Reader comments
LDS Church issues apology over Mountain Meadows
195 comments | Read story
arc | 12:52 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
The Church didn't say anything new. They have said for years it was local
church leaders. Read the actual comments. Pretty bad when both papers puts the
same spin on what was said.
bob | 1:34 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Come on, people. This event happened 150 years ago. No one alive today was
responsible. It's like asking people to apologize for slavery or for the
use of atomic weapons.
The context of the times was a highly emotional, difficult time, in that the LDS people had been chased from several states by mobs and many LDS people viewed themselves as God's only chosen people. Blame on both sides.
How about we look forward, not back. Not much to be gained by name calling and finger pointing at this point. The LDS Church has committed to honoring the victims by keeping up the monument. That's a big step.
The context of the times was a highly emotional, difficult time, in that the LDS people had been chased from several states by mobs and many LDS people viewed themselves as God's only chosen people. Blame on both sides.
How about we look forward, not back. Not much to be gained by name calling and finger pointing at this point. The LDS Church has committed to honoring the victims by keeping up the monument. That's a big step.
Comments continue below
leixurong | 1:51 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Anything the church could say at this point is going to taste like PR; the thing
happened 150 years ago! There's not much else to say, especially now that
it's been made "official." Hopefully people someday will let
this rest and consider the fact that maybe there's nothing more to know
than what has been brought to light. 150 years after the fact, it's
unlikely that conspiracy theorists are going to dig up anything new, and hostile
speculation is just going to keep wounds open.
Darwin N. Davis | 1:56 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
President Hinckley made this exact same apology over 12 years ago. How many
more times will the Church need to apologize?
It was 150 years ago and Brigham Young nor any other general church authority had anything to do with it. Should the general Church need to apologize again and again? I don't believe they should.
There is no spin. Just the facts. The local Church leaders made a horrible mistake. Can't we just move on?
I don't see the same folks who harp on the Church for the MMM, insisting that the State of Missouri apologize again and again for the murder of my ancestor at Haun's Mill;or the rape and plunder of other ancestors at Far West.
It seems as if there will always be a double standard with those who love to demean the Church. Should we expect anything less from hypocrites like that?
I suppose not.
It was 150 years ago and Brigham Young nor any other general church authority had anything to do with it. Should the general Church need to apologize again and again? I don't believe they should.
There is no spin. Just the facts. The local Church leaders made a horrible mistake. Can't we just move on?
I don't see the same folks who harp on the Church for the MMM, insisting that the State of Missouri apologize again and again for the murder of my ancestor at Haun's Mill;or the rape and plunder of other ancestors at Far West.
It seems as if there will always be a double standard with those who love to demean the Church. Should we expect anything less from hypocrites like that?
I suppose not.
yawn... | 2:12 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
The statement goes much farther than necessary. Why should church leadership
today apologize and express regret AGAIN & AGAIN for something local leaders
did 150 years ago? As expected, it won't be enough for those who keep
demanding this unwarranted apology. Sad to see yokels with a distinct
anti-mormon agenda using the apology issue as a smokescreen to try and batter
the church. Real original. It's pathetic, and an utterly tacky use and
abuse of the real tragedy that happened at Mountain Meadows.
Shaun Williams | 2:25 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I am not sure just what people want in the way of an apology, ashes and
sackcloth? a public flogging? prehaps people need to be more willing to let the
past be the past and be more willing to forgive. I am not sure what good it does
to hold onto hateful feelings for 150 years. I am Native American and although
some horrible and unspeakable things happened to my people, I don't dwell
on it and hold a grudge, I have gotten over it and my life moved on. I feel for
those who lost loved ones in that tragic event, let the past be the past. I
would suggest that you move on and walk in the light of forgivness and let
healing now take place. The church has readily acknowledged that what took place
was wrong, I don't know what else you honestly expect the church to do. The
past is the past let it remain as such and take the apology that was issued and
be at peace.
Shaun Williams
Shaun Williams
DMC | 3:08 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Tell me - How can an apology be given or accepted when no living being on this
planet is guilty of the offense! An apology by the LDS Church! I should hope
not, but only a union of sorrow for the tragic massacre that occured at Mountain
Meadows. The circumstances surrounding this event are inextractable from
its' context one hundred fifty years into the future and even if they were,
I did not commit this crime, did you? Where then lies the value of an apology?
Dalfurn | 3:59 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I commend the church leaders for stepping up and recognizing that it was church
members who committed this horrific and tragic event. However, we should look at
the church's teachings as a whole. We can not in society continue to judge
an entire faith based on a few members actions. Are all muslims bad because of
few radicals who have also commited horrific actions?
ID TenTee | 4:13 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Having been to the monument, I say it is not yet sacred ground, but still has an
evil feel to it. It was a horrible tragedy, and those who commited it will be
held accountable, Matt. What do you expect? President Hinkly to resign or
something? Think, McFly, think.
Anyway, those who won't let go of hard feelings because of the traditions of their fathers won't accept this apology, nor any other. Fine. That's their burden to bear. An apology is not something that has to be accepted to be sincere.
Anyway, those who won't let go of hard feelings because of the traditions of their fathers won't accept this apology, nor any other. Fine. That's their burden to bear. An apology is not something that has to be accepted to be sincere.
djbundy | 6:12 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Though the atmosphere in Utah was genuinely fearful and antagonistic with regard
to "gentiles" -- any non-Mormons from east of the Rockies in the fall
of 1857, and circumstantial evidence at the time (generally disproved since) did
suggest that this train of immigrants had ridiculed and harassed Mormon
settlements along the way, no act real or alleged could possibly justify the
betrayal of their trust and wholesale cold blooded murder. The Church is right
to apologize to the decendents of the families who were killed, and to the
entire nation. It may be said that the apology is overdue, and it may be said
that unless a personal expression of sorrow accompanies it, it is not complete.
But I see nothing in the statements of Elder Eyring yesterday or President
Hinckley years ago when the present memorial was dedicated that defends or
attempts to excuse the actions of the Church or of any of its members. They
were indefensible and as Eyring stated, the perpetrators will face divine
justice, though many of them may have escaped justice during their mortal lives.
I think that is where we all need to let the matter rest. If God is real, if
he is just and all-knowing, as all Christians will acknowledge, then leaving the
final resolution of this tragedy in his hands is entirely appropriate.
Rashers | 6:23 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
So the church is writing a book about that atrocity eh? I wonder who will
benefit from sales of the book. Hmmmmmm.....
jkarr | 6:26 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Why is it that the LDS Church continually has to apologize for it's
members. No other church I know of has to go to the extent of the LDS
Church...very interesting.
Sterling | 6:31 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Darwin,
Well said!
Well said!
Richard Gardner | 6:40 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
If my ancestors murdered or enslaved your ancestors, do I owe you an apology? I
don�t think so. If you go far enough back, probably
everyone has ancestors who committed crimes against someone
else�s ancestors. By that logic, all of us would owe
everyone an apology. This includes those who are now asking for the Church to
apologize.
I am always amazed that the victims� descendants, after all these generations, seem to take it so personally, as if they themselves were the victims. By that logic, we are all victims, because I�m sure that all of us had at least one ancestor who was treated badly � if not in the 19th century, maybe in the 18th, 17th, or 16th.
I might be able to see some merit in a church apology had the massacre been an official church action, but the evidence does not support that. The real apology needs to be made by the actual perpetrators to the actual victims.
I am always amazed that the victims� descendants, after all these generations, seem to take it so personally, as if they themselves were the victims. By that logic, we are all victims, because I�m sure that all of us had at least one ancestor who was treated badly � if not in the 19th century, maybe in the 18th, 17th, or 16th.
I might be able to see some merit in a church apology had the massacre been an official church action, but the evidence does not support that. The real apology needs to be made by the actual perpetrators to the actual victims.
B in Cedar City | 7:03 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
It is never enough for the Mormon haters. It doesn't matter what you say
or how you say it, they still want more. The funny thing is those who are
demanding more were not involved. But they will never be happy and that is
their own problem.
ricwhite | 7:23 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Apology? Hmm . . . I didn't hear or read any apology. I heard an
expression "of regret" which, in my opinion, is not an apology at all.
The wording was very carefully crafted to avoid apology.
Even after the ceremony and official statement, in interviews with LDS leaders, they completely avoided anything to do with �apology� even when prompted. They emphasized the word "regret" over and over.
In no uncertain terms, I think the LDS legal department told them not to "apologize".
Even after the ceremony and official statement, in interviews with LDS leaders, they completely avoided anything to do with �apology� even when prompted. They emphasized the word "regret" over and over.
In no uncertain terms, I think the LDS legal department told them not to "apologize".
Howard Stoner | 7:27 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
LDS Church leaders are very wise men. I'm sure they have thought long and
hard about this particular statement and its context. One thought occurs to me
about the motives of those who having been asking for an apology from the
Church: why are they asking only for a Church apology; why do they not press the
State of Utah for an apology instead? After all, Brigham Young was the
territorial governor at the time, and the men in Cedar City and surrounding
areas were civic and state military leaders as well as church leaders. When the
State of Missouri issued an apology to the LDS Church a few years ago over the
events of 1838, no one even thought of asking the various churches that existed
then in Missouri and still exist today to also offer an apology. In 1857, all
those in leadership positions held dual roles, both church and state. I just
think that the fact that the LDS Church, and the LDS Church alone, has been
pressed for an apology reveals much about the true motives of those who are
demanding the apology.
R | 7:35 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
My ancestors were serial killers in our country. Few people know of them, but
some do when I tell them my last name. I don't apologize, I don't do
anything other than tell them it came from my family, long extended. I was not
involved, but it still stems from my roots.
I feel they once again need to apologize because it's come up again in the media, and nobody knows that church leaders have apologized in the past, so they need to do it again so the accusers can at least hear it. When the state of Missouri apologized for what their people did to our people 150 years ago, it felt good to at least hear that, even though they had no affiliation with that persecution. An apology can go a long way, especially since when there is nothing else that can be done.
Don't be criticizing our leaders. You raised your hand to sustain them, and if they feel it necessary to apologize, then let them, and don't pull the "it's a PR gag." You try being a leader of the Church in our world and see if you can do better.
I feel they once again need to apologize because it's come up again in the media, and nobody knows that church leaders have apologized in the past, so they need to do it again so the accusers can at least hear it. When the state of Missouri apologized for what their people did to our people 150 years ago, it felt good to at least hear that, even though they had no affiliation with that persecution. An apology can go a long way, especially since when there is nothing else that can be done.
Don't be criticizing our leaders. You raised your hand to sustain them, and if they feel it necessary to apologize, then let them, and don't pull the "it's a PR gag." You try being a leader of the Church in our world and see if you can do better.
tammy | 7:48 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
get over it,quit having anniversaries for every thing,
leave anniversaries for happy occasions.
let these people rest in peace.
leave anniversaries for happy occasions.
let these people rest in peace.
ricwhite | 7:58 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Just to clarify. When I wrote earlier that the LDS Church expressed
"regret" but did not apologize, I was not criticizing them
necessarily. I was actually critical of the Deseret News for headlining that
the LDS �issues apology� when, in
fact, they did no such thing. Apparently the Deseret News feels a statement of
�regret� is an apology. I expect
better interpretation from a news organization.
Kitenoa | 8:05 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
What more do you want?
DW | 8:07 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Honestly! If this had just been a group of people from a different church do
you really think that people would blame that church? Most likely not! What
about the Hauns Mill incident? Now I know there weren't nearly as many
massacred but does he governer of Missouri have to apologize every year?
deano | 8:10 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
now if we can get the pope to apologize for the spanish inquisition, the
italians to apologize for the roman invasion of brittian, the french for
nepoleon's and robespierre's atrocitities, then the healing can really
begin.
by the way, the church didn't apologize, the church didn't order the massacre...or at least there's no good evidence they did.
by the way, if we can compare how an organiation treats god's creatures on earth in these times, i'd hold the lds church up against any other church or organization out there.
by the way, the church didn't apologize, the church didn't order the massacre...or at least there's no good evidence they did.
by the way, if we can compare how an organiation treats god's creatures on earth in these times, i'd hold the lds church up against any other church or organization out there.
clifffromcalifornia | 8:12 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Get a life, folks. If you have to worry about something, why don't you
concern yourselves about, what you can do to help your country, today.
Dubhe | 8:20 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I have enough problems dealing with my own mistakes. I dont have enough energy
to worry about what ancestors 6 generations removed did nor does what they did
have any context in my current live except as example of what not to do in my
life (or what I should do based on what I have learned from them). My uncle was
a prisoner of war and suffered terribly by what was done to him. Has anyone
personally apologized for the brutalaties committed against him or his friends
who died? No! In his life he does not need that apology because he is a great
man and has forgiven them completely as he was taught and does not bear any ill
will, which feelings have been conveyed to his progeny (including me). Because
of his attitued and teachings I also feel no need to dwell on the past nor does
it affect my life except as an example based on his role model. I do not
anticipate his descendants 6 generations removed crawling back to his tormentors
( an organized state) demanding apologies because of his example and what he has
taught them. The need for an apology for past acts from descendants from any
crime points to a flaw in the past and an illustration of why we need to forgive
no matter what or bitterness and hate will be perpetuated.
Jann | 8:28 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I have ancestors in my family that did things that werent real great but i dont
own an apology for anyone. The church has apologized many times for what has
happened. We need to concentrate on what is going on in the world now and do
what we can to help our fellow man, etc. It was unfortunate what happened but
does it have to get hammered every year when it comes around (in the media)?
The Ultimate Apology | 8:28 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I just don't understand what the church has to lose by just coming right
out and saying "we're sorry." It seems like every year
there's a semantic two-step that stops short of a genuine apology. The
ultimate apology would be to honor the wishes of the descendents of the massacre
and transfer control over the land and monument to a neutral third party. But
since the church can't even bring itself to offer an unveiled apology, I
doubt that we'll see a transfer of control anytime soon.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 8:33 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
As several commenters have noted, if we were familiar with the history of our
ancestors, we would know that some of them had committed terrible acts while
others were the victims of terrible acts. In many cases, in times when blood
feuds were still common, the same people were both. Indeed, fantasies of
violent revenge by victims still fuel gang warfare and drive the plots of much
of our entertainment. At some point, there has to be repentance and forgiveness
on all sides, because the alternative is an endless round of violence.
My mother was a teenager in Japan when her family's home was fire bombed during World War II. My father was a member of the US Air Force in the Occupation forces. They were brought together because her father was a Christian who wanted to share their Christmas celebration with an American, just as a Russian family had invited him to share Christmas in Siberia when he was a Japanese soldier.
All are in need of forgiveness and reconciliation. Let us forgive as we wish to be forgiven.
My mother was a teenager in Japan when her family's home was fire bombed during World War II. My father was a member of the US Air Force in the Occupation forces. They were brought together because her father was a Christian who wanted to share their Christmas celebration with an American, just as a Russian family had invited him to share Christmas in Siberia when he was a Japanese soldier.
All are in need of forgiveness and reconciliation. Let us forgive as we wish to be forgiven.
davep | 8:40 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I think it a little ridiculous that people feel the church should apologize for
actions church members made over a hundred years ago. There is no apology from
people in Missouri, Illinois, Ohio or New York for running church members off
their property by force. I think the church should turn over the Mountain
Meadows property as soon as the previous mentioned states return their stolen
property to the descendents of the legal owners. Now doesn't that sound
ridiculous?
Fritz | 8:40 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
If any of my ancestors hurt or defamed any of your ancestors, I'm sorry.
If your people ever hurt my people, I accept your apology. O.K.?
For those of you complaining about the church not giving a "real" apology, get over it folks. It was 150 years ago. It was a horrible, tragic event, but it is over. The church is taking good care of the site, they are honoring the dead, and they have acknowledged the part that church members played. Too now come up and say, "Well, they didn't apologize the way I thought they should have" is unchristian, and just plain whiney.
Also, what interest would the federal government have in maintaining this site. The LDS church has gone out of their way to preserve the site, and committed to keep it up. Where has the church ever not adequately maintained their property? I believe the site is in good hands.
For those of you complaining about the church not giving a "real" apology, get over it folks. It was 150 years ago. It was a horrible, tragic event, but it is over. The church is taking good care of the site, they are honoring the dead, and they have acknowledged the part that church members played. Too now come up and say, "Well, they didn't apologize the way I thought they should have" is unchristian, and just plain whiney.
Also, what interest would the federal government have in maintaining this site. The LDS church has gone out of their way to preserve the site, and committed to keep it up. Where has the church ever not adequately maintained their property? I believe the site is in good hands.
Rex | 8:40 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Either Brigham Young and George A. Smith knew about and condoned the harassment
of the Fancher party or they did not. That must be sorted out by professional
historians and scholars, not by the uninformed opinions of newspaper readers.
What historians and everyone else must agree is that the LOCAL LDS Church leaders - the Stake President and his counsellors - are the ones who carried out this horrific murder. That is fact with which nobody can argue.
But the issue is the same either way. The Temple recommend (and the doctrine of the Church) is that local Church leaders are "called of God" and they are to be "sustained" and "obeyed."
As such, in one sense it does not really matter whether or not Brigham knew or condoned - in the final analysis, members MUST NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW THEIR CHURCH LEADERS. And that runs contrary to what the official Church demands. This is a problem no matter how you slice it...
What historians and everyone else must agree is that the LOCAL LDS Church leaders - the Stake President and his counsellors - are the ones who carried out this horrific murder. That is fact with which nobody can argue.
But the issue is the same either way. The Temple recommend (and the doctrine of the Church) is that local Church leaders are "called of God" and they are to be "sustained" and "obeyed."
As such, in one sense it does not really matter whether or not Brigham knew or condoned - in the final analysis, members MUST NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW THEIR CHURCH LEADERS. And that runs contrary to what the official Church demands. This is a problem no matter how you slice it...
Bill | 8:51 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I am a descendant of John D. Lee. I know the history better than anyone. John D.
Lee's account as given in his final confession is as accurate an account as
anyone could give.
John D. Lee was a scapegoat. He was on good terms with the leaders (local and general, including especially Brigham Young) until it became "inconvenient," and then he was made the scapegoat and killed - 20 years after the fact!
There can be no question that Brigham Young's status as an inspired "prophet" of God is tainted by the historical facts of this incident. The MMM happened "on his watch" and under "color of office" of his Church and by leaders of his Church.
The only possible conclusion any right-thinking person can draw from this is that the leaders of the Mormon Church are not now, nor ever have been, the divinely inspired, infallible "prophets, seers and revelators" that they claim to be.
They are merely mortal men who are doing the best they can, and many times they fall far short of the best they can. They are as subject to corruption due to their positions of power as anyone is, and they succumb to it more frequently particularly because their power is absolute and unquestioned by so many followers.
And that is the danger... it was the danger in 1857 and it is the danger today.
John D. Lee was a scapegoat. He was on good terms with the leaders (local and general, including especially Brigham Young) until it became "inconvenient," and then he was made the scapegoat and killed - 20 years after the fact!
There can be no question that Brigham Young's status as an inspired "prophet" of God is tainted by the historical facts of this incident. The MMM happened "on his watch" and under "color of office" of his Church and by leaders of his Church.
The only possible conclusion any right-thinking person can draw from this is that the leaders of the Mormon Church are not now, nor ever have been, the divinely inspired, infallible "prophets, seers and revelators" that they claim to be.
They are merely mortal men who are doing the best they can, and many times they fall far short of the best they can. They are as subject to corruption due to their positions of power as anyone is, and they succumb to it more frequently particularly because their power is absolute and unquestioned by so many followers.
And that is the danger... it was the danger in 1857 and it is the danger today.
david | 8:54 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Institutions, as well as individuals, need to be held accountable, at some
level, for the actions of their publicly-called representatives.
It's a question of the "buck" -- where does the buck stop? At what level of institutional representation? The Bishop, the Stake President, an Apostle? Or are we dealing with a sliding rule...in case A (benign), the SP's actions represent the church, but in case B (atrocity)the SP's actions do not represent the church? When you say the "church" did this or didn't do that, who does "church" refer to exactly?
It's a question of the "buck" -- where does the buck stop? At what level of institutional representation? The Bishop, the Stake President, an Apostle? Or are we dealing with a sliding rule...in case A (benign), the SP's actions represent the church, but in case B (atrocity)the SP's actions do not represent the church? When you say the "church" did this or didn't do that, who does "church" refer to exactly?
Fly_on_the_wall | 8:56 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
How would our Saviour handle this situation? Would he express profound regret
for the actions of those called as his leaders in a particular area and leave it
at that? Or would He minister to those who are hurting because of the actions
of His temporal leaders? Or would He tell those hurting to get over it and move
on? Maybe He would prefer to pretend it never happened? Or maybe He would
justify it by saying look at what happened at Hauns Mill?
He who I worship loves and ministers unconditionally. If we are to be like Him then maybe we ought not to judge but rather minister to those who are suffering as a result of actions taken by local LDS church leaders.
He who I worship loves and ministers unconditionally. If we are to be like Him then maybe we ought not to judge but rather minister to those who are suffering as a result of actions taken by local LDS church leaders.
connell | 8:57 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Um Deano, Pope John Paul II did apologize for the Spanish Inquisition back in
2000. As a descendant of Don Francisco Robledo, a Jew who was tortured during
the Inquisition and then exiled to Mexico, his apology meant a lot to me in
allowing me to be able to forgive the Roman Catholic Church for the atrocities
it did to him.
I'm also a descendant of William R. Parrish, who tried to leave the LDS Church and Utah with his family in March 1857. But instead, church leaders ordered him and family members to be set up in an ambush. As they attempted to leave the state, William was stabbed to death and his son Beason Parrish was shot to death,while another son, Orrin, was arrested, just outside of Springville, Utah. The zealotry of the 1856-7 "Reformation" created immense hysteria in the Utah theocracy, leading to the Parrish murders and just a few months later, to the brutal tragedy at Mountain Meadows. Our family would love to have an apology from the LDS church for ruthlessly killing a harmless dissident, who simply wanted to leave the theocratic state, but I doubt we will ever get it. Caveat creditor - believer, beware!
I'm also a descendant of William R. Parrish, who tried to leave the LDS Church and Utah with his family in March 1857. But instead, church leaders ordered him and family members to be set up in an ambush. As they attempted to leave the state, William was stabbed to death and his son Beason Parrish was shot to death,while another son, Orrin, was arrested, just outside of Springville, Utah. The zealotry of the 1856-7 "Reformation" created immense hysteria in the Utah theocracy, leading to the Parrish murders and just a few months later, to the brutal tragedy at Mountain Meadows. Our family would love to have an apology from the LDS church for ruthlessly killing a harmless dissident, who simply wanted to leave the theocratic state, but I doubt we will ever get it. Caveat creditor - believer, beware!
Well, for starters.... | 9:01 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
In answer to Kitenoa's question, I suspect millions of dollars, a public
admission that Brigham Young ordered the massacre (while twirling his beard and
laughing in an evil tone), and then the repudiation of all doctrines that the
Church's critics find distasteful.
Oh, and force BYU to forfeit every game they play this year.
Okay, that last one was a joke.
Oh, and force BYU to forfeit every game they play this year.
Okay, that last one was a joke.
dean allen | 9:03 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Any of us that feel a need to go through life being victims of what occured many
years ago are never going to be happy. Get over it and do some good.
My father used to say, "Whenever there is a victim, there must be a villan".
My father used to say, "Whenever there is a victim, there must be a villan".
Ho Hum | 9:03 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Living in Arkansas for a quarter century, I, too, get tired of hearing about
Mountain Meadows year after weary year. Each September, to be sure, we hear
about it in the newspapers and a small group of historians regularly bring it
up, as though it were the only injustice ever to befall Arkansans.
Josh | 9:09 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Bill, you're playing fast and loose with the truth. Where's the
evidence Brigham Young condoned the massacre? There is none. On the other
hand, we have his letter, late though it was, that said not to interfere with
immigrants.
"The only possible conclusion"? That's absurd. What, for example, does Joseph Smith have to do with this? Your logic has some gaping holes.
"The only possible conclusion"? That's absurd. What, for example, does Joseph Smith have to do with this? Your logic has some gaping holes.
Scott | 9:12 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Bill: First of all, I doubt you are the be all, end all authority on MMM as you
claim. Second of all, saying that it proves that Mormon leaders aren't
divinely inspired is quite close-minded. Even if Brigham Young HAD sent the
command (which at the beginning, Lee said he hadn't), this would be quite
mild in comparison with some of the things that God inspired men to do in Old
Testament times.
Elder not of the Church | 9:17 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Intelligent human beings learn from the past. History needs to be preserved and
future actions should reflect the lessons learned. Sweeping dastardly deeds
under the rug and advocating looking to the future and forgetting the past is a
cop out. Christianity must come to grips with its core belief that all mankind
is here to serve God and to do good by everyone. Real repentence comes from the
understanding and declaration that a bad action has taken place and that
forgiveness is desired.
In today's vernacular, just pull up your jock strap and/or panties and deal with it. Once it is sufficiently done then life can go on.
In today's vernacular, just pull up your jock strap and/or panties and deal with it. Once it is sufficiently done then life can go on.
Matthew | 9:22 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Well Bill, no one has ever said the leaders of the Mormon church were in
fallible. That is a Catholic teaching. You are right, they are mortal men doing
the best they can. They are capable of making mistakes as individuals. Question,
how can one fall short of the best they can? And what evidence do you have that
they are corrupt and succumb to corruption frequently.
Also, their power is not absolute. In fact they have no power. Only authority. LDS church members have always been taight to not take everything at face value. Go home and pray about what has been taught, gain your testimony that what tehy have said is true.
Also, their power is not absolute. In fact they have no power. Only authority. LDS church members have always been taight to not take everything at face value. Go home and pray about what has been taught, gain your testimony that what tehy have said is true.
Anonymous | 9:23 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Oh please Bill give me a break. How many prophets in the Old and New Testament
never made any mistakes? By that statement alone one can only guess you
don't believe in God since he has called imperfect men to lead his Church
since the beginning. How many leaders of the LDS church have succumbed to
corruption? You can't name any except the ones you claim to know based on
your heritage.
Anyways Bill thanks for playing the good old game of "I think I know everything and your all idiots"
Anyways Bill thanks for playing the good old game of "I think I know everything and your all idiots"
John J | 9:24 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
I didn't think we live in the middle east were everyone blames and
dose'nt forgive..FORGIVENESS is what CHRIST professes get it.
J | 9:27 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
So Bill, did you interview John D. Lee yourself? Did you interview all of the
purpotraitors and examine the evidence and then come to this sound conclusion?
Or are you driven by emotion because he is your relative?
You are welcome to your opinion and beliefs, I just have a question or two.
Our prophets succumb to corruption more frequently because their power is absolute?
What power are you talking about? What have they ever done besides teach us to be good and to love God?
Regarding Brigham Young, I give you this scenario, you raise your children, teach them the best that you can, and one day your children are far away from home and they get involved with something that goes against your family values for whatever reason. Does this mean that you are a horrible or corrupt parent? Or does it mean that people have agency?
You are welcome to your opinion and beliefs, I just have a question or two.
Our prophets succumb to corruption more frequently because their power is absolute?
What power are you talking about? What have they ever done besides teach us to be good and to love God?
Regarding Brigham Young, I give you this scenario, you raise your children, teach them the best that you can, and one day your children are far away from home and they get involved with something that goes against your family values for whatever reason. Does this mean that you are a horrible or corrupt parent? Or does it mean that people have agency?
Anonymous | 9:27 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Among other definitions, an apology is indeed "an expression of
regret" according to Webster's dictionary and in any thesaurus as
well. The apology was not required indeed, but still an appropriate expression
of sorrow and compassion by the church, and very respectful of all involved.
Atheist Dude | 9:31 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
A true apology would mean acknowledging some degree of complicity - an admission
of guilt. So either the church feels it isn't guilty but does feel sincere
regret that the events occured OR the church feels there is _nothing to feel
guilty about_ and so they express "regret" rather than remorse. I
really believe that it is the former - I believe their "regret" is
sincere but that noone today should have to express "remorse" for
something in which noone still living had a hand. If the Eastern states that
persecuted and drove out those early Mormons issued a statement of
"regret" wouldn't that be enough coming from them? I say the
church AND the descendant of the victims have said more than enough. It's
the past. Learn from it, never forget its lessons, and move on.
Intolerance in ANY form - against Mormons, non-Mormons, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and even us Atheists has no place in a civilized society.
Intolerance in ANY form - against Mormons, non-Mormons, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims, and even us Atheists has no place in a civilized society.
Brad | 9:32 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Hey Bill, I am a descendent of James Holt Haslam, the rider who rode to Salt
Lake and back to Mountain Meadow. Our history shows the innocence of the
Prophet. If anyone turned on Lee, it was the local leaders down in Mountain
Meadow. Elder Eyring was correct, Mountain Meadow was the work of local leaders
and none else.
Beef | 9:35 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
Wow! Bill really is a descendant of John D. Lee. I believe other historians
would not agree with his depiction of brother Lee.
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.
Related content
- Iran: Nearly 200 protesters arrested 7:13 a.m.
- Obama envoy begins trip to NKorea 7:12 a.m.
- Baghdad blasts toll at 118 dead 7:11 a.m.
- High school girls basketball: Top 20 1:40 a.m.
- High school swimming rankings 1:28 a.m.
- High school girls basketball rankings 1:19 a.m.
- High school boys basketball rankings 1:00 a.m.
- Preps of the week 12:49 a.m.
- Y. volleyball beats UVU 12:46 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:43 a.m.
- Cougars going back to Vegas
- Witness: Mitchell stalked victims
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl
- Bring the true spirit of Christmas
- Utes excited to go to San Diego
- Winter weather is here to stay
- BYU professor remembered
- TCU's BCS game missing something
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
261 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl203
- Letters: Global warming a lie160
- Cougars going back to Vegas147
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil134
- George lost in rivalry hatefest119
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
- Harpring's NBA career is over96
- Utahns want health care reform bills78
- Utes excited to go to San Diego77
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Amazon.com, Target.com, Sears.com, Walmart.com, Kmart.com and...
Latest comments
boise state tcu cincinaty they all deserve a national title give them the...
Harry Reid has shown himself to be a grumpy old man who totally lacks...
The UTA and TRAX does not have the right to file eminent domain on property....
I think to Recognize DR. Hudson is great but to be in the company of "Great"...
Matt Harprings Comments were great. It was nice to hear a diffrent...
Eat, Drink, and be Merry.... Tidal waves are a myth... live by the beach...
What people are they talking about that voted to waste more tax funds? And...
IF it will buy a vote from a disgruntled citizen, the legislators will...
This artical truly inspired me. What an amazing little boy, i can't even...
this is way off.
Advertisements
Sad.