Church issues formal apology for MMM

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not to speak for Indy, but I think the apology statute of limitations eventually runs out on something even as heinous as this. No one alive, no one alive's parents, and likely no one alive's grandparents were even tangentially involved in this.

Hence my comment about the Pharaoh.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not to speak for Indy, but I think the apology statute of limitations eventually runs out on something even as heinous as this. No one alive, no one alive's parents, and likely no one alive's grandparents were even tangentially involved in this.

The coverup continued into the 60's (at the least). Many of the current descendants were alive then.

Originally Posted by Tex

Frankly, I don't care that the church apologized. Okay, good for them. If it smooths some feathers that are (IMO, unnecessarily) ruffled, fine. It's like apologizing for slavery. I don't feel one single blip of personal guilt for slavery. Though I abhor it, I didn't practice it; I didn't pay for it; I didn't support it. Ditto MMM.

Nobody is asking you to personally apologize, Tex. It is an apology from an institution. Apparently, it means a great deal to the descendants. For a church that claims to represent Christ, it seems completely appropriate.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think the next step should be to turn the site over to Federal control. Why on earth does the church need to hang on to this site?

I don't see a good reason to hand over the property for federal control.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

The coverup continued into the 60's (at the least). Many of the current descendants were alive then.

Nobody is asking you to personally apologize, Tex. It is an apology from an institution. Apparently, it means a great deal to the descendants. For a church that claims to represent Christ, it seems completely appropriate.

I was actually willing to go along with you until you hit that last sentence.

Reminds me of a time I was a missionary in Germany and a guy begging on the street came up to me, wife and child in tow, and demanded I buy him a chicken. I said no, I'd buy him some fruit (which I had done several other times for others), but that was it. He pointed to my name tag and said, "You believe in Jesus Christ. You have to buy me a chicken."

The church represents Christ just fine without needing you to trot along and instruct them how to do it better.

EDIT: At the very least, this should put to rest the canard that I'm a robotic minion of the LDS collective.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I was actually willing to go along with you until you hit that last sentence.

Reminds me of a time I was a missionary in Germany and a guy begging on the street came up to me, wife and child in tow, and demanded I buy him a chicken. I said no, I'd buy him some fruit (which I had done several other times for others), but that was it. He pointed to my name tag and said, "You believe in Jesus Christ. You have to buy me a chicken."

The church represents Christ just fine without needing you to trot along and instruct them how to do it better.

EDIT: At the very least, this should put to rest the canard that I'm a robotic minion of the LDS collective.

That's funny, Tex. So me applauding the church for issuing an apology and you mocking the apology amounts to me instructing the church? Priceless.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't see a good reason to hand over the property for federal control.

Is there a good reason not to? What are we accomplishing by controlling the property? Besides offending the descendants? Remember that their ancestors are buried on the site. It seems to me that we would gain more from releasing it than we are accomplishing by owning it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's funny, Tex. So me applauding the church for issuing an apology and you mocking the apology amounts to me instructing the church? Priceless.

No, obviously I'm the one disagreeing with the church's PR in this instance. And it's not the first time for me, surprise, surprise.

But you're suggesting that the church behaved in an un-Christianlike way on this topic; that sans-apology this incident was a chink in its ability to represent the Savior. Maybe you agree with the guy who demanded I give him a chicken.

It's an odd assertion to say the least, given who is at it's head.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, obviously I'm the one disagreeing with the church's PR in this instance. And it's not the first time for me, surprise, surprise.

But you're suggesting that the church behaved in an un-Christianlike way on this topic; that sans-apology this incident was a chink in its ability to represent the Savior. Maybe you agree with the guy who demanded I give him a chicken.

It's an odd assertion to say the least, given who is at it's head.

Your chicken analogy is absurd. I can't believe you are serious.

Yes, I think expressing remorse is completely in harmony with Christian living.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, obviously I'm the one disagreeing with the church's PR in this instance. And it's not the first time for me, surprise, surprise.

And by the way, the fact that you would choose this, of all possible occasions, to disagree with the church is astounding. As SU would say, speaks volumes.

[scottie]

Thinking Christ's church should apologize for their non-Christlike actions is somehow analogous to some random guy thinking a church missionary should buy him a chicken. That's classic.

BTW, why buy him fruit but not a chicken?