[Politics/Religion] Development re: the other 9/11 anniversary

[spacey]

[Rather than jack the "I Remember" thread]

Not to detract at all from 9/11/01, but a moderately interesting development on the 150th anniversary of the other 9/11 tragedy:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6862682

(I'll warn you against reading the reader comments at the bottom as it may cause spontaneous cranial explosion.)

[Uisce Beatha]

It's a start.  Given the whole blood atonement thing and the open hostility between the church and the U.S. government at the time I find it extremely unlikely the presidency wasn't in the know on this in a big way.  We may never know the complete truth (something tells me the relevant records will never see the light of day) but the church should at least publicly acknowledge the possibility of leadership involvement. 

But hey, I thought Mark Hoffman was pretty much enabled by the same crowd.  What the hell do I know.

Official take

[spacey]

It is a start. Unfortunately, I imagine it's all we'll likely ever get. Really, it's not that important to me what the church's official stance is on the issue, as I'm comfortable with what I think about it, but I think the descendants of the victims and those of John D. Lee really deserve better than what they've been given. The LDS church has a violent and bloody history (not in any way that they're the only major world religion who does) and most of the faithful I know are aware of it. The fact that they happily put blinders on for this one bit of it makes very little sense to me. Church leaders are flawed men, they'll declare that nearly to a man, except for when it comes to Brigham Young. Strange.

[Uisce Beatha]

Brigham Young had Porter Rockwell carry his flaws for him.