Apology To Mormons

[porterrockwell]

If we are gonna play this game, then the Catholics are gonna have a lot to apologize about, racist souther baptists that were also Klan member are gonna have to start apologizing, the Jews for the whole Crucifixion. How bout this, forgive and forget. What is sad, is that Mormon's strive to move forward, anti's want to dwell on issues and events they can harpoon and spin to their advantage.

Furthermore, none of my family history had anything to do with the MMM.

Plus, it wasn't just the PEOPLE, it was the government and government officials that viciously attacked the foundation of our church. There is a distinct difference between that and the MMM. Sorry, don't throw that blame game on our heads.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Maureen+Apr 6 2004, 10:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Apr 6 2004, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Dan@Apr 5 2004, 10:05 PM

As for the MMM, why shouldn't we dismiss it as unimportant?  We're punished for our own sins, right?  Well, I definitely didn't kill anybody, so you've no right to blame me.  The official apology from Illinois is meant as a kind gesture (And it is a kind gesture! Go Illinois! You rock!), not as a way of accepting blame for something that nobody currently living in Illinois was involved in.

So then why can't the LDS church also contribute a kind gesture toward the families of those that died in the MMM, by apologizing?

M.

I think they did when they had a monument put up and a big ceremony on that spot...

[Maureen]

Now which mormon will step forward and appologize for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

I believe GBH already DID apologize in a ceremony a few years ago. I don't remember the details, but it sticks in my mind that he gave an address in or near Cedar city regarding the subject.

Yes, I remember such a ceremony...they have a monument there now....where it happened.

GBH did not apologize, he said this:

That which we have done here must never be construed as an acknowledgment on the part of the Church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful and tragic day.

(President Hinckley Dedicates Mountain Meadows Monument

“News of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 111)

M.

[Guest Starsky]

Well that isn't nice of him. But how can it really be cleared up when most all the reports of what and who have been so messed up. I mean...there are no clear reports of anything except the 'remains' that were found. There were no eye witnesses who could tell the what really happened. They are all dead.

Too bad there were no lie detector tests and apsolute court documents...

So what is the use of dredging on it now...will it bring anyone back....

Could Pres. Hinckley in good conscience take credit for something that isn't documented with anything but heresay and rumor?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 5 2004, 06:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 5 2004, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 5 2004, 05:58 PM

The massacre at Mountain Meadows, on the other hand, happened precisely because of a deeply-rooted Church tradition -- its cult of obedience.

Disagree.

Undoubtedly that was a factor. But it was not the cause as implied by your because. As I view it, it was the culmination as a very complex fabric or events, emotions, rhetoric, paranoia, etc. Recently a So. Cal attorney, Robert Briggs, countered Will Bagley's general thesis (they put on a road show together). This is an outline of steps in a process, in his view, that evolve into such trajedy.

Escalating Violence –The Process

-Bias

-Prejudice

-Discrimination

-Denunciation

-Fighting Words

-Physical Attacks

-Organized Attacks

-Dispossession

-Killings

-Mass Killings

This reminds me of the old law school distinction between "but-for" causation and proximate, or legal causation. In tort law, something can be a cause of a wrong, without being considered the legal cause. (The textbook case involves a train, a bag of fireworks, a crowded station platform, a toppling signpost, and an unlucky woman named Palsgraf.) For example, it could be argued that but for Ted Bundy's mother's giving birth to him, the people he killed would not have died. The law doesn't hold her responsible, though; her act of giving birth to him, though a "but-for" cause, was not the "proximate" cause -- the cause that the law recognizes as ultimately responsible.

The massacre at Mountain Meadows would probably not have happened, but for the Church's inculcation in its members of a strong sense of obedience to authority. The question then arises of whether that aspect of the Church, or other aspects of the situation (the tensions of the "Mormon War," the memories of Missouri, the Fancher party's apparently general obnoxiousness, the near-starvation of the southern Utah communities and the lure of plunder), or even the malice of particular individuals should be deemed the proximate cause. The courts ultimately deemed the proximate cause to be the malice of John D. Lee, and hanged him and moved on. You'd probably agree that considering Mormonism generally the proximate cause of the Mountain Meadows massacre would be an unfairly broad characterization. While it's true that had Mormonism never existed, the Fancher Party would probably have creaked its merry way on to California, that strikes me as a kind of the attenuated "but-for" causation similar to considering Ted Bundy's mother responsible for what he did. I think you'd also agree, on the other hand, that fixing guilt on Lee alone is probably an inaccurately narrow characterization. He alone could not have made the massacre happen.

So what other factors should be held responsible? Your list of the steps of escalation to violence are relevant. The mobbers of Missouri didn't have any great authoritarian tradition when they murdered Mormons at Haun's Mill. (Rather the opposite, in fact.) A bad man doesn't need to be commanded to do bad things.

And there, I think, is the reason those steps of escalation can't adequately explain Mountain Meadows. Because the Mormons weren't bad men. They weren't unstable, rough, brawling, amoral ruffians. They were family men striving to be Saints. We don't expect such people to be prone to murderous violence, as we might be in the case of frontier vigilantes. Something other than the natural man's response to temptations to violence had to have played its part.

As humans, the Mormon militiamen who took part in the massacre felt the urge to violence with which the process you described tempted them. But looking at the history of the Saints, I see that they were capable of monumental self-denial. The reason they were capable of recognizing and denying themselves worldly vices, but not murder, was that their immediate authority figures told them that what they would otherwise have recognized as evil -- murder -- was actually good. And they didn't question the authorities.

The modern Church structure, especially in an age of modern instant communications, is better at making sure rogue leaders like Stake President Haight don't abuse their authority.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Apr 6 2004, 09:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Apr 6 2004, 09:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Dan@Apr 5 2004, 10:05 PM

That doesn't require an apology, because the leaders of the church were acting how they were told to through divine revelation.

Bologney...

Agreed.

The Church will never baptize substantial numbers of African-Americans, so long as it continues to maintain that the original policy barring blacks from full Church participation was something directed by the Lord. And the Church, so long as interprets the Lord's guarantee that He will not allow the leadership to lead the Church astray as meaning that the leadership never makes significant mistakes, will never be able to apologize for virtually anything.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Apr 6 2004, 01:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Apr 6 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Apr 6 2004, 09:58 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Dan@Apr 5 2004, 10:05 PM

That doesn't require an apology, because the leaders of the church were acting how they were told to through divine revelation.

Bologney...

Agreed.

The Church will never baptize substantial numbers of African-Americans, so long as it continues to maintain that the original policy barring blacks from full Church participation was something directed by the Lord. And the Church, so long as interprets the Lord's guarantee that He will not allow the leadership to lead the Church astray as meaning that the leadership never makes significant mistakes, will never be able to apologize for virtually anything.

People need to accept that it was God's will. If they cannot accept that, they are not ready for baptism.

[broadway]

In regards to African American members:

The church never barred them from membership, just the priesthod...and the church realized that it was wrong in doing so. The doctrine wasn't about what COLOR a person is. This is the mistake the church made. The doctrine was about leniage. Not all dark-skinned people came from that particular leniage.

Heavenly Father revealed this to the church after the church leaders sought after His council about it due to the heavy political pressure being put upon the church. If anyone can find the church's statement on this issue, by all means post it. I have forgotten which leniage was banned from the priesthood. I also do not remember if the church now lets this leniage have the priesthood. I think it does, but don't quite remember. Does anyone else know?

broadway

[AFDaw]

Yeah, I read a really interesting article about that a while back. It was the linage that wasn't given the Priesthood. Not only that, but it says that there were plenty of blacks who weren't part of the linage and were given the priesthood. Think about certain cultures where ONLY blacks were members. Someone would have to have the priesthood. Plus they said that white members of the lineage were also denied the Priesthood.

I'm trying to find the article, but it was years ago I read it and I'm not having any luck.

[Outshined]

Some of that is covered HERE

[Guest Starsky]

I know a women who had a white/blond blue eyed son-in-law who was found to have the wrong linage after having three children. This women convinced her daughter that her salvation and exaltation was at risk to keep this man as her husband...

So there was a divorce and the father was given all the children from that marriage. Sad.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 6 2004, 02:01 PM

People need to accept that it was God's will. If they cannot accept that, they are not ready for baptism.

From what I hear, there are individual GAs that don't accept that it was necessarily God's will. If that is so, will you demand that they become un-baptised?

[Snow]

PD,

Thank you for the erudite and balanced reply. You have, in my untrained eyes, made an impressive argument based on legal causation. What I see lacking in your treatment is an expressed appreciation for moral agency of the individual.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow@Apr 6 2004, 06:18 PM

PD,

Thank you for the erudite and balanced reply. You have, in my untrained eyes, made an impressive argument based on legal causation. What I see lacking in your treatment is an expressed appreciation for moral agency of the individual.

Snow -- I definitely don't mean to leave moral agency out of the equation. Each of the militiamen at Mountain Meadows will have to answer for his sin, and won't be able to escape condemnation because he was just following Church orders. (On the other hand, Heber J. Grant, Marion G. Romney, and Ezra Taft Benson taught that a person would be blessed for following Church leaders, even if what he was asked to do was wrong; see Elder Benson's 1980 address"Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet." I disagree, because I believe in the moral agency -- and ultimate responsibility -- of the individual.)

But, this being true, it is also true that we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves so as not to cause our brothers to offend. (See 1 Corinthians 8:8-13 and Romans 14:21.) Paul wrote that it was a "sin against Christ" to place a weak brother in a position where he would likely fail to exercise his moral agency properly.

I believe that the subcurrent within the Church of excessive emphasis on obedience to authority is one of those things that invites people with a weakness for exercising unrighteous dominion to offend. To the extent that any of us are responsible for perpetuating that unhealthy Church trait, we are contributing to their offenses -- even if the primary responsibility for what the offending individual does is overwhelmingly on the shoulders of the offending individual.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 6 2004, 06:34 PM

I believe that the subcurrent within the Church of excessive emphasis on obedience to authority is one of those things that invites people with a weakness for exercising unrighteous dominion to offend.

Agreed, with the caveat that the evil of MMM would not have been possible through the 'cult of obedience' alone without the paranoia that the ensued from escalating persecution and denunciation.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 6 2004, 06:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 6 2004, 06:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 6 2004, 06:34 PM

I believe that the subcurrent within the Church of excessive emphasis on obedience to authority is one of those things that invites people with a weakness for exercising unrighteous dominion to offend.

Agreed, with the caveat that the evil of MMM would not have been possible through the 'cult of obedience' alone without the paranoia that the ensued from escalating persecution and denunciation.

Of course. Which is why missionaries in the field, among whom the cult of obedience is strongest by far of any population in the Church, generally don't make a practice of massacring the local fundies.

[Tr2]

That doesn't require an apology, because the leaders of the church were acting how they were told to through divine revelation. People of African ancestory were allowed to have the priesthood and the associated blessings only when God decided the time was right. (And why wouldn't they be allowed from the beginning? Maybe the world wasn't ready for a church which allowed such a thing. Maybe the world was just too racist for it to be a good idea before 1978. For whatever reason, it wasn't meant as anything personal against the African people.)

As for the MMM, why shouldn't we dismiss it as unimportant? We're punished for our own sins, right? Well, I definitely didn't kill anybody, so you've no right to blame me. The official apology from Illinois is meant as a kind gesture (And it is a kind gesture! Go Illinois! You rock!), not as a way of accepting blame for something that nobody currently living in Illinois was involved in.

I am assuming you are just trying to inspire a spirited discussion. You don't actually believe that crap do you?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 6 2004, 07:34 PM

Each of the militiamen at Mountain Meadows will have to answer for his sin, and won't be able to escape condemnation because he was just following Church orders.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't recall the massacre happening at the direction of the Church.

Is there some evidence that it was the prophet's order?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Outshined+Apr 7 2004, 02:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Apr 7 2004, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 6 2004, 07:34 PM

Each of the militiamen at Mountain Meadows will have to answer for his sin, and won't be able to escape condemnation because he was just following Church orders.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't recall the massacre happening at the direction of the Church.

Is there some evidence that it was the prophet's order?

No. To the contrary, Brigham Young sent a message that the Fancher Party was to be left alone. (It got there a little late.) It was local Church authorities that directed the massacre. But to the local members, the local authorities were the Church just as much as the First Presidency is.

[Outshined]

That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification.

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Snow+Apr 6 2004, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Apr 6 2004, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 6 2004, 02:01 PM

People need to accept that it was God's will.  If they cannot accept that, they are not ready for baptism.

From what I hear, there are individual GAs that don't accept that it was necessarily God's will. If that is so, will you demand that they become un-baptised?

It matters not what "some GAs" think... it matters what the revelations to the prophets were, which were confirmed and approved by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Ammon+Apr 7 2004, 04:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ammon @ Apr 7 2004, 04:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Apr 6 2004, 07:12 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ammon@Apr 6 2004, 02:01 PM

People need to accept that it was God's will.  If they cannot accept that, they are not ready for baptism.

From what I hear, there are individual GAs that don't accept that it was necessarily God's will. If that is so, will you demand that they become un-baptised?

It matters not what "some GAs" think... it matters what the revelations to the prophets were, which were confirmed and approved by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Which revelations are we talking about? Dates and references, please.

[Cal]

Originally posted by broadway@Apr 6 2004, 03:41 PM

In regards to African American members:

The church never barred them from membership, just the priesthod...and the church realized that it was wrong in doing so. The doctrine wasn't about what COLOR a person is. This is the mistake the church made. The doctrine was about leniage. Not all dark-skinned people came from that particular leniage.

Heavenly Father revealed this to the church after the church leaders sought after His council about it due to the heavy political pressure being put upon the church. If anyone can find the church's statement on this issue, by all means post it. I have forgotten which leniage was banned from the priesthood. I also do not remember if the church now lets this leniage have the priesthood. I think it does, but don't quite remember. Does anyone else know?

broadway

What lineage? Show me where this lineage is. Besides, since when was God a respecter or DISRESPECTOR of persons--particularly based on skin -color related lineage. Brigham young was a full-on racist bigot (not uncommon for the times--or even now I guess) . Read what he had to say in his JOD. This "revelation" you think the church leaders had about blacks and the priesthood, where is it? I'll tell you where it is. It is in a talk that BY gave in conference in about 1859. I've read it and so can you. Where is all this "from counsel with the other GA's". What BY said, WENT. That was your "revelation"---Brigham Youngs white race superiority thing. End of story. BY also said that blacks would not hold the priesthood until the millenium. Is this the millenium?

The bologna in the bible and PoGP is just reflection of the wide-spread idea that a black skin was a curse. Even the BoM taught that. (The church tried whitewashed that idea with a change from "white" to "pure" ). Modern day enlightenment about the meaning of skin color, thanks mostly to the science of genetics and evolution, forced the church into a position of looking like a religion out of the stone ages.

Anyone who thinks that denying the priesthood to blacks stemed from anything but plain old human prejudice is kidding themselves. It may have taken a revelation to give blacks the priesthood, but it sure didn't require one to deny it to them.

BTW--no God I could EVER believe in would deny his full blessing to one particular group of his children based on something HE himself created; their skin color. Cal 39:50

My tone may sound, to some, pretty harsh. I don't really blame any particular church leader or even the church as a whole for this mistake. However, those that continue to try to justify the doctrine, need to be flogged with 75 wet noodles. (now that wasn't so harsh was it?) To try to blame God for a doctrine clearly of man is a sin in itself, IMHO. I can't think of one attribute of the God I believe in that would lead him to behave the way SOME LDS think he does with regard to skin color.

Consider this: If God had a preference for lineage or skin color, based on how many of us are of a lineage that HAS brown skin, what would that preference be? [Take a wild guess--most of us have more melanin that the mormon pioneers in general]. BTW---the skin pigment that makes some people darker than others is the SAME pigment--it's melanin. Skin color is an evolutionary adaptation to sun exposure--the more you have the better protection you have against skin cancer. Now, who is really superior?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Skin color is an evolutionary adaptation to sun exposure--the more you have the better protection you have against skin cancer. Now, who is really superior?

On the other hand, darker skin inhibits the synthesis of vitamin D from sunlight, leading to rickets. So white skin is "superior" in cloudy climates, while dark skin is "superior" in sunny ones.

The role of evolution in the development of skin tone is so obvious that anyone who continues to think God is responsible for people's diverse paint jobs needs to be flogged with an ENTIRE PACKAGE of ramen noodles. And then beaten with a Nerf bat for good measure. And then stoned with koosh balls.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 9 2004, 03:57 PM

Skin color is an evolutionary adaptation to sun exposure--the more you have the better protection you have against skin cancer. Now, who is really superior?

On the other hand, darker skin inhibits the synthesis of vitamin D from sunlight, leading to rickets. So white skin is "superior" in cloudy climates, while dark skin is "superior" in sunny ones.

The role of evolution in the development of skin tone is so obvious that anyone who continues to think God is responsible for people's diverse paint jobs needs to be flogged with an ENTIRE PACKAGE of ramen noodles. And then beaten with a Nerf bat for good measure. And then stoned with koosh balls.

Totally agree. I would be a lot more impressed with the "wisdom" of the religious sages on this topic if even ONE of them would have said something like: "But, the curse of Cain prevented him from getting the creepy crawling skin disease". But no, it was nothing but a "sign" of unrightousness, uncleanliness. It really is unfortunate that the BoM reflects the same thinking---I would be more impressed with something that went against human prejudice and pronounced it a blessing!

Likewise, I would have been much more impressed with the inspiration of the Church had it had the 1978 revelation, in 1958 instead. This would have shown some REAL forsight. How much forsight does it take to say "Hey, if we don't give the blacks the priesthood, states like Minnesota are going to deny our tax free status, and many other states will follow, and BYU won't be able to win football games, and not to mention that mess in Brazil"

That had to be the least impressive "revelation" in all the history of religion.

Sorry if that sounds sarcastic and cynical--but I can't help seeing it that way.