- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There was a comment Elder U. made in conference — that that mistakes of past leaders don’t tarnish the church. I think Elder U is getting close to a defensible and effective attitude toward the mistakes leaders make — but it is not complete yet.
The attitude that past mistakes do not tarnish the church continues the perception of the church as an institution that has power but not accountability. If leaders can exercise poor judgment without the church bearing some responsibility for putting these leaders in place, athen it acts with power (divine power?) without accountability. This is dangerous, and in my view, alientating to the wronged and also, a bit arrogant.
There should be apologies when mistakes are made (such as Dallin H. Oaks apologizing for the Mountain Meadows Massacre on PBS — another great moment in my life). I think this willingness to admit accountability and make public amends is part of being a divinely oriented organization. Truly Christlike people admit mistakes, make amends, and then move forward. They care about relationships and try to repair them — and admitting mistakes and providing restitution is part of that process.
I think leadership mistakes DO tarnish the church. And members and leaders alike need to embrace this fact. This furthers the idea that a realistic job preview improves retention. A much better attitude, in my view, is that we should acknowledge that past leaders have tarnished the church’s image, and then learn to see beyond them — and serve anyway.
If I can draw an analogy — one synopsis of a talk in General Conference indicated that Churchill and I believe Lincoln suffered from depression. But Martin Seligman, the father of positive psychology indicated that they learned to live productive lives IN SPITE of this liability. When I read that in Martin Seligman’s books on positivity, it was liberating. The blackness of the world we see sometimes does not mean we can’t still be part of it and do good. We can learn to cope with it and be part of it in spite of its warts, just as Lincoln and Churchill made a huge impact on their corner of the world, in spite of the depression they experienced.
Anyway, I am on to greener pastures now, but I hope we see evolution in the church toward a model of greater accountability now that there appears to be recognition that past leaders have made mistakes. The next step is to acknowledge that yes, this tarnishes the church’s image. And then talks and philosophy about why we should serve, and stay active in it in spite of its tarnished history.
THEN we get to the real issues.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
End note: I don’t know what the leaders at the top are afraid of. Most of the TBM members will remain active and do what the top authorities say. If the top authorities admit wrongs and tarnishes, and advocate attitudes that encourage persistance in spite of these things, then I don’t think they would lose many people. And I think they would actually attract more people like myself who believed in the “Church and leaders are perfect” model, and then suffered severe disillusionment when we learned there were tarnishes no one ever told us about.
Yes, in some cases; no, in others. Any mistake can tarnish the Church in the minds of those who expect perfection. Some mistakes (the Priesthood ban, for example), absolutely can tarnish.
It doesn’tt matter, IMO. Just do it.
If the church has dug themselves into a hole…they need to apologize and admit mistakes…to get out of it.
We all have to do exactly that in or personal lives. The church should be no different.
The perceived cover up is worse than the crime, IMO.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
“Where would we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (paraphrase) Yes mistakes tarnish the church exterior. Remember the analogy of the earthen jars that contain the vitality of lifeblood. Imagine that the only way to get the vitality out of the jar is by passing it throughthe exterior of the jar. As the vitality passes through, it picks up certian impurities that then must be filtered by the final recipient. Do mistakes tarnish the vessel? Yup, but it is only a vessel that I fully believe will be discarded once it has served its purpose (I don’t expect there to be a need for the LDS church in the afterlife. Family organization seems to be the emphasis.)
Do the imperfections of the vessel pollute the pure vitality? The source of the vitality (God) remains pure but the only way we can get the vitality out of the vessel introduces impurities. There will always be the teachings of men mingled with the divine principles of God. We work with what we have because there is no better alternative for us. (I acknowledge that many people find much joy and vitality in other churches – but I believe they are merely trading one earthen vessel for another. Hopefully the impurities from the new earthen vessel don’t leave quite the same aftertaste in the palate of the recipients and they find this change profitable for them.)
That is why it can be important to distinguish between the church and the gospel. I am thanful that I have also seen more talks recently that can make this distinction.
Of course mistakes tarnish the church just as our mistakes can reflect on our character. I am glad the thing about why people leave the church were addressed by Uchtdorf as not just because of offense, lazy, or sin but because of mistakes of leaders, church history, etc. But, what was done at times were serious mistakes such as JS secretly marrying other women behind Emma’s back and the suffering of polygamous women. That so many gays in the church have committed suicide because of what previous leaders have said or done are not just mistakes, but serious offenses. The church will be held accountable, one way or another…but intelligent thinking members will continue leaving the church over their mistakes until they address how serious they were. Quote:intelligent thinking members will continue leaving the church over their mistakes until they address how serious they were.
Other intelligent, thinking members will continue staying in the Church, despite past and current mistakes, for varying reasons, even if the seriousness of the mistakes is never addressed.
I’m not trying to disagree with you, Bridget, since you are correct – but it’s important to avoid sweeping generalities, even if they aren’t meant that way.
🙂 For example, I actually think a lot of what Elder Oaks had to say about marriage throughout the world is extremely important and needs to be understood much better than most people do – but the sweeping generalities and “us vs. them” tone in his talk pretty much guaranteed lots of people won’t bother listening to and thinking about the parts of it that could be instructive for them.
Different people act differently for legitimate reasons. Part of accepting Pres. Uchtdorf’s message about how to view and treat those who struggle and those who leave includes those groups granting the same charity to those who never struggle and who never even consider leaving.
bridget_night wrote:Of course mistakes tarnish the church just as our mistakes can reflect on our character. I am glad the thing about why people leave the church were addressed by Uchtdorf as not just because of offense, lazy, or sin but because of mistakes of leaders, church history, etc. But, what was done at times were serious mistakes such as JS secretly marrying other women behind Emma’s back and the suffering of polygamous women. That so many gays in the church have committed suicide because of what previous leaders have said or done are not just mistakes, but serious offenses. The church will be held accountable, one way or another…but intelligent thinking members will continue leaving the church over their mistakes until they address how serious they were.
-like-
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I’m going to have to reread it but I think he said the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the church is not tarnished… But I might be wrong. If he did say that, then that’s quite different because the gospel of Jesus Christ exists independent of the church.
The church is not perfect and he said so. It is tarnished by the human imperfections that were, are and will be a part of the broken vessel. But that doesn’t make it unusable.
Appreciate everyone’s comments, and always like the balance you give Ray. cwald wrote:If the church has dug themselves into a hole…they need to apologize and admit mistakes…to get out of it.
We all have to do exactly that in or personal lives. The church should be no different.
Thinking about this, my personal tarnish. I deal with it different ways. Sometimes I have to say aloud, I’m sorry for X, Y, Z. I was wrong. How can I make it up to you? Will you forgive me? Sometimes I see a mistake and just DO BETTER going forward. There’s a place for both, I think.
I would like to ask — when is it appropriate to apologize and make amends, and when is it appropriate to simply move on and do better? One caveat here — I listened to Elder Uchtdorf’s talk with my wife a few minutes ago. He did NOT say that mistakes of past leaders and members do not tarnish THE CHURCH. He said the mistakes don’t tarnish the gospel as it exists in the church.
This is what I think he should have said….he did not conflate the church with the gospel like so many leaders in the past.
So, my opening question, while an interesting question, is not a discussion about Uchtdorf’s comments. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if he agreed that these mistakes do tarnish the church. But that is my own supposition, not his opinion.
I also heard and appreciated that distinction. Along with the other one about which you wrote and others, I think he is masterful at saying exactly what he wants to say. Yes Ray and SD, he is very good at crafting sentences that say something quite specific if you listen carefully. The Jan 2013 “what is truth” talk was also very good like that. Quote:SilentDawning wrote:
I think this willingness to admit accountability and make public amends is part of being a divinely oriented organization.
I agree and find it interesting that we are taught to confess our mistakes and make amends, even when we first start learning about repentance in primary. The church is an organization administered by men, even if it is influenced by God. It is a macrocosm of the individual member. So, I would ask, what raises the church above the principle of confessing and making amends?
Liability…for temporal mistakes, and I hate to suggest it, a bit of pride in non-temporal matters? I have experienced it at a local level. When I questioned our HC over the four months it took to release me from a high profile calling, 2 months after I received the handshake, his attitude was very arrogant. No apology, simply a brief justification and then a conversation stopping statement that allowed him to exist the room without addressing my question. “The Church is Perfect But the People Aren’t”, to me, is a bit of a prideful statement as it is one that gives leaders a license to make mistakes without accountability. I feel that admissions are more forthcoming now that the church simply cannot hide the mistakes due to the Internet.
The scriptures that says that in the last days, mistakes will be shouted from the rooftops — is true for everyone — the church, and non-church entities and individuals…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.