Should we expect an apology? I think it can be argued either way. Nobody in the modern Church had anything to do with the massacre, but then, it’s not like Eyring was expressing “profound regret” for the actions of some entirely disconnected third party, like Nazi Germany in the Holocaust–he was speaking as a representative of the people and the institution of which the MMM perpetrators were members. I got the impression that the Church was accepting at least some ownership of he massacre, which I feel is appropriate. As successors to the perpetrators and inheritors of their religion, would it be inappropriate to apologize on their behalf and try to make amends for what they did? I don’t think so.

Are we members of the same church? While the Church’s recent progress in the area of the depiction of its history may not be monumental, I do think it is at least a subtle change of course. These days, I sense more of a desire to address popular concerns rather than ignore them or brush them off as unfounded or anti-Mormon criticisms.

Ann,

I hadn’t read Tuttle’s remarks. However, I think his “clarification” overstepped his bounds as church spokesman, and I don’t think we should interpret it as being representative of “official” Church sentiment. That having been said, I do think that Eyring intentionally did not use words like “apology” or “sorry.” While his expression of “profound remorse” may have been late-coming (150 years late, if you’re counting), and it didn’t go as far as I think they should have (why can’t we just say sorry?), I’m glad to see some progress.

Traditionally, religious organizations haven’t been very good at objectiveness or straightforwardness, particularly with regard to science, history, and other disciplines that may conflict with and have the potential to undermine their truth claims and authority. Affronts to truth claims and calls for reform are often met with a conservative, fundamentalist backlash. The LDS Church isn’t unique in this respect. But if it wants to maintain its credibility and appeal to people in the mainstream of society, it will have to adapt itself and its message, and it will have to address their concerns. I see it trying to do this, and I think it’s a good sign.

Until I read that statement, I agreed with you completely. But now it just seems like a backhanded sop. Mr. Tuttle stated in a private e-mail (cited over at Mormon Wasp) that he was just trying to clarify Elder Eyring’s statement. The effect, IMO, was to dismantle it.

While I agree that the church has opened up a lot, I don’t give them a lot of credit for doing so. The Truth Is Out There, and if they don’t tell it, others will. They’re way behind the curve on putting out accurate history.

In my opinion, as a member of 9 years, the church has been going in this same direction every moment I’ve been a member of it (yes I know it’s jsut 9 years, but still)

Now I’ll go back and acutally read your post. (I’m sucha jerk)