[cwald]

DarkJedi wrote:

KeitherB wrote:

The church must apologize for past racism.

I don’t disagree with your statement, but I do wonder to what end? While I believe it would be good for church PR, beyond that what else is to be accomplished? I don’t think an apology really rights those wrongs. My thinking is still evolving on this topic, so my questions are sincere. Why are we hoping for institutional apologies on the part of the church? What will they accomplish?

Perhaps the biggest accomplishment from church institution apologizes is that the local leaders and faithful family members will listen to their own prophets and realize they should stop marginalizing and ostracizing other church and family members, those who have stood up, spoken up and dreamed of a community the church actually purports to be…you know, spoke up to the abuse in the past, present and future…. things like MMM, racism, sexism, polyandry, proclamation to the family/SSM, distorted history etc.

[cwald]

KeitherB wrote:

I wont get excommunicated for what I believe but I can lose my temple recommend for what I believe and I can face church discipline for expressing beliefs contrary to official church doctrine in a public forum. Like I just did.

Yep.

I wish it wasn’t so.

welcome to stayLDS.

[cwald]

I don’t really begrudge or believe the church is racist today. That is because people like BRM admitted he was wrong and the church pretty well have apologized (kind of) for past racism practices and statements. Thanks Urchtdorf.

I think the same could be said of MMM.

I do think the church needs to apologize to the individuals and the families of those they excommunicated in the 70s who spoke out against the priesthood ban though. But that might be a whole other thread?

I judge the church on its current practices and teachings. And that includes dishonest and misleading statements about past practices and mistakes. So if they would apologize for some of their past egregious mistakes like polygamy and how they handled and marginalized “apostates” in the past, as well as recently, i just think it would help middle way or cafeteria mormons like us here on staylds better find solutions to remaining in the church, or at least not have so much collateral damage when they go through a faith crisis.

[cwald]

Old-Timer wrote:

[Admin Note]: ..

(I edited my original wording to avoid having it taken literally, despite my use of the word “essentially”. I should have been more careful in my…

Thank you. I appreciate it. It’s not right to call me a troll, delete my comments and then misrepresent what it was i said.

[cwald]

DarkJedi wrote:

university wrote:

It completely makes sense from a retention viewpoint. In my experience, most TBM believe the church is perfect (just not the people, as the saying goes) so under that paradigm, why would the church ever need to issue an apology? If the church is perfect, it doesn’t need to apologize.

Also, recalling from my TBM thought processes, I would think that if the church were to issue an apology on something then the anti-Mormon world and media would blow it up out of context and it would be bad PR for the church and hinder missionary work (again, this would be my TBM perspective). For these reasons, I would think church apologies should be few and far between as a TBM.

I feel like TBM’s are the blood of the church. Their faith and testimony drives the work and success of the church. Doing something that had the chance of harming their faith wouldn’t be good for retention purposes. I feel like in this case, it’s organization over individual, the needs of the majority of devout Mormons over the rest being prioritized.

Even knowing all this, it hurts.

Excellent point, University. I believe it is true that the vast majority of our more orthodox friends believe the church was established and is governed directly by Jesus Christ himself. Hence, the church should be infallible, although the people are not perfect and could be fallible (although I think a good number of them also don’t believe someone at the apostle level is actually fallible). That leads to another topic we often discuss here – when are they speaking as apostles and when are they speaking as men? DHO in this case was on assignment by the church to be part of this interview/news conference (I don’t recall which it was off hand) and there fore should have been stating the church’s point of view. The church’s point of view is that the church is perfect, and therefore, as you say University, would never need to apologize because it couldn’t be wrong.

FWIW, this issue does hit me personally as well, but not quite at the same level as it does guys like cwald. Institutionally I have come to expect there will be no apologies, and statements like that of Elder Oaks are proof of the unlikelihood of it happening. I still believe it would be of benefit to the church’s image, however. I also think that that type of apology as opposed to a local leader apologizing for something he did wrong are two different animals – but nonetheless extremely rare.

pretty good summary IMO. I readily admit that i hold the the church institution responsible for most of the pain I and my family has experienced…not the individual local leaders.

[cwald]

Silentdawning. Do you think that some blanket apologies from the LDS Q15 and/or newsroom would mend some of the harm and divide with you personally. ..kind of like DHO did a couple of years ago with MMM?

[cwald]

SilentDawning wrote:

I do think it’s worthy of discussion though, as it hits a nerve with me personally…

Thank you.

[cwald]

university wrote:

…the needs of the majority of devout Mormons over the rest being prioritized…

Wow. Yes. I think you are right. That says a lot IMO.

[cwald]

I don’t understand how an apostle of the church make this statement, and then expect its members to do just the opposite. Especially in reference to how we teach the repentance process starting in primary. I don’t get it.

[cwald]

Old-Timer wrote:

Because he is human? Because he didn’t want to open a floodgate of demands by everyone who felt wronged in some way? Because he didn’t want the Church to have to try to figure out what warranted an apology and what didn’t – and have people condemn the decisions in some way, regardless? Because he felt seeking an apology is counterproductive and not worth the effort? Because he felt changing things means more than forced apology?

I have no idea, but, even though I disagree with the sentence in isolation, I can see reasonable justifications for the statement – from the standpoint of an organization.

In our society, aren’t people who are “human” as well as organizations that make mistakes that harm other people expected to apologize?

[cwald]

SilentDawning wrote:

Quote:

we get this burden continually while the church refuses to in order to maintain an image of perfection.

I have to confess, this was one of the stumbling blocks for me in the church. won’t go into details, but when we were terribly wronged by a church agency, we received two letters back from our complaint. One was from the FP’s office (not my idea to write the FP, my wife did it) — that one put all the onus back on us and avoided any semblance of apology. The writer was the secretary of the FP office. I still can’t mention that letter 20 years later as it inflames my wife, nothwithstanding her TBM-ness.

The second was from LDS Social Services for the same offence. They gave what I felt was a half-apology, and then ended with a statement that made it sound like the reason they looked into our issue was part of a continuous improvement program — not to establish whether an apology or recourse was in order.

In the latter case, the “apology” only intensified the hurt we felt, and it was there that my belief that the church behaves inconsistently when it a) makes huge claims about its divine connection and truthfulness, while demanding/expecting much from its members b) fails to show divine character, such as unfettered apologies when apologies are due — or admission of wrongdoing.

In my view, a “partial apology” or one given reluctantly is worse than no apology at all.

What i don’t understand is why DHO would make the comment. Why? “We dont seek apologizes, nor do we give them. ” What was the point? Why even day this to begin with? He did this at a news conference, knowing, even wanting this message to go out to masses. What was the actual message he was trying to teach? It just seems so blatently hypocritical and so arrogant, especially coming from an Apostle from the Lord’s one and only true church….regardless whether he was meaning as an individual or an organization/corporation.

[cwald]

I cant imagine the time where I would actually cast a dissenting vote. Mostly because I think those people are doing the best they can with what they have for the most part. I have much more issues and problems with the organization, the corporation, the church itself, not necessarily the local leaders who are trying to keep the boat afloat.

The best i can do to show my dissent is stop financing the institution i think.

[cwald]

SamBee wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

As a friend and not an admin:

Don’t be a troll, cwald. Honor the wishes of the people who write posts here.

At some point you have to forgive others and apologize for your own mistakes. Until you do that, blasting others for not doing it merely is hypocritical and a sign of bitterness that is cancerous.

Got to admit I agree with Cwald here, we get this burden continually while the church refuses to in order to maintain an image of perfection.

THANK YOU!

[cwald]

I feel your pain.

I would not call myself a NOM.

At the request of family, I no longer claim or pretend to be Mormon… at all.

It is a liberating feeling actually. .. now i can just be.

I consider myself to be a humanist. I consider myself to be a Pantheist which is basically an atheist on steroids.

I do not attend Mormon meetings or talk much about my disdain for the harm caused by religion out of respect for some friends and family members

[cwald]

I think this is just the logical consequences or fruits of perpetuating teaching like the 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet.

Sorry. I’ve lived the horrors of this kind of fruit for several years within my own family. It sucks.

[Author]

Posts