apology, and the media-savvy spin-doctor was speaking out of turn.

I know my son, but the DN is not a "spokesman" for the Church, and the fact that the spin-doctor is "media-savvy" is one reason to believe church officials back him rather than Turley. There must have been some in-house discussion for him to feel the need to make a public clarification; if not, Turley's comments would have stood as is.

Perhaps today an "official" spokesperson for the Church will publish a clarification, and then we can end this speculation. Until then, I think we'll have to disagree.

It does occur to me, however, that both statements will be left alone. That way, you can maintain there is an apology, and I (and Church officials in a potential legal situation), can maintain there isn't. An interesting strategy, don't you think?

Mum

Edited to add: I am not suggesting a "duel" strategy was planned. Just that it would be fortuitous.

[Moksha]

Edited to add: I am not suggesting a "duel" strategy was planned. Just that it would be fortuitous.

That way, people of good conscience like Steuss can breath a sigh of relief and Church hardliners can gleefully say that they never apologized. Makes sense in a round about way, but I am still left with an empty feeling of closure not happening.

[Moksha]

<div class='quotemain'>

Edited to add: I am not suggesting a "duel" strategy was planned. Just that it would be fortuitous.

That way, people of good conscience like Steuss can breath a sigh of relief and Church hardliners can gleefully say that they never apologized. Makes sense in a round about way, but I am still left with an empty feeling of closure not happening.

I tend to agree with this.

[Elphaba]

I searched the headlines today hoping there might be a clarification on whether or not "apology" meant "apology," in Brother Eyring's talk at the September 11 memorial at Mountain Mountains. I even checked at LDS.org to see if a clarification had been issued. So far I have come up empty handed.

Hoewever, I have still been unable to let it go. So, I had an idea. I decided to look up "apology" in the dictionary, and much to my surprise, this is what it said:

Main Entry: apol·o·gy

Function: noun

Pronunciation: &-'pä-l&-je

Inflected Form(s): plural -gies

Etymology: Middle French or Late Latin; Middle French apologie, from Late Latin apologia, from Greek, from apo- + logos speech -- more at LEGEND

1 a : a formal justification : DEFENSE b : EXCUSE 2a

2 : an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by an expression of regret

3 : a poor substitute : MAKESHIFT

Well, what am I to think now?

I am still bother by Tuttle's insistence: "We don't use the word 'apology.' We used 'profound regret."

At the same time, I cannot imagine that if the use of "profound regret," were some sort of strategy to literally prevent using the word "apology," the decision makers would have not have thought to check it out in the dictionary to make sure there was no confusion.

When I was a technical writer for the state of Utah, I had to look up almost every single word, not because I did not know the word, but to ensure an incident of this nature could not possibly ever happen.

And we all know the Church's legal and PR teams are not stupid.

So once again, I am on the roller coaster with did the Church officials apologize or not? It appears, based on the dictionary defintion, that they did. Combine that with Turley's insistence it was an apology, which has not been corrected by the Church's PR department, which is usually immediately on top of this type of thing, and it does seem to be an "apology."

If only Tuttle had kept his mouth shut I'd feel the excitment of my overexuberant post of September 12. Yet I agree the balance scale has tipped to the side of Turley, and though I can't feel celebratory, I'm going to think on it a little bit more.

If anyone sees any new informtion, would you please post it?

Thanks, and my deepest expresson of regret for being so neurotic about all of this.

Elphaba