Deseret News | Church issues apology for massacre

Reader comments
Church issues apology for massacre

274 comments | Read story

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

As a convert to the LDS faith I know that there are a lot of different churchs today that have had black marks in their history. Not all people are good. We live,learn and progress trying always to be better. I think forgiveness is a part of enernal progression.

What? | 1:47 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I appreciate the apology from church leaders.

I also find it interesting that the apology didn't help the church's detractors (as many people predicted yesterday). As the first comment shows, they just brush that apology aside and start asking for the next apology for the next thing that bugs them about the church. Apology requests will never stop for some and I think it is obvious an apology is not what they are looking for in the first place, just a platform to bash the church.

For those who think the church now needs to blame Brigham Young... ask yourself... What "Proof" do you have that he ordered this action? Reading it in a book or seeing it in a movie doesn't make it so. I think even Mormons are protected by our constitution and rule of law where a man is innocent until "Proven" guilty. Unless there is some Proof that Young ordered the killings I think you should respect his right to presumed innocence and not spread these conspiracy theories. Of course if those conspiracy theories included some "Proof" that would stand up in a court of law and not just conjecture that would be different.

Bottom line, there are those who are not going to be happy with the church (no matter what they apologise for and no matter what they do). They just have hate in their hearts and need an excuse to express it. The conspiracy theories will continue no matter what.

I encourage everyone hurt by this incident to look deep into their hearts in hopes of finding forgiveness so we can move on to a "better", instead of a more blame filled day tomorrow.

RE: Stewbad | 1:48 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Ha! Yours is the best and most "on target" response yet! Love it!

Comments continue below

Enova | 1:48 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I think it's wonderful that the apology has been issued. It's taking responsibility for things that have been ascertained. Reparations? I don't think that would be appropriate... the most Christlike thing to do would be for the descendants of those who were truly responsible to make restitution to the descendants of the victims... but we don't know who was truly responsible. For the Church to open that floodgate would be inviting every sleazeball lawyer looking for billable hours to sue them for everything and anything. I mean, look - some drone molests a kid and because he's a home teacher, the family finds a ragheaded attorney willing to sue the Church for damages. If it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Brigham Young ordered the massacre, maybe... but the facts don't bear this out and I don't believe it.

Amazed!!! | 1:49 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Some of you people have real problems. Let's not forget that the people in the Church are not perfect. He who's church it is, is perfect and therefore we are in good hands. Obviously when man's hands are in something there will be problems. But don't forget whose church it is. Not Joseph Smith's, not Brigham Young's, not your local Bishop's. Take offense if you want. Call the Church a fraud if you want. But those who truly know that this Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ will not be affected. God bless you all!

John | 1:51 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I don't see any "apology" in the statement. Just more of the same: blame the LOCAL LDS leaders. The Church institution is still claiming that Brother Brigham and George A. Smith had nothing to do with the massacre. Even if they didn't directly order it, they certainly set the stage for the massacre to become a possibility. And the fact the Church instutition has "regrets," well, so what? We all "regret" what happened, but expressing regret is NOT an apology. I bet the Church PR dept. work long and hard on the slippery language in that statement.

No pioneer or American ancestors | 1:53 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I think that the LDS Church/First Presidency did the right thing in apologizing for the unforgivable actions of a group of Church members 150 years ago.

The Church apology will not be enough for those who are determined not to believe it or accept it. There will be always be something else that will be required. There will always be those who want more, or will never believe anything that is presented, or will question the sincerity, the tone, the meaning of what was said.

The local leaders and militia members committed a heinous crime 150 years ago. There was no excuse for it, no justification for it, and they must each face the consequences of their actions when facing their Maker (probably already have)!

To the person in another article who wanted his Indian ancestors exonerated of responsibility for this horrendous crime - this was apparently also taken care of in the statement by Henry Eyring.

The sad bickering over the site will continue. The LDS Church maintains sites in a beautiful way. Do you honestly think the government would do as well? The descendant groups should work with the Church to memorialize their ancestors in the way they would like to. However, it is not the place for hate-filled rhetoric, or perpetuation of bigotry or anything else of a negative nature. Honor the dead with positive, uplifting actions today.

Cache Valley Res | 1:53 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

If the Church agrees to federal government stewardship, will the feds agree to pay at least what the Church paid for the land? I doubt it... I'm sure they (and the descendants) want to Church to GIVE them the land. Will be interesting to see it unfold.

John | 1:54 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Why is this story being called an apology? There is nothing for the Church to apologize for.

In the first place, and most importantly, there is NO NEED for an apology from the Church as an organization, as they were not responsible. Some of the members, who had some authority did so, but how many people have been murdered and attacked in this country in its 200+ years, and I don't see their churches being accused of any wrong doing. The people who did the deeds, were the guilty party. Expecting a church to apologize for every bad action of any of its members just shows how far mormon hating people will go to spread their ill will

Second, grow up people. If you hate the church, this won't matter. Those who hate the Lord, will hate Him no matter what anyone says or does.

I am so darn sick of people in the 21st century getting all twisted and bent up about the behavior of people 150+ years ago.

Nothing those people did, was the fault of ANYONE alive today, so grow up, get over it, and move the heck on.

P.S. For those children so upset over the priesthood ban, you need to turn your hate towards all of christianity, as the Old Testament refers to more than one instance where the Lord chose to withold that authority from a rather large group of people, based on their race. To only grieve against the LDS church over such a thing, and not attack christians everywhere, is pure bigotry.

davemc@cs.unc.edu | 1:55 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Wow. This is a hard one. What if someone walked up to you with evidence that your ancestor wronged their ancestor and demanded an apology? Would you do it?

My first reaction would be defensiveness and then probably a desire to examine the facts and argue them with the person, and then I'd probably point out that they personally weren't harmed by this and I personally didn't cause the harm.

I'm really impressed by the humility the Church has shown for something that a) was 150 years ago, b) was done by a local group of the church, not the church as a whole, c) is shrouded in uncertainty and half-truth, and d) no one giving the apology had anything to do with. That would take more humility than hardly anyone has. What a great example for all of us!

A few questions:

Does anyone have any evidence that the church in the last decade *asked for* apologies from Missouri and Illinois for the bloodshed in the 1830s and 40s? I've never heard that claim until today. Is it true?

What evidence is there that Brigham Young ordered John Lee to attack the wagon train? I've never heard any, and I have heard the evidence to the contrary (Lee "wept like a child" when he received, too late, Brigham Young's telegram instructing him to leave them alone). Is there any evidence?

Matt | 1:58 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I am grateful for the well thought out, tactful apology. As a Latter-day Saint, I have always been uncomfortable with this incident, and the Church has finally put to rest my final questions about it. I do hope, however, that they do not surrender the property to the Federal Government; I am confident that doing so would only hurt the Church.

jack mormon | 1:57 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

It's about time they made a public appology for this tragedy - too bad the lds church is still trying to blame it on someone else. Nothing happened without Brigham Young's knowledge and or approval.

beautiful! | 2:03 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

It is great now , recognize how it could happen again as in the southeastern part of the state..the natives weren't allowed to be picked for jury pools so the courts had to be corrected on a matter that was remenicent of selma, alabama back in the sixties and this was after oops 9/11-how ironic. It is a poor system when questions aren't allowed finding solutions are the answers let our people right some of the wrongs as there are good people from this church who still believe this. And to the one or ones griping about Nauvoo reparations...their called treaties, which led to census numbers which were created during this time, so history does matter and is the law of the land. Now if polygamy would just go away

Bull | 2:08 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Why is the site sacred ground to the church? What sanctity needs to be preserved? Those seem like very strange words to describe the site of a horrific episode of mass murder by religious zealots. Is it sacred to them because they believe, as apparently Brigham Young did, that the blood was shed to fulfill the oath of vengeance against people wrongly believed to be responsible for the deaths of their prophets (the Smiths in Carthage and Parley Pratt in Arkansas)?

Rich | 2:08 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Some might argue thaat leaders of the LDS church in Salt Lake City 150 years ago were partly to blame for the MMM because they did not properly train their representatives in southern Utah. Some of the southern Utahns might have found justification for their actions in statements made by Brigham Young. But to claim that Brigham Young ordered the MMM is an egregious rewriting of history and a blatant attempt to discredit the LDS church as a whole. The perpetrators of this crime certainly lived with guilty consciences the rest of their lives and will have to answer to their Maker at the judgment bar. Those who continue to perpetuate hate and disinformation and to foster a spirit of pettiness and revenge will also receive their just reward. My ancestors suffered because of the misdeeds of others. I personally can receive no solace from apologies made by ancestors of those who caused that misery. It is the individuals who committed the crimes or the sins and it is they and not their ancestors whom God will hold liable. An apology by an institution is important in one respect: It assures everybody that the institution does not condone bad behavior and will strive to prevent it.

Paul | 2:11 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

What do you mean "It's about time?" the Church issued an apology? No one can convince me that this is the first statement issued by the Church for this tragedy. There have been many such declarations made before and there will no doubt be many more to come. Nor should anyone rashly judge the Church, and lump the entire Church into what just a handful of settlers did on their own. Be fair here.

Mike Kellermeyer | 2:11 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

The LDS Church has appologised. Can we move on? I would rather the LDS Church maintained the property rather than the Federal Government. The LDS Church can better take care of it than the Government.

mdm | 2:11 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

The church is the most glorious institution on earth.
The most loving instution ever created. Those that hate the church couldnt live up to it's standards of keeping the commandments. The funny thing is, is that the leaders of the church love those that hate them.

Logan | 2:15 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

AMAZED: How is this church perfect? No blacks could get the priesthood til WAY after AMERICA abolished slavery, you would think the church would be better then america and just let the blacks have what the whites have!

Get over it...... | 2:23 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

To Carlo, Blues never doubt, Matt, Stewbad and any others with comments that they don't know enought to know the truth:

There are obviously TONS of people who have not ever been a member of the LDS Church or used to be and for MANY reasons are not! You have no clue of what you talk about! When you want to know more about the way the LDS Church works, talk to a missionary or a member - NOT people who were members and kicked out! Or have never been! The LDS Church obviously stirs up bad feelings. I am sorry for your pain, but we don't stop you from believing how you want to believe so don't stop us! Being Free and living here is a choice and I have a choice to belong to any association I want! Enjoy this country or GET OUT!!!

Love to all and bless the troops and my republican family members and my Democratic members too! I love regardless!

TMan | 2:26 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

It's interesting to compare this to the the other more recent 9/11 tragedy. In 2001, people seemed to go out of their way to blame the individual terrorists and excuse the Islamic religion, claiming that to do otherwise was hateful and vindictive. With regard to MMM, people seem more inclined to blame the Mormon religion rather than the individuals. I wonder if 150 years from now, Muslim leaders will be apologizing for the acts of their terrorist members.

I think it is noble for the church to apologize, but based on currently available evidence, I don't think it is necessary. Unless, of course, they know something we don't.

No pioneer or American ancestors | 2:27 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

To Bull:

Anyplace that is the repository of human remains(cemetery, graveyard, meadow, burial mound, etc.) has always been considered sacred ground. As the MM site was set up as a memorial to those innocents who perished there, and are buried there, it would follow that it is sacred ground. Would their family members think otherwise? Those who created the memorial and site, obviously intended it to be a sacred place.

In all the negative rhetoric which continues to be spewed forth, please do not question the sacredness of the final resting place of the families who were so cruelly murdered.

Paul Greenlee | 2:33 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

1. As an Illinois resident, the Church did not seek an apology. Former Governor Walker and her husband had dinner with a state supreme court justice and her husband, a Chicago alderman (Ed Burke). When they learned the story of the Church's persecution, they ramrodded an apology through the state legislature. Please note that after the fact, many in the legislature grumbled that there was nothing that occurred that warranted an apology.
2. The Church has constantly taken the high road 150 years after the fact. Absent a resurrection of the dead, there are no appropriate reparations that can be made.
3. Can the critics in this matter just get on the same page and publish their agenda? It would get to the point a lot faster than dealing with all the tripe in the story and in these comments.

Gregg | 2:37 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I think the apology is a good thing, but I also think the descendants need to stop complaining. My ancestors were murdered in Illinois, and their hundreds of acres stolen... I've never asked for an apology or reparations... never been offered either, maybe I should. I'll DEMAND in letters and petitions that my acres in Nauvoo be given back to my family, and then have Senators from my home state sign them... (ps, since sarcasm does not type well, I am being sarcastic... this is all pretty stupid.)

Logan | 2:38 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Paul: But this is the first time we didnt blame the indians for killing the women and children. All the glorious LDS members have women and children blood on their hands?

One more question..Were any members of this local group excommunicated?

FreeAtLast | 2:38 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time in the Mormon Church's 177-year history that it has formally and publicly apologized for anything.

I agree that the church should apologize for its racist doctrine concerning blacks. It should also apologize to the many thousands of women and teenage girls, as well as hundreds of 'Lost Boys', who lives have been scarred by the practice of polygamy that Joseph Smith introduced into Mormonism, and Brigham Young and other Mormon 'prophets' institutionalized in Mormon society. Their actions resulted in heartbreak, shame, loneliness, and other types of suffering, all of it utterly unnecessary.

D.G. | 2:44 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

This apology is incomplete until it includes apologies to John D. Lee and his descendants, as well as apologies to Juanita Brooks and her descendants, among many others. The honor and reputation of thousands of people/families has been destroyed, along with their lives, for generations - that is why apologies are needed even 150 years later.

I am personally acquainted with direct descendants of John D. Lee and Juanita Brooks, and I have personally met individuals who were personal friends of John D. Lee and Juanita Brooks. The consensus among those who knew these two individuals was that they were unjustly singled out as scapegoats to take the fall for the LDS Church's horrible leadership at the time, and the subsequent coverup, including scholarly censorship. Yes - a thousand times - the leadership of the LDS Church, including Brigham Young and especially George A. Smith, must take personal and ecclesiastical responsibility for this horrible massacre, regardless of the supposed circumstances of the "Utah War." Playing this game of "plausible deniability" by blaming local Church leaders [and excusing the conspiracy to manipulate the Native American tribes to do their dirty work] by citing the extenuating circumstances of the "Utah War" is only an extension of the 150 years of "coverup" and excuse-making that have taken place - all in the futile attempt to preserve the infallibility of the prophet(s) and the Church organization. Even if we grant the "Utah War" was a difficult circumstance, war crimes are still war crimes. This apology is a very tiny step in the right direction, but not nearly far enough.

Hold On Petersneal | 2:46 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Apparently you haven't read the Old Testament. Only those of the tribe of Levi were permitted to hold the priesthood and do all the priesthood functions. Are you also expecting the Lord to apologize for his dictates that only the tribe of Levi were permitted to hold the priesthood? No other people were allowed to hold the priesthood and those who demanded that Moses give them some authority were destroyed by God. Try Reading the Books of Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus and you will see that holding the priesthood was exclusive to speicfic [male]groups in Old Testament Times. No one from any of the other 12 tribes were permitted to hold the priesthood. [period]

You most likely do not believe that we have a prophet who receives revelation from God and is his spokesman on earth, just as Moses, Abraham and Isaac were. When God wanted it changed he answered the prayers of the prophet at that time, Spencer W. Kimball and allowe "all worthy male members" to hold the priesthood. If you don't then any answer would not be acceptable to one who has closed their mind.

Methinks you are biblically illiterate!

THE DEVIL | 2:51 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

DISCLAIMER - I am not excusing any of the murderous actions that resulted in the deaths of those 120 settlers from Arkansas.

STATEMENT - Play DEVIL's advocate with me.

Kill 120 people to spare an entire people from a national army that will surely come (if these 120 settlers pass word to those in the US Army in California that it was Mormons who killed one or two of their own in PERCEIVED defense of their lives) to harass those they said they were coming out west to harass, and had already had harassed in the past various times?

What do you do in a ticking time bomb situation when you don't have much time, and only a limited perspective (certainly not the perspective of 150 years looking back that we have today)?

and...

To Paul (Canada) in response to your comments above,

Please leave North America and go live somewhere else in this world (where/what would Canada be without the US?) and see if you are so critical of the traditions and institutions that have made this country great, and that has enabled countless millions to achieve their greatest potential, and that has served as a beacon to freedom-loving people all around God's great earth.

Thank you

Ashley | 2:51 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

This is ridiculous. If this was "needed" than every southern state should apologize for slavery

ron | 2:55 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

thank you "what". well said. I fear it will always be there for some and there is nothing we can do about it. It is sad, but it is the nature of the beast.

B Hopkins | 2:56 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Hopefully this appology will go a long way towards healing and mending the feelings of those sincerely seeking what they feel is right.

Those that seek for the LDS Church to turn over control of the property to the US government need to more carefully consider the history of both as good stewards. We have the US government who, based upon history, with either fail to plan for funding in the future and allow the site to fall into ruins, or will require a fee for admission, or both. In comparison the LDS Church has always taken very seriously it's responsibility as a steward of church historical sights. To say that church owned historical sights are well maintained does not adequately express how well such sights are kept. And never without a fee.

Those that want the government to have stewardship may want to set any bias aside for a time, and try to decide how is best to make sure these ancestors, and the sight of thier tradgedy, are remembered.

No pioneer or American ancestors | 2:58 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Interesting portion of an newspaper report about Illinois' "apology" to the Church!

"Illinois's lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, presented church leaders a copy of House Resolution 793, which expressed "official regret" for the violence and state-sanctioned condemnation that caused the Mormons to leave in 1846 on the trek that led them to Utah.

"An earlier draft of the resolution asked the Mormons for their "pardon and forgiveness," but the language was weakened at the behest of Illinois lawmakers who said they could not ask forgiveness for acts they had not personally committed".

Daren | 2:59 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I do not think it was really necesssary for the church to aplogize, but it was a humble contrite gesture to those who for one reason or another percieve that they have been hurt by the MMM. Having said that holding the entire LDS Chruch responsible for actions of individual members is absolutly ridiculous. Any group, corporation, Governemnt, People or Church should not be held accountable or villified for actions taken or things said by individual members of the respective entity.

B Hopkins | 2:58 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Oops! I meant to say "never with a fee." Should have read my comments over, and I would have caught this and a few other errors.

Whatever | 3:03 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

This all happened 150 years ago... This isn't news and a appology by people who weren't involved, addressed to people who weren't involved is a waste of time.

I.E.- I appologize to all frogs and lizards who's dinosuars ancestory were killed by my spear chucking cave man ancestors.

Mountain meadows massacre is interesting and it is history but it is far from news.

Seriously | 3:08 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Wow it amazes me to see how many of you trash talk the church of Jesus Christ without knowing anything about it!! Investigate the church and then see if you still feel the same way!

To FreeAtLast | 3:12 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

You are apparently illiterate when it comes to the history of religions. What about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? If you don't know the facts or won't accept the facts then you need to keep your thoughts to yourself, rather than let us see your lack of depth in reasoning is. Again, only the Levite men in the Old Testament held the priesthood, absolutely no one else. I would suggest you read some of the Old Testament and you will see these concepts supported. Or perhaps you will find fault with anything religious and it won't matter to you what happened in the Bible.

Odeezynd | 3:13 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I was hoping to see an apology and I am very happy it was given. As a member of the church I think it is far past time for the church to start owning its history, the good and the bad. The church needs to start setting the record straight and this was a step in that direction.

Descendant of Levi | 3:15 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

To: Hold On Petersneal:

Talk about Biblically illiterate... OK, a prophet just like Moses, huh? Have you read Numbers 20 that clearly shows how Moses - the great miracle worker, prophet, and "mouthpiece of God" disobeyed God's commandment and, as a result, he was forbidden to take the children of Israel into the promised land!? And in addition, Aaron, Moses' brother, was taken up the mountain and DIED because of the disobedience! In fact, the Old Testament is FILLED with examples of "Prophets" who screwed up, disobeyed God, and made huge mistakes! It is exactly this mindless belief in the infallibility of god's so-called "prophets" that was the cause of the MMM, and that is what people get so bothered by. It is the same religious fanaticism that we see in Islam, and it is frightening...

so what | 3:16 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

some of the people murdered were actually involved with and part of the mob that ran the Mormons out of Missouri. i think some of them had it coming.... oh well...

Seriously, Seriously... | 3:24 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Seriously, you assume those who "trash talk" the Church do not know anything about it. I have been an active LDS for well over 40 years. What you call "trash talk" is just a desire for the Church - OUR Church (for man is not made for the Church, but the Church is made for man) to be honest and stop the lying that is done in the name of preserving a false sense of infallibility of the leaders and the organization. They are imperfect and flawed - always have been and always will be. But we don't just leave because some leaders made mistakes; instead, we try to make the Church what it has the potential to be.

Jack | 3:25 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

Do you think 143 years from now the descendants of Osama bin Laden will apologies for attacking the world trade center?

Re:Logan | 3:28 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

I never said the Church was perfect. This was the point of my statement. The Leader of the Church (Jesus Christ) is perfect. The Church and the members of the Church are not perfect. That is the reason we are here on earth. To learn and grow form our mistakes. PROGRESSION. Try not to be so spitefull and hatefull

Re: Logan - Rebuttal | 3:41 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

"The Leader of the Church (Jesus Christ) is perfect."

I agree fully. And as a Catholic, Jesus is the leader of my Church and has been from the beginning. But when Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, did not like some of the imperfections of the Catholic and "reformed" Churches, he insisted that they were "an abomination" - that is where the first "anti-" literature was published. And when we (Catholics, Baptists, etc.) try to defend ourselves and our faiths from the blatant attacks of Joseph Smith and his followers, WE are the ones accused of being "anti-Mormon" and "hateful." Why couldn't Joe Smith just acknowledge that the Ancient Christian Church was also "imperfect" but still led by Jesus? Jesus is at the head of the Catholic Church and has been from the beginning. Just because groups of people over the years have seen things differently, and because some mistakes were made, doesn't mean that the entire Christian tradition was "an abomination"!

petersneal | 3:43 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

RE: Hold On Petersneal

I'm glad that you feel that you're biblically literate. Unfortunately, the latter-day ban on the priesthood had nothing to do with biblical prohibitions based on lineage. Joseph Smith ordained two African Americans to the Melchizedek priesthood, one of which went on to become a seventy. It wasn't until the 1870's that these two faithful brothers' priesthood was revoked by the then current LDS leadership. The priesthood ban that was in effect from the 1870s until 1978 was based on racism; it had nothing to do with God's will.

Re: Logan - Rebuttal | 3:46 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

You are misinformed. I would advise you to seek out some of my missionary friends dressed in white shirts and name tags to help you understand the real version. Get the truth from someone who knows.

petersneal | 3:47 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

RE: Ashley,

I agree. Every Southern state should apologize for our country's past slavery practices. This country was built by the sweat and blood of those slaves. They never got the respect then. They deserve it now.

petersneal addendum | 3:52 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

... [you are correct, petersneal] and in addition, the "revelation" to open up the priesthood to "all worthy members" had nothing to do with God's will either; it was simply the recognition that the leadership could no longer get away with such antiquated, racist notions in the milieu of the time (late 1960's and early 1970's). An apology is definitely needed for that, as well.

Robo | 3:56 p.m. Sept. 11, 2007

It's the stark double standard that really amazes me. Constant ragging and pounding on the LDS church, yet very little about any other parties involved during the 20+ year history that led to this horrifying event. This terrible massacre was not done in a vacuum. The main thing I've noticed in these posts is the old saying "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up." I don't think anybody's mind will be changed by this discussion.

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.