Deseret News | Reader comments: Church issues apology for massacre

Reader comments
Church issues apology for massacre

274 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Next >

petersneal | 11:02 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Great, now how about an apology for the racist priesthood ban?

Dick | 11:10 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

As an active 8th generation member of the LDS churce, I am all for this apology. It's about time.

Trout-P | 11:11 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

The article mentioned basically that the fault was with the local leaders. I really believe this is true. I have lived in the St. George area for now going on 10 years, and I actually could see that happening again. Why? Well, the local leaders here are very different than the rest of the country, or State for that matter. It is very hard for an outsider to fit in here. I have lived here 10 years now, and am just starting to fit in. Plus, when certain things are done elswhere in the church across the land, St. George seems to want to be different. I really believe it is because of their lack of geographic identity. Close to Arizona, Nevada etc. They always blame the Northern Utahns for their troubles. Same scenario in Vernal Utah, Close to Wyoming and Colorado. Their ties are more with those states, like here, St. George is linked more to Vegas than SLC cause of miles. SO many leaders here don't want to help anyone but their own! And their own are the native property owners and business owners...Nepotism is alive and still doing quite well in St. George Utah.....

Comments continue below

An observer | 11:22 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

May peace replace hurt for those on both sides of the aftermath of this long-ago event.

Thomas | 11:25 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Good for the Church. It was the right thing to do.

Iwasthinking | 11:30 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I appreciated the LDS church stepping foward and offering an apology. I feel it is a very important step and I will try to resist the temptation to judge this apology as insincere and short on avowing responsibility.

I feel it was a good (but small) step in the right direction of providing solace and justice for the victims and their descendants. I hope we can continue to support the healing and reparations owed to their descendants and that it can someday serve as an example of a group of people truthfully facing the past and acknowleding the wrong and moving to make it right.

Hopefully more is to come.

JR | 11:31 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

TO KEEP APOLOGISING FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED 150 YEARS AGO IS REDICULOUS AS NOBODY TODAY CAUSED THE ACTION. IT WAS COVERED UP 150 YEARS AGO AND DENIED SINCE BUT LIFE GOES ON AND IT IS TIME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TODAY HOPING TO HAVE LEARNT FROM YESTERDAY

Josephs Myth | 11:34 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Well, this sort of makes all those people who were commenting in yesterday's thread against apologizing look silly, doesn't it?

I'm not sure that this changes much, but it has symbolic value, and I particularly think that it makes the church look more morally consistent, having gratefully and graciously accepted apologies in recent years from both the state of Missouri and the state of Illinois for atrocities committed in those states against Latter-day Saints many many years ago.

gazela | 11:39 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

What's next--reparations?

Henry Drummond | 11:41 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I'm glad that the Church has apologized not only to the families of the murdered victims but to the Native American tribes who took the blame for so many years.

Perhaps by all sides exploring what really happened we can discover what drives people to commit such horrible acts and prevent it from happening in the future.

Kent Francis | 11:47 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Now we need an apology from the US Government for the war that caused much of the circumstances of MMM, and an apology from all the people of the East at the time who hounded their representatives into causing the persecution that created the mentality that caused MMM, and from those who drove them from their homes into the desert, and from all those who today continue to call for apologies when no apology will satisfy their desire to continue the harassment of the LDS Church. How about if now we all move on to modern times and leave MMM as a footnote in history from 150 years ago.

Next Step | 11:47 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Perhaps now the church will agree to federal stewardship of the land. That would ensure preservation of the site and go a long way to earning the trust of the descendants of the Massacre.

BTW, JR, adult literacy programs are easy to find in the valley. Did you have some one read the story to you? :)

BB | 11:48 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

JR: To me an apology is an apology as long as it is sincere. The Lord forgives whom he will but of us it is required to forgive all men...and I don't think it matters if something happened 150 years ago or one minute ago. If it is determined that wrong doing took place then an apology is expected no matter what the time frame is. It is no our place to judge.

Anonymous | 11:53 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I hope all the whiny descendants can get over it and move on with their lives now. My ancestors were threatened with murder and run out of Missouri. You don't see me stomping around and demanding apologies. I simply admire their courage. I believe that's what they'd want me to do.

lindsay | 11:54 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

when does the apologizing stop? People need to grow up and move on, it happened 150 years ago!

SMH | 11:54 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

"Some have also petitioned the church to transfer to the federal government ownership of the monument and surrounding lands the church has purchased to preserve the site"

I would comment that the LDS church has done an excellent job of beautifying, maintaining, and reverencing this land. They have the money and the vested interest to continue to do so.
If ownership were transferred to the federal government, I think the area wouldn't be as sacredly maintained. It would become more like an area of 'historical signifigance to the region'. And they would start charging the public to enter and tour the area, just like any other federally owned park.

I say let the LDS church keep the area, and forever maintain it's sanctity, in a way as extended apology and restitution to those that perished there.

Let's move on | 11:55 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I am neither for nor against this apology, but I don't understand the "demand" for it. I think the aplogy from the state of Missouri to the LDS Church was silly and unnecessary. I think this was unnecessary. It is similar to descendents of slaves today asking me to apologize for slavery if my great-great-great grandfather were a slave-owner. What happened was wrong on every level and in every sense of the word. But as JR said, no one in the LDS Church now was responsible for what happened just like no one alive now is responsible for slavery and no Missourians now are responsible for driving the LDS people out of Missouri. Everyone has their opinion as to who was at fault and no one is going to be able to "prove" anything at this point. It's time to move on.

And anyone that feels like the Federal Govt can maintain a historical site like this better than the LDS Church can hasn't visited very many small historical sites in this country. They do great with the biggies, but not so good with the small ones like this would be.

Nick Whiting | 11:56 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Thank you BB for your insight. I agree that of us it is required to forgive all men, and also to accept a sincere apology. I believe the apology the LDS church gave was sincere. It is my hope that we can continue to learn from this great tragedy and take many more steps to repairing the damage it has caused.

To BB | 11:57 a.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I agree with your analysis of what an apology is, but an apology from me to you for something your neighbor did is simply unnecessary.

logic | 12:00 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Certainly, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an institution has zero moral culpability in the massacre. Those who hate the church would love to have you assume otherwise. To be consistent, detractors must go after every organized church as well as every agnostic and aetheist because individuals espousing their views have committed atrocities. As long as we recognize the intellectual dishonesty of those who wish to lay this unfortunate event at the feet of the LDS church, I don't think there is much controversy left to discuss on this issue.

Carlo Caroli | 12:05 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

When will the LDS Church also apologize for supporting the Republican Party? Just a tought.

Food for thought | 12:05 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

The healing that needs to take place lies in the hearts of the individuals that hold the hurt, bitterness, anger, etc. Whether someone expresses regret for others past actions or not is not the important thing. When people learn what true forgiveness is and who it benefits, they will be more likely to forgive freely. Those who were killed and those who did the killing have all died and are all in the care of a lovely God. I trust that he has handled things appropriately.

As far as the states of Illinois and Missouri offering appologies for the actions done by others who lived in those states a long time ago, it was not important to me. I have relatives who were driven out of those states because of their beliefs. Some were even killed. But I knew that those offering the appologies had nothing to do with what had happened in the past. They were acknowledging that something bad had happened in their states, but they were not responsible for those past actions.

BYUTAH | 12:08 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Next Step,
Attacking JR's literacy was bad form. Federal stewardship is not needed. The land is being preserved and the event memorialized.

Kent,
No participant in the violence at MM can blame anyone else for what happened. They had a choice and they chose to do what they did. The relationship between the LDS church and the federal government has never been better than it is right now. I don't need an apology from anyone. My faith is fine in spite of past persecution etc. In fact, what stories would we have to tell if our ancestors did not suffer as they did? I am grateful that my forbears went through hell. Makes my situation more meaningful.

JR,
Nothing has been lost by the apology. The current leadership of the LDS church did not take responsibility for what happened. It just said it was sorry.

Carole Knowles | 12:12 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

To Next Step:
Be nice.

NorthboundZax | 12:13 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Anonymous, Church leaders pressed for (and received) apologies from Missouri and Illinois over the atrocities that occurred there. Were the church learders being "whiny"? I doubt you would characterize them that way, and it is just as unfair to similarly characterize the descendants of the MMM.

It is terrific to see the church to finally own up to what has been painfully obvious for a long time. It certainly reduces the level of hypocrisy that hung over the church the last two decades for pressing for apologies from Missouri and Illinois while telling the descendants of the MMM to just forgive and forget. It is reassuring to see the church stand for a little more honesty and transparency. Hopefully this will help the descendants feel a little more peace regarding the travesty.

Clark Warren | 12:30 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Great news that the Church has issued an apology and acknowledgement of a terrible day in LDS church history. I was also impressed that they also mentioned the Piutes and the implication that they were responsible.
Two things still may further the credibility of the apology: 1) acknowledging that Brigham Young was most likely involved, the settlers would never have done anything like this without his knowledge and acceptance 2) change the monument, currently the inocuous message is a joke - denying no blame or apology.

Carl | 12:32 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

About time for the apology. However, if you believe John Lee's accounting of what happened, Brigham Young did in fact give the "ok!"

Of course, the new LDS book being written about the whole affair will excuse President Young. That's a foregone conclusion! Save your money and don't buy their book!

All apologies | 12:33 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

This was the right move by the church. I am proud to associate myself with this organization.

Ryan | 12:37 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I am perfectly fine with this play by the church, fwiw.

It demonstrates class and respect to the memories of the victims and their descendants. In the face of a very painful and difficult situation, you could say it was "big of them", if you will. After all, this is what people have been clamoring for for decades, isn't it? An end to it being "under rug swept", no?

I also agree that it's slightly prideful and petty for the descendants groups to insist that the church relinquish control of the site. They're doing a fine job (from what I've read), they want to do it, and it speaks well of them that they are doing it. There is nothing broken here...

Finally, can we put this matter to bed, please? I know how the anti's love to hold hands and dance around it, but I'm starting to feel slightly sorry and embarrassed for them. They need a new triviality to obsess over.

A | 12:40 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

NorthboundZax - What PROOF do you have that the church pressed for apologies from Missouri and Illinois? I know apologies came from them, but I have never read or hear anything about the Church putting pressure to get apologies. Have you actually seen anything to document your statement? I am not criticizing, I just have never seen anything, and I would like to know if it is FACTUALLY true or just factless blogging.

Ray | 12:47 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I always have viewed the MMM as a tragic, cautionary warning about how we should react when we perceive a threat or non-lethal attack - with careful consideration, a forgiving heart and without malice. It makes the Sermon on the Mount come alive for me in a way that most events simply canï¿½t, given what I have been able to learn about the general goodness, sincerity, dedication and Christian outlook of those who participated - and suffered until their dying days for that participation.

May God have mercy on their souls - just as I pray He has mercy on ours whenever we succumb to the same temptation in less extreme ways. The next time we are tempted to respond in anger to what someone has said about us - to what we perceive to be an attack on our religion or personal opinion, I hope we remember what that type of reaction can cause otherwise good, decent people to do.

Paul M Canada | 12:50 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

It is about time! It is funny how it took the LDS church this long to fess-up. Yet again, are we mixing up actions taken by individuals versus actions taken by a whole church organization? Then maybe the Americans can take a good hard look at themselves to see what they have done, politically, economically, socially and warringly to many other nations. Not much has been learn, eh!

Blue Never Doubts | 12:51 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Carlo Caroli,

I have sat in sacrament meeting over the years, and heard, over and over, the statement read over the pulpit that the church, leaders and buildings are not to be used to support one political party over the other. No voting takes place at the church, no rallies, no endorsements have ever been made over the pulpit, except maybe by some individual--out of place.

Where do you get your information? And if the members of the church, in large number support one political party over the other, what is that to you? Have you not the same right? Has someone in the church leadership attempted to sway your party affiliation? Or deny you the RIGHT to your choice? I thought not...Carlos...love ya man, but ease up...

JWK | 12:56 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Carlo,

The Mormon church does not support any political party.

In case you did not read about James E Faust, he was a Democrat and worked hard for Democrat causes.

As a member of the First Presidency, should they also apologize for supporting the Democrat party?

As far as the apology goes, to apologize for something recognizes the harm done to others and it helps to heal. Those who demand an apology probably won't accept it. Those how ask probably will if it is sincerely given. I apologize for things that I haven't felt I've done but if someone perceives that I have done something to harm then I apologize. Then we can both sit down and figure out how they felt hurt and how to avoid such conceptions in the future.

As for things that have happened like this, slavery, the expulsion of Mormons from their homes, these things happened so long ago that no reparations should be given.

Things that have been done recently, say during the civil right era, can and are often addressed today, mainly in the legal forum and if the guilty are still alive. There are no guilty ones left after 150 years.

Iwasthinking | 12:57 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

It is almost scripted the classic response and reaction of "it happened so long ago, lets move on" or "now what do we have to give reparations?"

They are scripted because its psychological for human beings to want to avoid the uneasy feelings of guilt or to own up and take responsibilites for the actions of our ancestors.

When we say "it happened so long ago" we are saying this less to the victims than we are ourselves to aswage our guilt. Its a form of cognitive dissonance.

The fear of reparations or of making a person whole again is very daunting, becuase it becomes monetary and we all understand a loss of money. If reparations are given to one group of people we are afraid it will expected in all cases. Mountain Meadows would be insignificant compared to the reparations owed the American Indian.

That is why we often want to denounce any reparations on any scale and even an apology is too much and too scary.

Unfortunately this runs counter to what we all thought American stood for i.e. "and justice for all". But if we are on the priviledge end or the end that got away with money, land, and murder or benefited from that, then of course we don't want to do reparations. Even though it would be the most Christ like thing we could do, Right a wrong, bring justice to an injustice.

doubtful | 12:59 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Sadly, the main reason the Church will never gift that land to the Federal Government (even though they should), is because the church leadership is scared to death that a new monument might be built that appropriately blames the whole church for the massacre.

Curious | 1:00 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

wow....

JWK | 1:05 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Iwasthinking,

I guess that someone like you have made reparations for all the injustices that you have done. Good for you.

Matt | 1:05 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Wow. I had no idea that this organization had the ability to own up for anything it does wrong.

Well, color me impressed - but not enough to get involved again.

JWK | 1:10 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

doubtful,

I am certain that a person as old as you has the answers of what happened at that time. I am amazed that you don't show up in the record book for being over 150 years old.

The church is not 'scared to death' as you say and to say that it would be appropriate indicates your viewpoint of the Mormon church.

John | 1:13 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Carlo, I agree, the church leadership needs to apologize for the whole "deifying republicanism" trend. And what about having Dick Cheney speak at BYU's most recent commencement? That will forever warrant a big apology. Sadly, that apology probably wont' come for another 150 years.

Sad at all the Bigotry | 1:24 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I'm saddened by the MMM. I'm saddened by the hateful expressions of anti-Mormon bigotry that the anniversary of this event seems to bring out. The tone of 99% of the emails that assert Brigham Young's involvement, or bash the Church for not deeding over the land, yes the tone, speaks more than the words. The tone is spiteful and gnashing of teeth like. That's inescapable. I'm looking for level headed discourse of this subject. Hard to find.

Anonymous | 1:24 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Iwasthinking:

Yah, but how far back do we go -- I had ancestors in 2000BC in Mesopotamia who were murdered and all their property taken by your ancestors. I'll be anxiously awaiting your apology and my check.

Stewbad | 1:25 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

How can we trust the Church now? It was obviously evil in the 1860s, so it must be evil today. I donï¿½t believe the apology is sincere. Come on, who does the Church think it is by fixing up the place by spending a lot of money it and not me. Itï¿½s all public relations and image. It is smoke and mirrors. Iï¿½m certain that the Church is planning other massacres. Yes! Yes! That is it! MMM was just the beginning. Iï¿½m sure food storage is designed to starve the non believers. Oh the horror. Pay me now please. I canï¿½t take it any more. Itï¿½s intentional infliction of emotional distress. I need money. Money. Money. No. I need money and land. Yes. Yes. The Church will only be sincere when it gives me the land and pays me money for what has happened in the past, what is happening today and what will happen in the future. I'm being victimized by the man!!!!!

Kenneth H Knighton | 1:34 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Perhaps the church should apologize for slavery, perhaps one can extract the apology from those who committed the act and who are guilty. It is a nice gesture but not one owed by anyone or any entity living today.

Firearm | 1:35 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I agree with Kent Francis. He had the most cogent argument thus far presented. An apology should be reserved for a direct harm that an individual or organization has caused (Enron should have apologized to the MANY employees who were robbed). However, apologizing for an event that tragically happened before any of use were born is "walking on thin ice". There are several examples of historical events that could be apologized for yet we do (and should) not. Recognizing the tragedy and making a commitment to working towards the opposite of what occured (tolerance, supporting freedom, etc)is the rational choice. I am relieved that the church will not relinquish the site to the Federal government. This would be an even bigger mistake than the apology. If you have ancestors who were persecuted, mistreated, or worse, work on your modern day, here and now, support of causes that support and maintain freedom and justice for groups and people during 2007, not 1847 (or before or after). If you don't you will continue to live in the past and be haunted by ghosts of tragedies which you can do nothing about and miss the opportunities to help those who require the same justice in the modern day.

Kevin | 1:38 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

To those who can bridge this apology to issues with the Republican Party: Obviously, you have underlying issues and a big chip on your shoulder.

The LDS Church offered a public apology. It was not forced nor was it coerced. We have a choice; accept it or reject it--the choice is ours.

So many generations have passed since that terrible event. Those responsible for the MMM are no longer alive...and will meet their Maker to face their involvement. We are asked to forgive others for their trespasses. No good comes from ranting about the issue 150 years after the fact.

Beuford | 1:45 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Its hard to imagine that 120+ lives taken were because of local leaders decisions. They wouldn't make a move like that on their own and threaten excommunication and damnation. I wonder if the commuciation from locals to church HQ was greatly exagerated and blown out of proportion as to who was in the caravan and their intent. Or that there were women and children and familes involved. Communication in the 1850's was long and drawn out. In short, a few local leaders probablly reported what they knew would get the response they wanted, and HQ probablly gave it based on bad info.

Vegas Ed | 1:44 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

The church apologized for what a group of local leaders did without knowledge of church leadership. That is as far as they can go. No one has ever, or will ever prove or disprove that Brigham Young signed off on the attack. Almost all of the history points to Brigham Young telling them to let the group go through peacefully. With the distance, and timeframe, the message didn't get to the people in time to stand down. Was it a terrible attack? Of course, but none of us were there to know the thinking of the Mormon group.

Thomas | 1:47 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Am I off base thinking the Church's apology is something truly revolutionary? Has the Church, as an institution, ever apologized for anything before?

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.