LDS Church issues apology over Mountain Meadows

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • c.baker huntsville, al
    Jan. 1, 2018 5:43 p.m.

    Now there have been two publicly recorded exoneration of the Paiute Nation for their involvement at MM - 1990 in Cedar City Gordon Hinckley exonerated the Paiute Nation; now, this exoneration . . . BUT, the LDS church just put up "informational kiosks" at Mountain Meadows on Sept. 9, 2017 ONCE AGAIN blaming the Paiutes for the massacre. The LDS has lost ALL credibility when it comes to anything having to do with Mountain Meadows.

  • Chesty1940 Pontiac, MI
    July 30, 2015 2:30 p.m.

    It was in time of war, the outcome speaks for itself. Since that event, no outside force with the exception of Johnson's army that illegally threw out Brigham Young and Governor of the Territory and Johnson's tactics only frustrated the situation and caused more Mormon deaths. Be truthful. The apologies was not required, and covered sensitivities to of those issues raising additional harm as to confiscation of property, death and bodily harm with no justification but hate and averice of the Mormons that had no merit but to quell further conflicts and mayhem. One thing can be seen clearly. No one messed with the Mormons aftwards to any significant level and all such attempts ended after the Mountain Meadows WAR.

  • Chesty1940 Pontiac, MI
    July 30, 2015 2:28 p.m.

    "[]The atmosphere in Utah was fearful, [a state of war] and antagonistic with regard to [Missourians vocal, harassing amd making threatening actions vocal along the way] -- [not just] any non-Mormons from east of the Rockies in the fall of 1857 [but the wagon train from Arkansas and people in the wagon train that assassinated Parley P Pratt -LDS Apostle], and circumstantial evidence at the time (substantiated upon examination - hung jury, and subsequent double jeopardy trial] the only one conviction of anything did suggest that this train of immigrants had ridiculed, [murdered, raped, maimed] and harassed Mormon settlements along the way, " A repeat of Missouri and should have been dealt with earlier, but for the vast hateful treatment of the Mormons even to this day.

  • Jeff
    Jan. 25, 2008 1:53 p.m.

    The word "apology" only appears in the title of the article. There was no mention of apology, "apologize" or "sorry".

    The Mormon church specifically corrected this article's account of the speech as not an apology.

  • anonymous 101
    Dec. 16, 2007 8:18 p.m.

    3 Nephi 11:29-30

  • Pahoran
    Sept. 18, 2007 6:26 p.m.

    Nauvoo "Christian,"

    In reverse order:

    1) An expression of regret is all the apology that can sincerely be offered where the offeror is not to blame for what occurred.

    2) The Church has every right to control land that it owns. That's sort of what ownership means, you see.

    3) And, as is well understood by everyone who does not rely upon the unChristian notion of collective guilt, the Church did not commit the massacre. Some of its members did, contrary to its explicit moral teachings. I am aware of no reputable historian who holds the old anti-Mormon propaganda position of "the Mormon Church did it."

    If you have difficulty understanding how thinking people process these facts, perhaps you should ask one.

  • Nauvoo Christian
    Sept. 18, 2007 3:07 p.m.

    What is so difficult for me is to try and understand, why any thinking person cannot see the problem with this whole thing. That being, that the very ones who massacred these people, the Priesthood Leaders of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...that is not in dispute. And now this same "Church" feels has the right to control the gravsite of those that were murdered? Plus "Regret" does not mean "Apology", no matter how you try to wordsmith it!

  • Pahoran
    Sept. 17, 2007 9:39 p.m.


    your legal analysis is faulty at best. If a U.S. Postal employee, in the course of his employment, commits a crime, we don't arrest, try and lock up his boss. We arrest, try and lock up the perpetrator.

    All the quibbling about whether "regret" does or does not equal "apology" seems to rest upon the notion that someone--namely the Church of Jesus Christ--must "take responsibility" for the MMM. This in turn seems to rest upon some theory of "collective guilt." Such a notion is unChristian and morally repugnant.

    Please note that this is the very same theory of "collective guilt" by which other bigots--or perhaps even some of the same ones--abuse Jews with the filthy epithet of "Christ-killers." It is contrary to revealed doctrine, and therefore untrue.


    I note your apology. You seem to see a need to apologise for being related to a long-dead murderer. Guess what: so is every person now living.

  • Pamela
    Sept. 14, 2007 5:31 p.m.

    Town Heathan,
    Thank you for your post. As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I respect you for your decicions and belief's just as I hope you can respect me for mine I wish everyone could just respect one another and be friends.

  • James
    Sept. 14, 2007 3:09 p.m.

    Town Heathan,
    Thank you for your post.

  • Town Heathan
    Sept. 14, 2007 10:02 a.m.

    If you all haven't figured it out yet...this whole string is not really about the MMM. It's about perception of Mormons from those who have been wronged by Mormonism in general. It' the perception by Mormons that if you don't agree with Mormon doctrine, then you (non-Mormon) are wrong and need to change. It's this judgmental...we are better than you attitude perception that is really the issue here.

    Mormon's don't like to acknowledge it...hence so much controversy about the MMM apoligy. It's the Mormonism's unwillingness to acknowledge that their religion may have or has fallacies...fallacies which cause non-Mormons to question the "truthfulness" of the religion in general.

    As for me...being one of the Ex:Mormons...this whole thing has been good for me. It has allowed a verbal outlet for my frustration, yet, through the kindness of some responding Mormons, reminded me that in all unto others as you would have them do unto you. In otherwords....while we disagree...we should all try to treat each other...and their belief's with the respect that we would like to be treated.

    This has been much cheeper than Therapy!!!

  • Yickes.....
    Sept. 13, 2007 8:53 p.m.

    I have spent far too long reading these comments when I could have spent the time doing something much more constructive. I do have to say, it's been interesting and educational.
    I hope that no one ever 'forgets' about the lives of these people and the tragic way their lives ended; but to dwell on it and rehash it year after year is not going to bring any kind of healing to anyone. If you truly want to memorialize them and honor them, let go of the anger, hurt, or whatever it is that is driving this frenzy, and find within yourselves the strength to forgive. If you can do this, you will find peace in your heart like you have never experienced before. This shouldn't be about Mormons or Non-Mormons or who is or isn't better than another.
    Some comments here, on both sides, have been mean and hard hearted. I would be ashamed of myself if I had written some of this stuff.
    Lets remember those who lost their lives (whether in the MMM or any other event) and move forward with our own lives, making each day better than the day before.


  • Bill Lewis
    Sept. 13, 2007 8:39 p.m.

    My great, great, great grandfather was Isaac C. Haight. He was involved in making decisions for the actions at Mountain Meadows. I apologize!
    I apologize to the descendants of the Fancher and Baker families and the other families of that immagrant party. I apologize to the countless people who would have grown to adulthood or been born had the massacre not occurred.
    The more I learn, the more I feel that Isaac C. Haight would also apologize. I cannot speak for him, or for other family members, but I apologize! The words seem sooooo small in the enormity of the situation, but it is all I know how to do.
    Sincerely, William (Bill) Lewis, Lindon, Ut.

  • A thought
    Sept. 13, 2007 7:58 p.m.

    Come on out Urkel... we know there is just one nerd out there being critical under various aliases. Is it Christian for people to be angry against today's Mormons because of what a few people did 150 years ago? I believe the judgements should be left to God. He will reward/punish each of us for our earthly deeds. No need to foster contention now because each of us will receive the justice of God.

  • To Jake
    Sept. 13, 2007 7:33 p.m.

    You nailed it. That is exactly the point, and all the "love" and "hugs" and "move on" and "forgive" and other rubbish won't cut past that fact.

    Good job, Jake!

  • Jake
    Sept. 13, 2007 7:10 p.m.

    To Voice of Reason,

    Not a bad summary, but at least one error that needs to be corrected. The analogy with Hitler being Catholic is a false analogy, and reveals the error most people posting on this blog have been making. We are not talking here about an incident where members of a religion make mistakes. We are talking about people taking immoral, illegal, and murderous actions who were official representatives of the LDS Church. Hitler was never occupied as an officer of the Catholic Church. By contrast, the (local) Stake President, his counselors, John D. Lee, and others who have been proven to have perpetrated the MMM WERE formally recognized [local] officials of the LDS Church. Moreover, they claim to have been taking actions that were under "color of office" and [what they thought were] on behalf of the Church and its general leaders (i.e., Brigham Young, George A. Smith). That they were mistaken is subject to further investigation and debate - and is the crux of the issue in whether or not Brigham Young is personally culpable. But by every legal standard today as well as in that day, the leaders of the LDS Church are responsible for the MMM because it was done by officially recognized officers of that organization acting as such. This fact is exactly why the "cover-up" was needed and perpetrated in the first place. If the LDS Church as an institution was not culpable for the actions of its official (local) representatives, there would not only have been no reason for the cover-up, but there would be no reason for the apology today. Indeed, you can take the Church's actions of issuing the apology as validation of the legal soundness of this interpretation I have just offered.


  • The Voice of Reason
    Sept. 13, 2007 1:03 p.m.

    Wow, quite a debate. We could be here all day... oh wait, We've already been at this for TWO days. The problem is nobody is going to win. The facts are this: 120 people were killed. Was it a tragedy and should not have happened? Yes. Was it perpetrated by Mormons? Yes. Was it an order by Brigham Young? No. I don't think people necessarily blame the LDS church for the massacre, I beleive they are angry at them for the cover up and deceitful actions of the Mormon leaders of the time, after the massacre occurred. And us Realists (aka Atheists/Anti-Mormons), want nothing more than to prove that the Mormons acted badly and the are not as perfect as some may think. Which in this case, is obviously true. Although, at the time the cover up and lies make sense to me. Facing an invasion by US troops the cover-up was the way to go. Why give the US government even more of a reason to come and take the state of Utah out of Mormon control? I beleive people are ultimately responsible for their actions. As much as you'd like to blame it on the Church or Brigham Young, in this case you just can't. Just because they were Mormons, it's not the fault of the LDS church. Hitler was also a Catholic, that doesn't mean the Pope sent him orders to exterminate the Jews. Let's be open minded here and choose another battle with better facts to argue over. Although it's entertaining, this has gone way too far off topic.

  • Kent Francis
    Sept. 13, 2007 12:53 p.m.

    "This is an emotional experience for me", said President Hinckley. "I come as
    peacemaker. This is not a time for recrimination or the assignment of blame. No one can
    explain what happened in these meadows 142 years ago. We may speculate, but we do not
    know. We do not understand it. We cannot comprehend it. We can only say the past is long
    since gone. It cannot be recalled. It cannot be changed. It is time to leave the entire
    matter in the hands of God, who deals justly in all things. His is a wisdom far beyond
    our own."

    President Hinckley continued:" I sit in the chair that Brigham Young occupied as
    President of the Church at the time of the tragedy. I have read very much of the history
    of what occurred here. There is no question in my mind that he was opposed to what
    happened. Had there been a faster means of communication, it never would have happened
    and history would have been different. That which we have done here must never be
    construed as an acknowledgment on the part of the Church of any complicity in the
    occurrences of that fateful and tragic day. But we have an obligation. We have a moral
    responsibility. We have a Christian duty to honor, respect, and to do all feasible to
    remember and recognize those who died here."

  • Kent Francis
    Sept. 13, 2007 12:50 p.m.

    Orson Kimball and George Fisher both quoted from historical texts concerning MMM. Those quotes are directly contradicted by other historical documents.
    As a descendant of both JDLee and others who participated I have read almost everything available on the subject including many private journals. Revisionist historians are now writing books and choosing which accounts to believe... it cannot be done. It is all speculation as to what the Fancher party/Missouri Wildcats did to evoke such anger - why the military leaders gave the order to leave noone alive to bring an army from California; that they would have to fight a war on two fronts - what the individual participants felt as they followed their orders to kill the Fancher group without any losses on their part - if JDLee's family was threatened with death if he did not participate - if he actually killed anyone at MM (he was there but claimed his gun misfired) - the sad circumstances of his families and ranches being robbed after his excommunication... it is all speculation. Had I been there I might also have "done my duty"... but none of us were there, and none of us know the hearts of the participants on either side.

  • contributions
    Sept. 13, 2007 12:33 p.m.

    If everyone who spend a minute writing on this subject would contribute 10 cent a minute to the worthy cause maybe some good would come out of this. You might send it to "get a life foundation"

  • baffled
    Sept. 13, 2007 12:29 p.m.

    How is it for the "get over it" crowd they have this doctrine to be able to judge when enough time is expired for folks to greive over tragedies. Does mormom have the golden watch that went away with the golden tables that allows them to tell us when we should get over the Murders of relatives and confiscation of property like hill's AFB from my Grandfather who was excommunicated because of his distain for the continual changing of the Book of Mormons? Amazing, is it 5 years,10,50,100 or can you tell me when we need to tell those folks in NYC to get over the bombing...somebodies who wasn't even envolved is sorry and they should get over it...O the mystries of Mormonism

  • Frank
    Sept. 13, 2007 11:13 a.m.

    I hope people reading these threads dont get discouraged toward apologies :).

    JayeG- I want to personally thank you for your kindness. I personally can attest that on those long hot days those glasses of water & lemonade are worth their weight in gold.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 13, 2007 8:41 a.m.

    Jim O...apparently you've never heard of Brigham Young's teachings regarding Blood Atonement, or the Temple Oath of Vengeance for the blood of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum.

  • JMG
    Sept. 13, 2007 8:18 a.m.


    Thank you for your great comment. Hopefully we can all take a lesson from you. God bless.


  • JayeG
    Sept. 13, 2007 8:18 a.m.

    Barbara...Mormons can be as tolerant or as intolerant as your average garden variety "Born-Again-Christian".

    In my neck of the woods in Washington State, we see Mormon Missionaries coming around about once every couple of months or so, because the Elders rely mostly upon member referrals.

    But we DO get the Jehovah's Witnesses walking up our street at least once, and sometimes twice a week.

    Posting "No Trespassing" and "No Soliciting" signs...hasn't discouraged them.

    Annoying? Yes. But we are polite anyway, and we thank them for their interest, and let them know we are happy with our own religious beliefs.

    Sometimes if it is hot, we invite them to sit in our garden with us, and enjoy some ice water, or lemonade.

    We have made many new friends in this way, even though they have come to understand that we are not going to join their faith.

    And as for the garden-variety-Born-Agains...every time we go to our favorite Oriental Market to do some shopping, we are confronted by 'Christian' men and women handing out invitations to worship at their Church.

    They smile as we walk toward them, hold up their invitations, and ask if we are Christians, and they ask which Church we belong to.

    When we reply, their smiles are replaced with frowns, they withdraw the invitations they are holding up, and they simply turn their backs on us.

    Annoying, but not faith-shattering.

    Barbara...when those annoying young Mormons knock on your door, or approach you on the street...try following the admonition of the Savior, who asked us to love one HE has loved us.

    Smile, thank them for their efforts to share their message of His gospel, and tell them you are happy with your own faith.

    Wish them well...and walk away.

  • VM
    Sept. 13, 2007 6:28 a.m.

    My great great grandfather was a LDS member of the church who was beaten almost to death for providing food to a member of the immigrant train. He maintained to his death over 30 years later that it was the local LDS membership who slaughtered the people. He would be happy that someone took responsibility and acknowledged fault. That being said, I am NOT LDS. I do not feel that the current leadership of the LDS church owes descendants of the survivors an apology any more than I feel that the US Government owes descendants of slaves a living. History is history. The people involved owe each other apologies. I am, however, glad to see that the LDS church is no longer taking the ostrich stance on this matter. It did occur, it was horrific, people continued to be punished by the LDS church for years if they spoke up about it. It should not have been kept a secret then.

  • mloumlou
    Sept. 13, 2007 3:23 a.m.

    As a descendant of the MMM survivors, I have followed literature on the event for the past 50 years. I am pleased that the LDS Church has acknowledged its part as best as could be done in our litigious times. Remarks about the churchs internal problems are of no value to me. All groups, whether official or ad hoc, have issues that strengthen and weaken them the inevitable result of human interaction.

    My late father telling me about his relative,one of the surviving children, exculpated his feelings about the Mormon Church. Im not a Mormon, but I have Mormon friends and acquaintances, and have listened to the majestic choir practicing truly a gift to the world - and I admire the churchs social/welfare programs and its young peoples missions that teach the values of charity and community. Every church has good and bad, just like every person has good and bad. We try; thats all we can do. Thank God for Hope. The rest I leave for Judgment Day - that's when the good times will roll.

  • to baccus
    Sept. 13, 2007 12:43 a.m.

    It's called free agency...something that God will not take away from us.

  • IM Tired
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:28 p.m.

    It appears to me that being a Mormon is alot like being an SUV. It is the only type of vehicle that is singled out when something happens.

  • LDS Daniel
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:06 p.m.

    Didn't the church say that it's not an apology. I'm not being biased but I also don't think the Church owe anybody an apology on this matter. Personally, if you want to really look at history that way, I think the US government owe the Church more apologies that the Church owing anybody. The Church, to me and according to my reasearch and knowledge, is perfect on matters of this nature.

  • Re Jim O
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:37 p.m.

    Great analogy.

    To anyone who is an descendant of one of those slain in the MMM:

    I am truly sorry that it happened. I am disgusted that men did it who belonged to my church even though they lived long long ago.

    If anyone wishes to blame Brigham Young, the fact is you don't know if he was involved. All you do know is that doing something like that would be totally out of character for him, church doctrine, and church policies.

    Again this happened long long ago. Everyone is sorry it happened and no one alive today is responsible.

  • saga
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:19 p.m.

    we once put out a fire with a water hose. maybe not the best way, but worked faster than "not fanning it"...

  • saga continues
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:14 p.m.

    My suggestion is that we just get used to the fact that this is how it is and it will continue. After all Laman and Lemuel are sitting somewhere, still mad at Nephi for taking what "rightly belonged to them", if you want to know how long things like this will last, read the Book of Mormon and see when the Lamanites stopped hating the Nephites for what Nephi did. Or maybe you could go back and see how Satan is still brewing over losing out in the pre - existence, and that saga continues..... My suggestion is to be kind, and go on with our lives doing the best we can. The best way to put out a fire is not to fan it. If we can't put it out, at least don't jump into it.

  • SickOfWhiners
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:11 p.m.

    Seems today that glutonous society sues or wants compensation for every mistake anyone makes at any time. I bet each relative of this tragedy won't be happy until they are given a piece of the site to own and a cool million in each of their pockets. Get over it you silly, critical, begrudging nincompoops. This has to be one of the longest grudges ever, considering all kinds of tragedies that have happened in every Christian church and beyond in the entire world. Funny how people who weren't even there at the time expect apologies from people who also weren't there. Get a life.

  • Hey Visitor
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:07 p.m.

    You can talk all you want about the MMM, but I can't have you bad mouthing the United States of America. A lot of good people of all races that I personally knew died for your right to tear down the flag. Just remember that next time you want to drag Old Glory through the mud.

  • Malchus
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:52 p.m.

    Someone ought to get ahold of this Malchus guy. They're selling a right ear on e-bay right now...

    $3.18 and closes at midnight...

  • Visitor
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:50 p.m.

    I did not have time to read all the comments, but I do want to reference one trend I noticed -- claiming that if something happened years ago, there is no need to apologize or rectify it. That certainly is not true. For example, the fact there are no slave owners alive today does not mean American society is not still deeply effected by its history of slavery. African Americans still suffer incredible deficits due to slavery and racism. Instead of ignoring that reality, we should be doing everything we can to eliminate it. If your ancestors caused a problem and you benefitted from the abuse, you have a duty to make amends.

    BTW, I know the Mormons eventually decided that black men were human enough to be priests. But, did they ever issue an apology for their long (and some would say continuing) history of racism?

  • Chester
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:48 p.m.

    I was out minding my own business in my psychology field when someone out of the blue asked me if saying "I feel sorry for you and I will pray for you" was an expression of unforgiveness and resentment, and I told them no, why no it's not...

    Then I smote him and stole his sneakers...

    I had to wash his name off them (he had written jimmy like 100 times on them everywhere) but I sure am jumping higher...

  • Sorry?
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:45 p.m.

    Sorry, Greetings from AZ II, I just can't bring myself to forgive you for your grandpa giving my grandpa a wedgie when they were kids! It's still just too devastating to my psyche. Oh, the inhumanity!!!!

    It might help though if you grovelled a bit more...

  • Cliff
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:41 p.m.

    I know that God does exist and He or one of his angels saved my life in a accident. I never knew why my life was spared and others are not. We will not be judged on how we die but how we lived. If we can learn to live peacefully with each other and love each other we have a better chance of being judged as a good person. I believe that it is easy to get carried away and commit evil acts when others are doing it but that does not mean that God does not exist or that he does not care.

    God cannot control our actions without removing some or all of our free agency and that is the reason why evil is not prevented. We have the free agency to commit evil acts, but that will determine our judgment after our time on earth has ended.

    Even spiritual leaders of all faiths have free agency to do evil.

  • Everyone...
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:00 p.m.

    You are all weird...

    (Oh... and I feel hate, love, anger, forgiveness, blame, confusion, fear, the spirit, satan, historical, hurt, mislead, truthiness and blessed...)

    Now I feel weird too. I need to go do the dishes...

    Where's Nugo???

  • Jim O
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:18 p.m.

    Read the whole account Jesus himself made sure there was a sword Luke 22:37-37. and your point? He also after that told them to put away the sword and healed Malchus, giving evidence to even his enemy he was the Messiah

  • Mormon girl
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:11 p.m.

    "I feel sorry for you and I pray for you", are expression of unforgiveness and resentment. Check with anyone in the field of psychology they will share with you that is making a person continue to pay for a wrong done. More of a tongue and cheek than turning the cheek.

  • mormon girl
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:06 p.m.

    maybe you need to listen and hear what is being said, Jesus said you are of you father the devil... He said we are not all God's children. He said that not I, your beef is with Him don't take everything personal and do what He says search the scriptures (John 5:39)

  • Jim O.
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:49 p.m.

    John 18:10

    Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

    Terrible things can be committed by adherents without the Leader of the Church being responsible.

  • Dale
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:37 p.m.

    Just have the Profit of God say we did it, and we are sorry. After all, it was just about territory.

  • I took a wrong turn somewhere
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:29 p.m.

    Wow, 148 responses and maybe five are neutral.

    Don't mind me, just passin' through. I'm off to the BYU v. UofU blog where responses are reasoned and thoughtful.

  • Mormon Girl
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:24 p.m.

    Rude, negative statements have never accomplished anything good. I feel sorry for you. I pray for you dear friend

  • Barbara
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:16 p.m.

    Amazing how much some holier than thou Mormons cry "tolerance" when it is their founder who was intolerant and declared that God told him all the other Churches were/are "abominations." If you Mormons truly believe in tolerance and allowing everyone to believe as they please, then stop sending those annoying clone missionaries around knocking on my door and confronting me on the street!

  • Mormon Girl
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:04 p.m.

    Christian Boy, Just want to say that I don't understand why people from different Christian backgrounds can not all believe in the SAME Savior even if we view things different from one another. I was not born in Utah but I was born into a family that was a very prominant other Christian religion. My father just happened to marry a Mormon. My mother taught me from a young age to never disrespect another religion or another's religious beliefs. She also invited me to check out other churches and compare them to the LDS religion. I am firm in my faith and have a very strong belief that you should also be allowed to believe what you want in the way you understand it. Yes, the LDS church states that Satan was in the pre-existance and that he was also a child of God. I have siblings who made very wrong choices. That does not mean they are not my siblings. So, why would you make a statement that it is bad for us to believe that Satan is a child of God who made bad choices. Obviously you need to understand my religion a little better and you should respect my right to believe as I choose. I have checked out other churches and am very happy with my choice. Your statement seemed very condecending and even the people who believe in Islam I conside my brothers and sisters. The same as with other races. Some of my dearest friends are from other religions and also from many different races. I even have a black friend who calls me Aunt. We need to have tolerance and Christians do need to unite! Forgive each other and move on!!

  • AW
    Sept. 12, 2007 6:58 p.m.


  • Amused
    Sept. 12, 2007 6:42 p.m.

    I simply looked at the number of postings and am amazed - You all have waaaaaay too much time. Go do something that actually adds value to!

  • Bacchus
    Sept. 12, 2007 6:21 p.m.

    Sorry, I was reading this and then I went to Camille Cleverley's stories and posted in the wrong place. Here is what I wanted to say here.

    What I don't understand is if the LDS church is the "one true church" (actually all of them seem to think they are) then why doesn't God step in and resolve this. Why didn't God step in in 1857 and stop the murder before it started? I know the Mormons were mistreated in Missouri etc. by a bunch of other superstitious nuts and that was not nice either. But God could have prevented it all. Why not?

    Why did God not stop Camille Cleverley's fall? That't what really hurts. Maybe, just maybe, there is no god.

    Ever consider that?

  • Mormon Girl
    Sept. 12, 2007 5:58 p.m.

    Well, Mr Elder not of the Church, If that is truly the case then the Mormons have apologized and it is now time for the forgiveness and time to move on. My family tree is full of Cajuns. No one really knows their history or cares how they got dumped in the swamps and left to die. We have only tried to survive and then better ourselves. We have never begged for someone to apologize. Every family tree has a history of some terrible thing that was done to them. Get over it and move on. The world is about LEARNING from the past and moing on to the future by making a BETTER world. No forgiveness only festers and makes things worse, not better. God loves ALL his children, black, white, green or purple, etc. He loves Africans, Americans, Mexicans, American Indians, Orientals, etc. Why don't we unite as one big family and try loving one another rather than holding on to old grudges. You want to see some terrible things then go back through American history and study what was not only done to the blacks, but the Mexicans, the American Indians, The Japanese, etc, etc. It's time to unite and quit fighting!

  • Ogrepete
    Sept. 12, 2007 5:45 p.m.

    Whew. Didn't have time to read all the posts. Obviously this one is a touchy subject.

    I think I probably echo some of you above when I say that you who take offense at this "non-apology" or "not-quite-acceptable apology" probably have your fingers in your ears and are sing-songing "LA, LA, LA, LA... I can't HEAR YOU" while the "apology" is being given. I strongly doubt anything could possibly make you feel better about the church or its actions to memorialize those awful events 150 years ago.

    'Nuff said.

  • Greetings from AZ part II
    Sept. 12, 2007 5:44 p.m.

    Those who did those horrendous acts were acting outside of their spirirtual principles. No one today is responsible for what happened over 150 years ago--even being a memember of the same Church, no matter what position one may hold, none are responsible. Those may apologize to help calm the rift, though none of us are responsible still. Neither are all Catholics responsible for the issues priests have caused, nor are all Christians responsible for the Crusades or the Holocaust, neither all whites responsible for slavery. Missourians today aren't responsible for kicking out my ancestors from their state, I'm not responsible for my Grandpa giving your Grandpa a wedgie when they were kids, sorry I'm not responsible. The most the church can do is apologize on behalf of those that have passed on. If any of you still have an axe to grind over this that is your burden. Have a good day!

  • mel
    Sept. 12, 2007 5:43 p.m.

    What I find the saddest is how much energy is spent on this topic. It was a very tragic, unjust, horrible chapter of Utah history. I wasn't there and the truth will probably never be known because every account is someone's own perception and open to arguement. I wish I could change it - I can't. I wish I could help the decendants heal - I can't, they will have to find that peace themselves. The biggest problem now is not letting the events of 150 years ago consume us. No one is perfect or will ever be perfect. This single issue is a good example of why there is so much hate in the world. We all need to take responsibility for ourselves and pray we don't do harm to the people around us, but if we do it is between us, the law and God.

  • One More Thought
    Sept. 12, 2007 5:40 p.m.

    danny's mistake,

    If the Islam militants made the Shrine because they had ended all aggression and had stopped the killing and apologized that the shrine would be very appropriate. There are shrines in Germany and Japan made for us, by people who fought against us and they are very appropriate. Especially when it means the end of a war.

    I do not think that Mormons have repeated that act in 150 years. I do think that alone shows the change of heart.

  • Kim
    Sept. 12, 2007 5:33 p.m.

    The feeling that this happened 150 years ago and that we now are not to blame carries some resonance. However, when you consider the thousands of innocent people killed during the "shock and awe" during the first attack against Iraq, and the litany of incompetent/immoral/inhumane decisions made later by our leaders in Wahshington that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, the fact that a majority of Utah Mormons still support our president causes one to wonder. Perhaps the issue that remains is whether church leaders and membership have still failed to learn much about the value of life that events of 150 years ago should have taught.

  • Stephen
    Sept. 12, 2007 5:23 p.m.

    Personaly, I don't think that the Church should have had to apologize for the MMM. It was 150 yrs ago and circumstances were different then. Sorry that it happened, but......

  • Another spin
    Sept. 12, 2007 4:38 p.m.

    Even war crimes have be punished, and families given compensation for the pain and suffering their families have endured. But I think a memorial ought to do the trick, so get over it.

  • Question
    Sept. 12, 2007 4:35 p.m.

    what verse in the Book of Mormons tell us to apologize and then to tell the offend person or persons to get over it? I forgot I know its in there!

  • danny's mistake
    Sept. 12, 2007 4:22 p.m.

    Your problem is lack of information, Mormons didn't give the land to the families of Arkansas relative and make it a memorial. They put up their own momument for the families. Thats like Islam militants making shrine for the hummers they have blown up and our soldiers they have killed. You think that would make a acceptible apology?

  • Who is denying the facts?
    Sept. 12, 2007 4:17 p.m.

    MMM was a heartless murdering of innocent people. Anyone who says different is an anti, by those who obvious are anti- anti-s. But aren't we all loving no wonder the world is not impressed by our messages.

  • Derrick
    Sept. 12, 2007 4:03 p.m.

    What I dont get is this............Why are all of you questioning your Prophet? You say the Church doesnt need to apologize but the Church and Prophet feel compelled that an apology is warranted. So why do you question his authority? It appears the only true Christian in this matter is indeed Mr. Hinckley himself.

  • danny
    Sept. 12, 2007 4:02 p.m.

    I think the memorial itself was more than a sufficient admission and apology. No further mea culpas are necessary.


    The State of Utah not the LDS church? Brigham Young as Governor not as the head of the LDS church?

    It is difficult to separate the LDS chuch from the State of Utah today, to say they were completely separate 150 years ago is a shameless disingenous excuse or anti-apology.

  • Enough already
    Sept. 12, 2007 4:00 p.m.

    I can never quite understand why so many seem to have so much time or desire that they spend deriding, mocking, tearing down, making personal attacks, on a Church, its leaders, its history, its people, its doctrine, etc.

    If I choose to be a Catholic, a Hindu, a Lutheran, a Muslim, a Mormon, a Baptist, an agnostic, an atheist, or anything else, that is my choice. If I am disenchanted, upset with, don't like the rules, don't believe the doctrine, find out something I don't like or am upset about someone, or my particular group, I can walk away, join some other group, or join none, and live as happily or unhappily as I choose. There is too much to do in life to then make it my mission or my life work to make a person or the Church/group they choose to affiliate themselves with believe the way I do, or if they do not to insult or engage them in meaningless, pointless tirades.

    As far as John D. Lee having his 'blessings' restored - if you believe the Mormon Temple and its ceremonies is just another one of the false doctrines of the Mormon Church, or anything else, it doesn't count! Even if he was given these 'blessings' back - it won't count if the Mormon Church isn't true! God will sort it all out!So - no need to worry.

  • Chris
    Sept. 12, 2007 3:39 p.m.

    In the comment from George Fisher an old bishop at 10:19 a.m. Sept. 12, 2007
    One last comment to those who believe this should be a closed chapter and we should 'move on' I would ask why does the Legacy Theatre (Theater) at the JSB continue to portray the evil Missourians persecuting the Prophet, and the Saints at Haun's Mill and other locations? To say we should ignore what our pioneer ancestors did but rake (make) the Missourians and others is at best disingenuous.

    Well, Hauns Mill was an illegal action inflicted on people who were members of the Church only because they were members of the Church and in the hope that said action would lead people to leave the Church and/or not join the Church. That doesnt justify murder or the fact that the murderers at Hauns Mill were not brought to justice. Plus, the State was culpable in that the Missourians knew that in actions against the LDS Church, no one was ever prosecuted and never would be. Thats why a state government has given an apology for the law which was still on their books up to the time when the apology was issued.

  • comments
    Sept. 12, 2007 3:37 p.m.

    Wow, 128 comments! Is this really the best use of our time? Let those who patronize the trib waste away their hours in emotional attacks/defense.

  • extrafeetmom
    Sept. 12, 2007 3:27 p.m.

    Bill.....kinda cocky I'd say. That you know the history better than anyone? Some people do this for a living you know..........

  • Christopher
    Sept. 12, 2007 3:19 p.m.

    Amy Bjorge: What's wrong with crosses! They were put up by the various decendant organizations anyway.

  • Christopher
    Sept. 12, 2007 3:15 p.m.

    Bill : BY knew the whole story by 1859--but wasn't going to "bring up the case" without being pressed by the US Government. By that time the civil war was iminent and all involved hoped the MM would "just go away". Arkansas decendants tried to get the attention of Washington (even took 2 young children to DC to testify), but by this time it was low priority. JDL was acquitted by an all Mormon jury during the first trial and additional damaging testimony was used at the 2nd trial to convict him.As for JDL blessings restored, frankly I can't comment publicly on this, as there is alot to the story that you might not be aware. Hey, I have studied all the good that JDL did--but this single act can not be explained.

  • live and let live
    Sept. 12, 2007 3:03 p.m.

    Dear No Spin?, Have you ever actually listened to a missionary? Mormons do not believe that they will be saved and all others will be damned. Missionaries do not tell anyone they need to join the church to be saved. Every one of us has something to repent of, there is no harm in trying to help someone be a better person. No one claims that the leaders are "infallible," only God is perfect. The religion is not "perfect" as it is run by imperfect human-beings who though they try to do their best, are sometimes wrong, or misled, self-righteous, pious, or uneducated. None are perfect or claim to be. God and His plan is perfect, though people are not always great at interpreting His will. If you do not believe that the Prophet is "the Prophet," then don't join the church. Leave every other person to make their own decisions. If everyone spent as much time trying to build themselves up as they do trying to tear others down, this world would be a much better place. I am sorry that there are people in the world, both now and in our past that have made terrible choices. I am sorry that people have committed reprehensible acts. I am sorry that others cannot forgive something that did not even happen to them. I am sorry for children who lost parents, in all situations. But, I am not responsible for those things. It is my responsiblity to be the best human-being I can be, as it is the responsibility of all of us. Why do you care so much about a religion that you obviously don't believe. Leave them alone, believe what you want to, do the things you think are good. Live and Let Live.

  • KH
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:56 p.m.

    There sure is a lot of anti-LDS sentiment out there today. I could tell from the first few postings that this thread was going to be a waste of time but I decided to post my 2-bits anyway...

    - Those who predicted an apology wouldn't matter were right. No minds were changed.

    - Many of those asking for apologies were just being rhetorical. If you give them the apology they asked for, they will either not accept it (not good enough, not sincere enough, nothing new, doesn't go far enough, just PR, etc) or they will just ask you to apologise for the next thing on their list that bugs them about you. YOU can't please them.

    I hope some day we can all find peace and move on. MMM is an important topic but this debate over the apology isn't important.

    Those who were saying, "If the church would just apologise for MMM I would open my doors to them", were not being honest. Those who are anti before will be anti after an apology. That's the way bigotry works, whether it's religious-bigotry, racial-bigotry, gang-rivalry or whatever. If you feel you have a grievence against a group (like a church) you just keep pumping it up and keep asking the group you hate to apologise for whatever is bugging you. But once hate is established apologies can't fix it. It's in your heart and no apology from the one you hate can fix it. Only you can fix it. Problem is, you would have to let go of the hate to fix it, and that rarely happens after hate has been established and nurtured in your heart.

    I know this sounds like a lecture but I hope it is taken in the spirit it is given.

  • FD
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:49 p.m.

    Hay No Spin Don't get your shorts in a wad.I don't think that I am any better that you. Life is to short to hate and state your distain toward the LDS church.You say that because "someone expresses the idea" about our leaders makes it hate. Your discourse sure sounds like you hate everything about the LDS church its programs, missionary efforts, and people.You sound like you have a lote on your plate to digest. If you would just clear your mind take a deep breath you would feel so much better about the world.

  • Oscar
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:41 p.m.

    Watch the movie 'September Dawn'. Or Kracker's book on this unavoidable issue. Its tough. I don't know if I could forgive, but the Lord says forgive.

    God bless the Indians and the harmed.

  • FD
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:40 p.m.

    Hay No Spin Don't get your shorts in a wad.I don't think that I am any better that you. Life is to short to hate and state your distain toward the LDS church.You say that because "someone expresses the idea" about our leaders makes it hate. Your discourse sure sounds like you hate everything about the LDS church its programs, missionary efforts, and people.You sound like you have a lote on your plate to digest. If you would just clear your mind take a deep breath you would feel so much better about the world.

  • show me the money
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:32 p.m.

    IT's all about Money
    It will come down to Money.
    Wait and see

  • TTP
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:16 p.m.

    For those who hate the Mormon Church you must be humble yourself,Pray and ask The Lord to forgive you for everything you have done,no one knows what was happend in those days only The Lord knows.He created this earth and every things in it,even us.So forgive and forget and move on life is to short.

  • the constitution, so long ago
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:14 p.m.

    yeah get rid of it , no one who signed it is alive so why go on with it and start with the plymouth rockers for sure! I wasn't there but I do like george and he is over 150 years old.

  • To What Logic..
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:12 p.m.

    Again, makes no sense. That would imply that the Islam religion was at "war" with the American people when they acted against unarmed civilians on 9/11.

    I think the main point that most are making in this blog is, DO NOT group all Mormons, Americans, Utahns, Islams, or any other secular division into one sterotype. This isn't rocket science people.

  • Mormon girl Unite?
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:02 p.m.

    How is it possible to unite? Christians teach Jesus is God's only begotton Son, Mormonism teaches Jesus and Satan were brothers? Christianity says Jesus rose from the grave, Islam says He didn't die and wasn't raised. I think you may have problem trying to get everyone to unite but honesty might create come some healthy commuication.

    Christian boy

  • Historian???
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:01 p.m.

    All of you "historian's" quoting history from what your church publishes as history is a joke. You are sadly being misled to believe what they want you to believe.

    As far as an apology goes...they didn't offer one. They expressed regret - I'm sure they have had their legal team work on that one for quite a while.

    Now if those same spin doctors could work on all the other ghosts in the closet, maybe that church could come clean with some of the other ugly things in their past.

  • No Spin?
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:56 p.m.

    It is not a matter of the LDS Church being right and everyone else being wrong. It is that, according to the LDS Church, there is only one truth, and that the fullness of the gospel has been restored. EVERYONE who has ever lived, or will live, will have the opportunity to learn it, and decide for themselves wether or not to accept it. That will happen in this life, or the next. The Lord will judge what constitutes an opportunity.

    Other religions all teach truth, and the people that live according to them will live good lives and be good people. Almost every convert to the LDS church has already learned much of the gospel by being a member of a christian religion.

  • what logic?
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:49 p.m.

    If you read the history a little more careful there is a big difference in war and killing unarmed travelers who surrendered their weapons. Was Utah and Mormons at war with Arkansas?

  • Mormon Girl
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:47 p.m.

    Well, Mr Elder not of the Church, If that is truly the case then the Mormons have apologized and it is now time for the forgiveness and time to move on. My family tree is full of Cajuns. No one really knows their history or cares how they got dumped in the swamps and left to die. We have only tried to survive and then better ourselves. We have never begged for someone to apologize. Every family tree has a history of some terrible thing that was done to them. Get over it and move on. The world is about LEARNING from the past and moing on to the future by making a BETTER world. No forgiveness only festers and makes things worse, not better. God loves ALL his children, black, white, green or purple, etc. He loves Africans, Americans, Mexicans, American Indians, Orientals, etc. Why don't we unite as one big family and try loving one another rather than holding on to old grudges. You want to see some terrible things then go back through American history and study what was not only done to the blacks, but the Mexicans, the American Indians, The Japanese, etc, etc. It's time to unite and quit fighting!

  • Jim
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:42 p.m.

    Nospinhere's definition of antimorom, "anyone who sees things differently from them, looks objectively at facts, or brings up information that is historically verifiable."

  • No Spin?
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:40 p.m.


    What tripe. Just because someone expresses the idea that your Church's leaders are not "the mouthpiece of g-d" does not constitute "hate". It is the self-righteous, condescending, patronizing posture you take that is so annoying. Just because you are a Mormon does not make you better than others, nor does it mean that you will be saved and others will be damned. People wouldn't have such feelings about the Mormons if you would stop sending your missionaries out to tell everyone that they are wrong and deceived and need to repent and join YOUR church in order to be saved. You do not have the copyright on Jesus' salvation.

  • Some Logic
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:32 p.m.

    A little perspectiv:
    November 29, 1864 - Massacre at Sand Creek
    Colonel Chivington, a sometimes Methodist minister, leads a troop of volunteers and soldiers to Black Kettle's camp at Sand Creek with the sole purpose of killing peaceful Indians. They kill 105 Indian women and children and 28 men, many standing together under a U.S. and a white flag. Afterward, they mutilated the bodies horribly and wore the severed parts on their saddles and their hats.
    July 1865 - General Patrick Conner organizes 3 columns of soldiers
    to begin an invasion of the Powder River Basin, from the Black Hills, Paha Sapa, to the Big Horn Mountains. They had one order: "Attack and kill every male Indian over twelve years of age." Conner builds a fort on the Powder River.
    End of August 1865 - Battle of Tongue River
    Connor's column destroys an Arapaho village, including all the winter's food supply, tents and clothes. They kill over 50 of the Arapaho villagers.
    And, oh yes--Is this the same Federal Government that is being proposed to take over the MM Memorial site?

  • Dick
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:30 p.m.

    Does Nospinhere really think it's easier to explain the brutal slaughter of 120 unarmed men, women, and children and the terrible coverup after the fact such that all but one perpetrator received no punishment than it is for people to dislike a particular religion?

    I'm an active LDS member but I find that claim hard to fathom.

  • James
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:20 p.m.

    If Brigham Young was a prophet he should have known what what was going to happen and stopped it. Atrocities are not events we just get over, ie 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Slavery, Holocaust). If the a Church needs to apologise 7 times 70 (I think thats some where in the Bible)) just do it and learn from the awful mistake.

  • Whatever
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:20 p.m.

    Dear Forgive? I am sorry your heart aches, I am sorry someone has caused you so much pain that you can not see what a wonderful thing forgiveness and repentance is. I am sorry that you feel that Mormons or anyone else is demanding you to forgive others. I just hope you and others like you can open your heart and not be so angry inside. Mormons are not demanding you forgive. You have the free agency to be as happy or as miserable as you like.

  • Nospinhere
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:19 p.m.

    It is much easier to explain and understand MMM than it is to do the same for all the anti-Mormon hate that is expressed in these blogs. My heart aches for all you who hurt so. Beleive in Jesus Christ and you will find rest.

  • Bill
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:14 p.m.


    That still does not explain why John D. Lee was originally acquitted and then, 20 years later, re-tried and executed. Did it take 20 years to get the real facts?

    Moreover, if you are correct, why would the LDS Church restore John D. Lee's Priesthood blessings in 1961? [April 20, 1961, the First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met in joint council, and: "It was the action of the Council after considering all the facts available that authorization be given for the reinstatement to membership and former blessing to John D Lee." Word of this was sent out to members of the family, and on May 8 and 9, the necessary ordinances were performed in the Salt Lake Temple. A complete record is in the files of the Latter-day Saints Genealogical Society.

  • PB
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:10 p.m.

    As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I do not blindly follow my leaders but I prayerfully consider their counsel. As far as the MMM, Heavenly Father will hand out his judgements in due time. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's eternal plan is perfect. Our members are human and imperfect...some more imperfect than others. If everyone in the world would live by the Church's standards, we could have peace. Non-believers will always find fault with the Church itself....(we love you anyway). Our current leaders in the Gospel are mortal men who are doing their best and they ARE inspired of God.......Pres. Hinckley is a marvel at 97 years of age. Trust in yourselves and pray for guidance to do what is the right thing. It is great that we can have these discussions though......just hope we can all love each other dispite our different opinions.

  • Tootsie-Belle
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:09 p.m.

    As a member of the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers I am proud of my heritage. I am saddened by the awful things that have happened throughout history. But I do not consider myself responsible for every evil or unfair act that has happened. I believe we need to take responsibility for doing/being good citizens despite differences. I nearly lost 3 grandfathers at Hahn's Mill. A son, his father and his father-in-law. Only one survived.

    Get on with being the 'best you' you can be.

  • Joanna Archuleta
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:07 p.m.

    This is one of the historic evidences that
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' members were not guided by a prophet of the universal g-d.
    Assesination of human beings have been an intrinsic part in the evolution of christian democratic capitalistic nations, as well as socialistic nations.
    The mormon church has nothing special. Its power resides in the amount of wealth it has.
    It is just another USA corporation.

  • Greetings from AZ!
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:07 p.m.

    Wow, the LDS church does a noble act and still there is that reach to find negativity even in that!
    I miss my beautiful home state but I don't miss the anti-Mormon sentiment that rears its head every chance it gets. So many of these messages are filled with hate. To those that carry those negative feelings, that is your burden. Somehow and someway I hope you will soften your hearts.

  • NicG
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:03 p.m.

    K Jarr -

    To your response concerning other religions not having to apologize for their members as much as the LDS religion, how closed minded can you get? We could name specifics all day long about what religion did what wrong, but in reality...religious leaders who apologize, do it because they personally care or because their members care enough to issue an apology. Do not critize those who apologize, critize those who don't. Some people are unbelievable in how narrow-minded they are.

  • Mikey
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:55 p.m.

    verb To make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense.
    -feeling regret, compunction, sympathy, pity, etc.

    Lawyers carfully word statments all the time. Appearing to say somthing is no substitute for actually saying it.

  • Forgive?
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:51 p.m.

    I find it amazing that so many Mormons all but DEMAND that the victims of MMM and their families - or anyone who feels wronged by the Church or one of its members - "just get over it" "forgive" - how convenient to preach forgiveness as something your victims must do to you! And how utterly unChristian and absurd!

    At least the current LDS Church leaders have recongized the need for - if not an apology, at least a statement of "regret". Why don't the members of the Church follow their leaders on this point?!

  • Christopher
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:48 p.m.

    Bill, JD Lee Descendant: JDL did alot of wonderful things in the history of the Church. That's why it's so hard to explain his actions at MM. Check your history, my friend, your ancestor did not tell the truth to Brigham Young when he reported to him before October 1857 conference. Wilford Woodruff was at this meeting and recorded "tales of awful blood". It wasn't till the following year that BY began to get the real story.

  • Question
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:48 p.m.

    George Fisher, I appreciated your comments. Thank you for your fair accessment.
    I have many Mormon friends, and admire their sincerity and hard work. I have studied their scriptures and their leadership's teachings to better understand their religion.
    One thing that stands out. When things go wrong....when prophesies do not occur....its always blamed on the 'faithful followers.' The leadership nevers takes responsiblity.... even among their own. Why do you suppose that is?

  • DG
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:39 p.m.

    Get over it all of you. It is history, the past not the present. What I see hear is the same thing as blaming a company for producing an item then when another person uses it in the wrong manner trying to blame to company that manufactured it. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. The miltary gives orders to soldiers to follow, if the order is illegal you are not to follow it, but take it to a higher authority. But even if an order is given you can chose to follow or deny. By the sounds of this an order to cease and not to harrass these immegrants arrived to late and those locally decided to take matters into their own hands. This clearly says to me that the local leaders (whether church or state or military) are to blame not the general church leaders (especially if they sent work not to harrass).
    But I wonder that if they had had faster communications (internet or even radio communications) back then would the scenario had turned out differently. I think so by what I have heard about the church and there history. For Americas history has also been tainted by things done in the past to other countries and even to religious groups such as the Mormons.

  • George
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:38 p.m.

    I'm sorry the MMM occurred. I love all of you whether you are members or not, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this sad event in history May God bless each of you and your families. After all these years forgiveness still seems to be the hardest thing to do. I know the time will come when this will be a resolved issues and hearts will be softened. I just don't know if it will happen before the Savior returns. I pray it does. When one truly let's an issue go they will find peace and comfort in their heart.

  • Whatever
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:30 p.m.

    I thought the Bible taught to forgive 70 x 7. Is there something I missed that says we have to apologize 70 x 7?

  • LDS in Texas
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:28 p.m.

    Consider the following:
    1. NO ONE will get away with anything in this life - Jesus Christ will make sure of that. Regardless of the number of times John D. Lee and others were/were not tried, they will have to face the Savior and give a personal accounting of their actions, as will we all.
    2. Members of the LDS Church are not perfect, but strive to emulate the example of Christ. Unfortunately, the MMM is a tragic and colossal failure by local LDS leaders to do so.
    3. Our understanding of the events that happened 150 years ago is SEVERELY limited and subject to rampant speculation (on all sides). See item #1.
    4. Despite the imperfections of its members, the LDS Church is not going away.

  • Sri
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:27 p.m.

    I think that it is about time these morman people start taking responsibility for taking over this land the way that they did!!! I don't think that they are sincre in what they had to say about taking the LIVES of these WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND MEN who were in a sense just like them. Trying to move and make a life for themselves. Free Utah from mormans. This state was founded before they came here not when thier god gave them the rights to do any and everything to take over this land.

  • B in Cedar City
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:10 p.m.

    regret >verb (regretted, regretting) feel or express sorrow, repentance, or disappointment over. >noun 1 a feeling of sorrow, repentance, or disappointment. 2 (often one's regrets) used in polite formulas to express apology or sadness.

    For those who just cannot get over the word "apology" or "sorry" look what the dictionary says for regret. Come on people how much more do you want. This is an apology, but like I said for some it will never be enough.

  • Lob
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:09 p.m.

    The AP is reporting that LDS spokesman, Mark Tuttle, has said that the MMM statement was NOT an apology, but expression of profound regret. This should correct any erroneous belief or claim that Elder Eyring, on behalf of the Church, was apologizing for the MMM (as the title to this news article states).

  • Mark
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:53 a.m.

    The reason that it seems that the Church (and its membership)is being held to higher standard is that it IS being held to higher standards... higher standards of forgiveness, honesty and frankness which have not been met in this lengthy 150 year-long story. We should discuss the lesson of the MMM in our communities: that no matter how good the people are, under the influence of zealotry and fear they CAN stumble and commit horrible mistakes.

    The apology was needed. Anything less isn't good enough for the Lord's church or its membership.

  • Big Al from Idaho
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:41 a.m.

    The Church expresses it's regret, which is the right thing to do. I also regret that MMM occurred, but I don't personally apologize for it. I regret that African-Americans were once owned as slaves, I regret that we once interred Japanese Americans because of the paranoia and mistrust that existed in this country following the attack on Pearl Harbor, but I don't personally apologize to anyone whose ancestors were victimized by those events. We persist in judging the actions of the past through the lense of the present day. It's easy to sit in judgment of those who made mistakes long ago. Would you all be anti-slavery if you lived in the American south in the 18th century? Would you all be disgusted with the thought of Japanese-American interrment if you lived on the west coast in 1942? Would we have such a spirit of blame for those who committed the atrocities of the MMM if we had lived through the Bogg's extermination order and the exodus from Nauvoo? I suggest we save our judgment for the current day, when our current attitudes, values and morals actually have some relevent application.

  • Regret vs. Apology
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:41 a.m.

    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".

    Does this help to clarify the "wording" of profound regret in the Church 'apology'?

  • Ken
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:40 a.m.

    I think it is definitely time for everyone to move on down the trail and leave Mountain Meadows.

    With jihadists and die-hard secularists trying to destroy society as we know it, why spend so much time and energy trying to relive and come to terms with an unfortunate episode that none of us experienced?

    Seems like a unproductive mis-use of time.

  • Heber
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:39 a.m.

    I find the comment "...more inocent non-Mormons were killed by Mormons than innocent Mormons being killed by non-Mormons" quite interesting. First of all, killing of either group by either group is, without question, abhorant. But if you only compare MMM to Hahn's Mill, or other gun battles, you may be correct. But at least the non-Mormons didn't have to face being forced from their homes repeatedly in the dead of winter. At least they didn't have to watch their men, women and children dieing of starvation, freezing, disease and so on. Forced winter marches, burning their homes, food and killing there livestock in repeated instances.

    MMM CANNOT be justified. But if forcing people to die by other than gun fire is taken into account, I'm afraid that that statement doesn't hold water. The trail between Nauvoo and Winter Quarters is littered with the graves of those killed by being force to march in the winter. And so is the trail from Far West to Quincy.

    MMM will NEVER be justified. But, none of the decendents of the mobbers who killed Mormons in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas, Georgia, and so on have ever been required to appologize. Nor should they. Those crimes belong to the perpetrators.

    So, please, consider facts before you speak. I will always ache for this tragic piece of US history. Right along with the Black Oppression in the South, the incarceration of Japanese decendents during WWII and the stealing of Indian lands and much more of injustice.

    MMM will never be justified. But it happened, it has been reported both falsely and correctly by all sides. But none of that will ever change the facts. Nor will it ever justify MMM.

  • Bill Knowlton
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:30 a.m.

    Fair and balanced is Fox News, not Deseret News.

  • B Hopkins
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:27 a.m.


    You seem to miss the point of films such as The Legacy. These are not intended to be an all-inclusive account of church history. Instead such films are for the purpose of allowing others to have their faith and testimony strengthened by seeing these same qualities in others who gave so much for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    While for those who truely seek to apply Christ's teachings to the events of MMM, there are many things to learn, it is obviously not an event that has the same effect as others.

    The fact that the LDS church does not put the same effort into publicizing the events of MMM does not mean they are hiding it.

    Be honest now. How many of you have had small articles published in small town newspapers, or school papers, to recognize the accomplishments of your children? But how many of you go out of the way to publish an article when you have to bail your child out of jail for a DUI or Breaking and Entering, or when they get three F's in a semester? What, no one does this? Then why do so many expect this of the LDS church?

  • BY Alum
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:25 a.m.

    It looks like the fallout from the MMM continued years beyond 1857 and was not limited to Utah

    The Fancher Party started out in Harrison Arkansas. The Harrison Daily News, a local Paper, reported today on the 150th anniversary of MMM. The story decribed how Christopher Carson "Kit" Fancher one of the child suriviors of MM was returned to Arkansas in 1859. The story told that the Fancher Family Ranch (in N.W. Ark) was destroyed during the Civil War. The Fancher clan moved for a time to Texas Hill Country and sat out the war. The story jumps to 1873 Kit was courting a local girl and Kit's cousin ultimately won the girls heart. Kit tried to committ suicide, he was gravely wounded His Aunt tried caring for him but to no avail. He succumbed and is buried in Ark. age 21 years.

    It is a shame he did not have parents to help mend his heart break. Oh darn, they were scattered here and there in MM. To bad he didnt have a brother he could have had blown of steam to. Oh darn, One of his brothers made an escape westward on horseback (w/ 2 others) to get help. But was tracked down and murdered in his sleep (was it the Members of the Cedar City Elders Quorem or Paiutes?). Jacob Hamlin and Family took care of Kitt Post-MMM until his return to Ark. What conversations Kitt overheard in that household.

    I would like to think somebody would recover that body when they are laying out sub-divisions around the Mesquite area.

    In a perfect world Kitt would have grown up in Visalia California working on the Fancher Cattle Ranch. That ranch was already there waiting from a previous trip. Well, Justice someday!!?

  • Bigdog
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:20 a.m.

    I have read most of the comments and the article and find it interesting that people want the Feds to maintain the memorial. I wonder how many have thought to ask the government what they think of such an idea. Or considered what it might take to do such a thing. Especially since it is not a national monument. Rocky is going to need a job soon maybe he can help or better yet leave it alone.

    It is good to see the church step up once more and take responsibility now put it to bed.

  • Town Heathan
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:16 a.m.

    I just love how loyal LDS members get on here and defend the fact that leaders of their church...(regardless of what level of leadership)...made the order to kill and murder innocent people. The church then, for the next 150 years denied that it had any responsibility. Now when those of us who have seen and known this for years, point it out to them, they seem indignant that we would presume that this is a blemish on their church and religion. It's always an excuse with Mormonism.... It's either, people are human or it was a miracle or some other smoke and mirrors.

    Facts are facts....If you claim your religion is the only true religion of God and that God's directives are perfect and that he calls men by the spirit to act in his name, then using an excuse when things don't go right is a cop out. Either it's perfect or imperfect. It is Mormans belief that it is perfect and their religion can do no wrong because they are on God's side. It us Heathans belief that their religion is imperfect and subject to the inclusion of man's mistakes and that many places in their history, culture and doctrine, have been tarnished by the human imperfection to the point that claiming to be "perfect" and only true religion is impossible for us "Heathans" to swallow.

    So..if your LDS...either your religion is "perfect" or it is "imperfect"....which is it?

  • Thomas
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:12 a.m.

    Mormon Apologist -- In answer to your question of how the Church could be blamed for the actions of local leaders, under legal principles, an organization is accountable for the actions of its agents. If a truck driver drives recklessly and kills a family in a crash, he's not the only one liable -- the driver's trucking company employer can also be sued. Even if the organization's representative is acting outside the scope of his authority (for example, a Catholic priest molesting parishioners), the organization can be liable if it failed to supervise or control the representative properly.

    Under the circumstances of the 1850s, Brigham Young should have taken precautions against local leaders taking his fire-and-brimstone, slay-the-invaders rhetoric literally, and made it clear that Thou Shalt Not Massacre Men, Women, And Children.

  • Linda
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:07 a.m.

    I thought "Well, for starters" comments were the very best. I laughed out loud! Thanks for making my day!

  • Investigator
    Sept. 12, 2007 11:03 a.m.

    I am taking the discussions from the elders, and this incident disturbs me. Can someone please help me answer this question: Why was John D. Lee acquitted first and then re-tried 20 years later, found guilty, and then executed? That doesn't make sense to me unless there was some initial coverup by the Salt Lake Church leaders (Brigham Young) who supposedly investigated the event immediately. Why did that happen that way?

  • Matt
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:58 a.m.

    Yes. You right to say that there is nobody alive today who was involved in this act.

    However the SAME EXACT organization is here today. This so-called church is the same so-called church that existed in 1857.

    And shame on them.

  • Elderly Egyptian
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:56 a.m.

    Im still waiting for Moses to apologize for that Red Sea massacre. That was uncalled for; what did we ever do to him?

  • Ignorant Rich
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:51 a.m.

    How stupid can you be? Think about it... Why would Brigham need to issue such a letter unless he knew that there was some intent to harass the Fancher party in the first place? Clearly, the local LDS (and militia) leaders had some sort of communication with Church headquarters in advance of planning the attack! This includes Goerge A. Smith's visit. The bottom line is that there is much evidence showing that Church headquarters in Salt Lake City knew that the Fancer party was going to be harassed in some way, and they failed to stop it.

  • Banana
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:44 a.m.

    "Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgressions."

  • Logic
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:42 a.m.

    "Rex" posted this on the other comments:
    8:39 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...

  • me
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:40 a.m.

    As was poinhted out, these men that led the massacre were also civil servants, so which hats were they wearing ??'
    Was it the hats of civil servants that were to uphold the law, or local leaders of the church ??

    Sept. 12, 2007 10:39 a.m.

    To Bill - need to RELAX. I am a descendent of Southern Utah grandfather was neighbors with John D. Lee. I agree, John was made a scapegoat, but to assert that "...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" is absurd and plain silly.

    We ALL fall short and are in need of being forgiven. But to do that we need first to forgive. It lightens the load.

    I look at the action of the Church to see if they are sorry....the money, property bought to preserve the area of MM attests to a very LOUD silent "I apologize".

  • MTB
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:27 a.m.

    Boy! some of you people sure like to see your name in print. Get off your soap-boxes. Get a life!

  • AZ
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:21 a.m.

    Get a life People and move on!!!!!!!!!?

  • George Fisher an old bishop
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:19 a.m.

    First of all I would recommend anyone interested should read Juanita Brooks on the subject. It is probably the most accurate of the several accounts to date. Blame has to be shouldered by the leadership at the top to some significant degree because of the attitudes and very inflammatory speeches made earlier by Brigham Young and especially Apostle George A. Smith in the territory.

    From a direct descendent of 'Dirty Fingered' Jake, (the name given to Apostle Jacob Hamblin by John D. Lee), Lee was not just a scapegoat, he was a murderer like a number of others who escaped trial. Albert Hamblin, Jacob's Indian son, saw Lee shoot two young women down with his pistola as they were begging for their lives. The Indians would not kill them because they were too pretty. If it had not been for Hamblin's testimony Lee might have gotten off as well.

    One last comment to those who believe this should be a closed chapter and we should 'move on' I would ask why does the Legacy Theatre at the JSB continue to portray the evil Missourians persecuting the Prophet, and the Saints at Haun's Mill and other locations? To say we should ignore what our pioneer ancestors did but rake the Missourians and others is at best disingenuous.

  • jared
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:13 a.m.

    deseret news, you will let bill question the authenticity of leaders but wont let me point out that mistakes were made by christens under biblical and Bofm prophets ministries did not make them any less inspired. come much for fair and balanced.

  • Modman
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:09 a.m.

    As I have studied Church history over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the Church has been less than honest and forthright in the depiction of historical events. My thoughts go back to the Legacy film where the suffering of Church members at Hahn's Mill Massacre were portrayed. The truth is that MMM is as much a part of our heritage and history as Hahn's Mill. Why hasn't any film about MMM been produced by the Church to be shown at the Joseph Smith Building like the Hahn's Mill film? The sad reality of Church history is that more innocent non-Mormons were killed by Mormons than innocent Mormons being killed by non-Mormons.

  • Johnny Lee
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:08 a.m.

    Brigham Young ordered the MMM because he wanted federal troops in Utah. Blah blah blah. Brigham Young kidnapped the Lindberg baby. Blah blah blah. Brigham Young brought down the Hindenberg. Blah, blah blah. I can't get drunk in Utah because of Mormons. Blah blah blah. Mormons are bad. Blah blah blah.

  • Bill
    Sept. 12, 2007 10:08 a.m.

    The documents are extant, especially John D. Lee's own final confession and account of the MMM.

    Your alluding to the OT atrocities is exactly right. Genocide then was just as wrong as the MMM, and all of them were supposedly justified "in the name of god."

    If god truly had ordered all the atrocities committed in his name, then such a god is really a devil and not worthy of our worship.

    Instead, I prefer to believe that those who justify such atrocities in the name of god are liars. That includes those from the OT, the NT, or even Nephi trying to justify killing a defenseless, unconscious man (Laban) because "an angel" told him to do it.

  • Mormon Apologist
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:59 a.m.

    We all make mistakes. If Young did not know about it, how can he be blamed. If local leaders made such decision then how can the Church as a whole be blamed. Passionate people make mistakes and we should let God deal with the judgement. Finally, I hope a video (sympathetic to the LDS position) is finally made on the extradition of LDS folks from their lands and murder of its leaders.

  • Rich
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:57 a.m.

    Sounds to me like the "ancestors" are out for money from the LDS Church. Maybe they should sue AT&T for not providing Brigham Young with a telephone so he could have called and not used horses to send his "cease and desist" letter! Oh, wait, they didn't HAVE telephones then, did they?

    C'mon people, get real and get over a very sad event!

  • Ratman
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:56 a.m.

    Bill, your term "scapegoat" isn't entirely accurate, as your ancestor was indeed involved in the MMM. "Fall guy" would be a more appropriate term. Irrespective of this, neither you or anyone in your family should have to feel responsible for the events of 1857, or feel a need to try to shift the blame for what happened.

    What we all need to do is learn a very important lesson: Understanding the consequences of our actions can prevent centuries of emnity and controversy, particularly if we are representing a group or an ideal.

  • Jared
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:49 a.m.

    Bill, if you are lacking a knowledge of whether our leaders past or present were inspired. you my friend just like those who perpatrated the acts of violence at MMM have distanced your self from the power of God that reveals truth. get back on track.....

    Facts are--we make mistakes,tragicly, some more haneous than others. we would do well to list to obey the comforter that inspires peacable actions than the pridefull,confused, vengefull feelings and actions the advesary pushes.

    the Bible and Book of Mormon are repleat with instances where the pride of the People =(Enemity= hatred and hostility--power which the Devil wishes to rule over us" Ezra Taft Benson) caused them to not be in favor with God and as we know their fallen states became evident. were these biblical bofm prophets any less inspired because of the actions of apostates in their fold.....? how tragic and sad are such instances as MMM.

    we should be ever on guard and know that in a short span of time we can be a Saul of the world. let us all strive to allow God to speak truth to our souls, and act with charity and love which the Holy Ghost inspires and end up like Paul and Alma the Younger...

    Sept. 12, 2007 9:48 a.m.

    Bill, The Ultiment Apology, Cliffromcalifornia, Ricwhite, and others who belive as theses, You seam to expect the Church Leaders to take full responsability for MMM. My queston is do you all expect the same from all envolved in murder, rape, theft, of early Mormons? Are you taking action to in shure that Missouri, Ill, & every one ell's involved as well as other churches to apologize for what happend 150 plus years ago. A good christion would follow what our lord did, he for gave and for got all the wrongs done to him and others. Let it go you wornt there. If any of you who clam B.Y. was in volved then send me a e-mail with proff.

  • Arlin
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:47 a.m.

    To Fly_on_the_wall

    You nailed it! I agree with your statement whole heartedly.

  • Its takes 2 to argue!
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:45 a.m.

    The ceremony was nice and I am sure the regrets are all real. To those who want to press the issue, you can be more constructive by joining the Mountain Meadow Massacre Foundation and lobbying for federal stewardship. Debating an issue here is only that and changes nothing.

    To those that think the church has compromised enough, usng this blog as a means to "soapbox" their position only extends and expands the PR nightmare. If it makes you happy, knock yourself out, but as an activist of several issues, you are offering to much that can be dedicated to a PDF file. Each side is proving a need to continue this and neither will ever compromise.

    I joined MMMF and see constructive ways to improve the monument site. Its just a suggestion and both sides here can join. Layering postings here will not change a thing!

  • Orson Kimball
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:38 a.m.

    In regards to the mountain meadow massacre. In the 1880's this statement was made:
    Mormon literature, vol. 1, page 187 Quote; "This horrid crime has been charged upon the Mormon Church, and especially upon the leading Elders. The charge is not true. It is wickedly and maliciously false; was proven to be so by repeated failure of the efforts of his enemies to fasten the crime upon Brigham Young." .....So by issuing this appology the modern church has accepted the blame for the criminal conduct of a few men who were members at the time, and implicating the Leaders of the Church at the time. And they have opened the lid to a pandora's box of future accusations and attacks by those who hate the Mormon Church. In the second trial against John D. Lee the Prosecuting Attorny Mr. Sumner Howard, Ex Chief Justice of Arizona, and the United States Prosecuting Attorney said; quote.... "Lee gave the order to fire, and the slaughter commenced; that Lee shot one woman with his rifle, and brained another woman; then drawing his pistol shot another, and seizing a man by the collar and drawing him out of the wagon, cut his throat; that he gathered up the property of the emigrants and took it to his own place, using and selling it for his own benefit and use." These were what John D. Lee was convicted of and executed for. Whatever the circumstances that caused this terrible event were, it was plain that it was not connected with the Mormon Church Authority at the time. Throughout History many attrocities have been committed by members of differing religious sects against the dictates of their own religions, so why must the Mormon Church appologize for something that was obviously done without their consent?

  • Athena
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:38 a.m.

    Come on, people need to get over themselves. This is hardly a rational argument against the LDS Church; it is just something that anti-Mormons bring up to make Mormons look bad.

    Seriously, how can anyone reasonably shout about something like the Mountain Meadows Massacre when other, older religions have done worse? Look into history; these people should see what Catholics and Protestants have on their record. But do you ever see people snarling at the Catholics for the Spanish Inquisition? Nobody is perfect.

    No, it's just because we're Mormons, people make a big deal out of a faulty piece of our history because we're that weird cult in Utah and they want to make us look bad. This is ridiculous. Get over yourselves.

  • R from SLC
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:36 a.m.

    I agree with clifffromcalifornia. If the "expressions of regret" or "apology", however your semantics lets you interpret the event, helps the decendants heal, the I have no problem with them. For those of us not involved, or related, lets worry about problems that we can help, and create good will among people, instead of building walls between "us" and "them".

  • JJ
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:36 a.m.

    Bill, that was one of the most absurd pieces of anti-Mormon rhetoric that I have ever heard.

    Twist and spin the story any way you see wish, but please just get over it.

    Come on Bill...give me a break. A danger? Only in your over-active imagination.

    Enough is enough people-this was 150 years ago!

    Hard to believe that it is even an issue. But, it is only an issue among those who hate the church.

    Hate away-we love you Bill.

    By their fruits!


  • Beef
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:35 a.m.

    Wow! Bill really is a descendant of John D. Lee. I believe other historians would not agree with his depiction of brother Lee.

  • Brad
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Atheist Dude
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:27 a.m.

    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.

  • J
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:27 a.m.

    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?

  • John J
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:24 a.m.

    I didn't think we live in the middle east were everyone blames and dose'nt forgive..FORGIVENESS is what CHRIST professes get it.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:23 a.m.

    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"

  • Matthew
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Elder not of the Church
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Scott
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Josh
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Ho Hum
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:03 a.m.

    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.

  • dean allen
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:03 a.m.

    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".

  • Well, for starters....
    Sept. 12, 2007 9:01 a.m.

    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.

  • connell
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:57 a.m.

    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!

  • Fly_on_the_wall
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:56 a.m.

    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.

  • david
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:54 a.m.

    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 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?

  • Bill
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Rex
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:40 a.m.

    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...

  • Fritz
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:40 a.m.

    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.

  • davep
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:40 a.m.

    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?

  • Raymond Takashi Swenson
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:33 a.m.

    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.

  • The Ultimate Apology
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Jann
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:28 a.m.

    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)?

  • Dubhe
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:20 a.m.

    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.

  • clifffromcalifornia
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:12 a.m.

    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.

  • deano
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:10 a.m.

    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.

  • DW
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:07 a.m.

    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?

  • Kitenoa
    Sept. 12, 2007 8:05 a.m.

    What more do you want?

  • ricwhite
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:58 a.m.

    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.

  • tammy
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:48 a.m.

    get over it,quit having anniversaries for every thing,
    leave anniversaries for happy occasions.
    let these people rest in peace.

  • R
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Howard Stoner
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:27 a.m.

    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.

  • ricwhite
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:23 a.m.

    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".

  • B in Cedar City
    Sept. 12, 2007 7:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Richard Gardner
    Sept. 12, 2007 6:40 a.m.

    If my ancestors murdered or enslaved your ancestors, do I owe you an apology? I dont think so. If you go far enough back, probably everyone has ancestors who committed crimes against someone elses 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 Im 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.

  • Sterling
    Sept. 12, 2007 6:31 a.m.

    Well said!

  • jkarr
    Sept. 12, 2007 6:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Rashers
    Sept. 12, 2007 6:23 a.m.

    So the church is writing a book about that atrocity eh? I wonder who will benefit from sales of the book. Hmmmmmm.....

  • djbundy
    Sept. 12, 2007 6:12 a.m.

    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.

  • ID TenTee
    Sept. 12, 2007 4:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Dalfurn
    Sept. 12, 2007 3:59 a.m.

    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?

  • DMC
    Sept. 12, 2007 3:08 a.m.

    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?

  • Shaun Williams
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:25 a.m.

    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

  • yawn...
    Sept. 12, 2007 2:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Darwin N. Davis
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:56 a.m.

    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.

  • leixurong
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:51 a.m.

    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.

  • bob
    Sept. 12, 2007 1:34 a.m.

    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.

  • arc
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Matt
    Sept. 12, 2007 12:50 a.m.

    I wouldn't call that much of an apology - not a sincere one anyway. More PR than anything else. Take responsibility. Isn't that what our "leaders" have taught us? I guess it's 'do as we say, not as we do'.