Why "express regret" instead of "apologize"?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The church has paid out millions of dollars in claims based on the wrong things its local leadership did.

In my opinion, to say or even imply that the church did not have culpability, is an egregious lie. The entire event was directed by church leaders using priesthood and church administrative procedure.

If the Church administrative procedures were used it was only because military responsibilities and positions followed priesthood hierarchy. Further, well organized militias, or poorly organized militias, were not exactly rare at that time in US History and certainly the norm on the frontier. IMO there was no way to avoid using church administrative procedures when Brother Brigham was colonizing his Kingdom.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

If the Church administrative procedures were used it was only because military responsibilities and positions followed priesthood hierarchy. Further, well organized militias, or poorly organized militias, were not exactly rare at that time in US History and certainly the norm on the frontier. IMO there was no way to avoid using church administrative procedures when Brother Brigham was colonizing his Kingdom.

therefore any claim that the church wasn't involved, that men did not feel it was part of their religious duty (in following their priesthood leaders) is disingenuous.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

So if a branch president in Cleveland somehow gets his congregation to murder a non-member family in their area, the church is culpable.

Interesting.

I think that the Church and its leaders had varying degrees of culpability. While I don't believe that Brother Brigham gave the order to wax the Fancher Party, is there any question that his policy of not doing business with outsiders and his general mistrust of anyone not in the LDS faith facilitated the paranoia that led to the event? I also believe it was the Apostle George Smith, father of George Albert Smith IIRC, whose fire and brimstone militant speeches fomented the frenzy in Utah's Dixie. I think Apostles reflected very specifically the intents of the Prophet.

That is not to say that Brigham and the early LDS settlers were not justified in being paranoid and mistrustful given their personal and collective experiences with those not of their faith, but the pervasive attitude that was a result of Brother Brigham's stong leadership was a principle cause of the massacre, IMO. So to say that Brigham Young was not culpable, as in a cause of the event, to some extent is not being intellectually honest. Now as BYU'71 indicates whether or not he and "the Church" is liable for the massacre might be an entire different story.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

So if a branch president in Cleveland somehow gets his congregation to murder a non-member family in their area, the church is culpable.

Interesting.

In terms of paying out millions of dollars to the victims, quite clearly yes. When your organization commits crimes, your organization can often does pay. Just ask the Catholics.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

therefore any claim that the church wasn't involved, that men did not feel it was part of their religious duty (in following their priesthood leaders) is disingenuous.

The issue is trully defining what is "the Church" in this case. Much of the scholarship foccusses upon whether or not Brother Brigham gave the order to wax the Fancher Party. Methinks when most arguments are made whether or not the Church was involved it hinges on this issue. I agree that the Church, and even Brother Brigham, was involved and culpable, I disagree as to whether it was liable just because the methodology of mobilizing the militia was based upon principle of LDS Priesthood government. That was the only method of which the settlers knew. I don't see the methodology as the cause, but a means to an end.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

The issue is trully defining what is "the Church" in this case. Much of the scholarship foccusses upon whether or not Brother Brigham gave the order to wax the Fancher Party. Methinks when most arguments are made whether or not the Church was involved it hinges on this issue. I agree that the Church, and even Brother Brigham, was involved and culpable, I disagree as to whether it was liable just because the methodology of mobilizing the militia was based upon principle of LDS Priesthood government. That was the only method of which the settlers knew. I don't see the methodology as the cause, but a means to an end.

If the community = the church (which in these small frontier LDS towns, it certainly did.

Then if the community is liable, so is the church.

You can't argue that the community is liable, but the church is not liable.

[MikeWaters]

Either way it doesn't matter at this point, because there was no consequence nor accountability for any of the murderers, save one.

How would you like to live in a town full of murderers?

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If the community = the church (which in these small frontier LDS towns, it certainly did.

Then if the community is liable, so is the church.

You can't argue that the community is liable, but the church is not liable.

I have never argued that the community is liable, I argue that the principle leaders in the community were the most liable for the event.

However, only one of them was held responsible in mortality.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I have never argued that the community is liable, I argue that the principle leaders in the community were the most liable for the event.

However, only one of them was held responsible in mortality.

matter of semantics.

If the civic leaders = church leaders, then you can't say that they were acting purely in terms of their civic duties, and not their church duties.

that's the price you pay for no separation of church and state.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If the community = the church (which in these small frontier LDS towns, it certainly did.

Then if the community is liable, so is the church.

You can't argue that the community is liable, but the church is not liable.

Sure you can. If the Mayor of Po Dung City in Utah orders the Sheriff to take out some perceived bandito's and the town is 90% mormon and he is a Mormon Bishop, you really think the church could be held liable? Someone may try, but it wouldn't fly.