MMM and its lessons

[MikeWaters]

I'm going to research it and find out why, but the reinstatement of John D. Lee is puzzling to me.

I see the argument that he was a scapegoat. But on the other hand, instead of putting him in good stead, why not go the other way and discipline the leaders of the murderers.

I think, at least at the time of John D. Lee's reinstatement, there must have been apostles that were very sympathetic to the killers.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm going to research it and find out why, but the reinstatement of John D. Lee is puzzling to me.

I see the argument that he was a scapegoat. But on the other hand, instead of putting him in good stead, why not go the other way and discipline the leaders of the murderers.

I think, at least at the time of John D. Lee's reinstatement, there must have been apostles that were very sympathetic to the killers.

I had a comp on the mission who was a direct descendant of John D. Lee and was adamant that he did not participate in it, but because he was the highest ranking church leader in the area he chose to take the blame for it. There is strong sentiment in S. Utah that Lee was not at fault, and I assume the Lee family was able to convince church leaders of that at the time of Lee's reinstatement. I really don't think it had anything to do with the church deciding the massacre was ok.

[T Blue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You are Person #1 on the list of people who doesn't get it. Congenitally, you do not get it. So that's why I give you a pass. You were born without the gift.

Waters, good luck with your quest for the truth and enlightenment, I hope your journey doesn't lead you to where SU is, full of anger, bitterness and resentment.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

And really here is the scary part: there is no institutional guilt. Think about the price paid by many individuals to make that happen. Think about the magnitude of that kind of lying. And the damage it must do to ones soul.

At what point can you let something go? Should I still feel guilt about a prophet that denied the Savior three times?

How can you belong to a church that preaches about the Atonement of Jesus Christ where we can be repeatedly forgiven of our sins, yet still cling to something like the MMM which happened 150 years ago and for which the church has formally stated their apology? Is there some sort clause in the Atonement which allows individuals to be freely forgiven for their sins, but not the organization to which they collectively belong?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Imagine if a religious group went onto a commercial airplane and slaughtered every single person on the plane, save a few children.

Do you think it would be a big deal?

Do you think that the religous group that did it, could claim that religion didn't have anything to do with it, or that it wasn't really a big deal, or that it was partially justified, or that it really ought not be discussed anymore?

No doubt about it. But it was a pretty big deal at the time at a national level. But due to distances, technology, etc, the investigation was spotty and slow.

In any case, the reaction would be completely different now. On the other hand, it is much less likely that such a massacre would occur now.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

As someone who grew up in the church, it is really, really hard to wrap my mind around MMM. Not only the murders, but the coverup of the murders, the sustaining of the people that did it, years after the fact, the framing of just one man, sending him to the slaughter so that the others would be unpunished.

Yes, the coverup was the most shocking part for me. I am convinced that BY didn't order the massacre, but he certainly did plenty to cover it up and to shield people from punishment.

The LDS authors who wrote the recent MMM book are working on a second book on the coverup. I look forward to reading it.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

And really here is the scary part: there is no institutional guilt. Think about the price paid by many individuals to make that happen. Think about the magnitude of that kind of lying. And the damage it must do to ones soul.

I am not sure I agree that there is no institutional guilt. What do you mean by that?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by T Blue

Waters, good luck with your quest for the truth and enlightenment, I hope your journey doesn't lead you to where SU is, full of anger, bitterness and resentment.

You are your own problem, and just can't help yourself from trying to point people to the door.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

At what point can you let something go? Should I still feel guilt about a prophet that denied the Savior three times?

How can you belong to a church that preaches about the Atonement of Jesus Christ where we can be repeatedly forgiven of our sins, yet still cling to something like the MMM which happened 150 years ago and for which the church has formally stated their apology? Is there some sort clause in the Atonement which allows individuals to be freely forgiven for their sins, but not the organization to which they collectively belong?

I seem to recall you being one of those who was against the idea of a formal apology and was critical of it once it happened. Weren't you arguing that it was a "real apology"?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I seem to recall you being one of those who was against the idea of a formal apology and was critical of it once it happened. Weren't you arguing that it was a "real apology"?

This is the thread I was thinking of:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11711

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I did neither, so it wasn't a good call. The apology was completely unnecessary. It gives the appearance that the church at the highest levels were behind the attacks and that we're finally getting around to owning up to it 150 years after the fact, when neither is really the case.

The church has already repeatedly engaged in reconciliatory efforts with the very distant descendants affected for a long period of time.

So I'm both publicly upset and criticizing the decision by the leaders of the church.

One of the rare times Indy has criticized the church.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I seem to recall you being one of those who was against the idea of a formal apology and was critical of it once it happened. Weren't you arguing that it was a "real apology"?

Regardless what my feelings were about the need for and the nature of the apology, it has been issued (at least I've read nothing from you or Waters that would have indicated the apology not an apology).

That's not the point. The point is how long do you hammer on the same issue as the decades and centuries go by?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

At what point can you let something go? Should I still feel guilt about a prophet that denied the Savior three times?

How can you belong to a church that preaches about the Atonement of Jesus Christ where we can be repeatedly forgiven of our sins, yet still cling to something like the MMM which happened 150 years ago and for which the church has formally stated their apology? Is there some sort clause in the Atonement which allows individuals to be freely forgiven for their sins, but not the organization to which they collectively belong?

The church has had no problem in forgiving itself on this. Or better put, the church has been very adamant that no forgiveness is required over the years.

Think of it this way, it's sort of like saying, "Well the Pope didn't order the rape and abuse of children by priests, so no apology is necessary from the Catholic church for all these awful things."