How the Church Deals With Past Mistakes

I think you do an excellent job of articulating why many people have become disaffected.

The Church’s way of dealing with these things seems to be to just stop teaching or talking about the principle/teaching in question, and teach “correct” principles from then on. I think the result of this, is there are still a lot of people that continue on believing the old stuff, even if it hasn’t been brought up for years.

Agreed, I see a lot of this. People adhering to outdated correlated teachings. I bet it’s hard for the leaders to have their ears to all walls to know which teachings need to be publicly corrected but at times it feels like everyone is just fine with this status quo. The people that like the outdated teachings can go right on believing them and the people that prefer the new teachings have something to hang their hat on as well. The old guard eventually gets too old or outnumbered, then the rising generation becomes the old guard. I hope strides in communication technology will help alleviate some of that going into the future.

I would say that letters from the first presidency read over the pulpit could help correct some of this, but not everyone gets those messages. I’d also say that GS would be a good time to address things but nowadays I see conflicting messages coming out of GCs.

Wasn’t DHO a lawyer/judge? I think a part of this reluctance to apologize is out of concerns that doing so will open the church up to litigation.

Some people would also say that an apology coming from the wrong entity doesn’t make a difference but my own personal opinion is that an apology can heal wounds. An apology can help a person when we are at fault and I think apologies can help someone that is suffering even when we are not the source of the offense. “I know this doesn’t mean much coming from me, but I’m sorry.” You never know, that statement could work a miracle.

I guess there’s a decent case to be studied. The popes have apologized for various things over the years. One could look at how those apologies were received.

I’m also not a fan of the “not in the scriptures” defense. On the surface it feels like an appeal to the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law.

My post also rambles but I do think that there is a concern that admitting mistakes will toss a wrench into the well oiled machine. Perhaps the sentiment is that admitting to mistake will put the whole system of following the leaders at risk. Obviously the disaffected feels like that should be at risk but the leader’s perspective is probably such that not following the leader translates to letting go of the iron rod. aka They are only trying to lead you to god so rejecting them is rejecting god.

Perhaps there’s also an element of worrying that they are putting people’s salvation at risk. An investigator may turn away from the only thing that will save them (orthodox interpretation) if they see the church as anything less than perfect.

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

Oh, and the scriptures don’t have lots of specific words in them. I’m not so sure they’d appreciate people using that same argument against them.

Cedar, you said,

As far as formal apologies, do you think the church as an institution should ever issue them? The statement “we don’t give apologies” seems very prideful upon first hearing it, and really rubbed me the wrong way. When thinking about it, I do realize that these days there is always someone offended about something, so maybe they just don’t want to open themselves up to having to deal with all the people that would demand apologies? A lot of people would probably have a hard time differentiating between “someone, who is a Mormon, has wronged me” and “the Church itself has wronged me”. Maybe it is hard to determine what should require an apology from “the Church”, and what should require an apology from an individual within the church? Do they just hope or assume that any apologies that should be given, will be given at the local level? Maybe they don’t feel they have the right or responsibility to apologize for the actions of past leaders? Maybe they don’t want to draw attention to the things that have been done wrong? Is it part of trying to keep up the appearance of being (mostly) infallible? For many people, asking for forgiveness when you have wronged someone, and forgiving when some one asks forgiveness of you is a basic expectation in Christian behavior. I have also heard some people use the rationale, that the church is being hypocritical by asking members to repent/apologize when they have done something wrong, but the church never has to apologize. I’m not sure how I feel about that statement – it is hard to compare an individual to an entire organization, but it does provide an interesting concept to think about. I really don’t understand the answer that we don’t apologize because the word apology does not appear in the scriptures… :

For me, this is a word game for Judges & Lawyers to play. Does it mean that GA’s (Elder Oaks) don’t need to repent or ask forgiveness?

I know those words are in the scriptures. The danger is it encourages the general membership to play games with words too.

I have to admit I am bothered by the lack of any apology, but I am becoming a bit less bothered by it (a little less bothered). I think there are some reasons: Legal issues (even if something is win-able in court doesn’t mean you won’t spend a lot of $ and have a lot of negative PR coming from it). Then there is the concerns that people will be pushing for an apology for the church once saying that you should use only your right hand to do sustainings (BTW – that is no longer in the CHI). And then there is a big one of making previous leaders (and thus the current leaders) seem more failable. I do think there is a bit of pride on that last one and even fear that doing so would hurt the church and have more people leave. The scriptures don’t say a lot of things explicitly. They don’t tell me to say “FY” to others, but I have learned that insults are not something Christ did.

I was glad they did the follow up trib talk. Not at all perfect and even some comments made me squirm and think “did you REALLY mean to say that? Do you understand how that will be perceived?” But it was great to have them do it. I almost don’t want to give them too hard of a rap as I would like to see more of these.

However, I guess this hit a nerve for me, because I have struggled with the way that not acknowledging and correcting past mistakes has affected the church culture around me. The Church’s way of dealing with these things seems to be to just stop teaching or talking about the principle/teaching in question, and teach “correct” principles from then on.

I am there with you on this one. Just as one example, on the ldssexualty.com board there has been a raging discussion on the church’s stand on Masturbation (one person was even banned due to his continual talking down to others that his way was the only way to frame the issue). I think anybody that studies it would say that compared to the 1970’s when I remember hearing “the little factory” talk from BKP and how masturbation is a sin next to murder, things have dramatically changed. The CHI now only says that masturbation is not something you would hold a disciplinary court over and for the strength of youth says, “don’t do things that would stir up feelings.” The President of BYU-I was asked by Time if masturbation was a sin and he didn’t say yes.

time.com

But this change was done by not stating any change, but instead slowly backing off. Of course this change occurred right after the 1982 suicide of a 16 year old that was so depressed about not being able to stop masturbating. I am sure there was possibly some mental illness stirred in there also, but I know from talking with friends that it was near universal feeling that this was about the biggest sin around and most all of my friends say that they still did it and nothing else in their life has created more shame. My son was asked about it. grrrr.

The one item that really ticked me off in this follow-up trib talk was the whole bit of “well if there is local leader roulette” (my words of course), “that isn’t really my issue. We just teach correct principles.” Come on. Be a LEADER! It is a given that we will never have complete consistency, but if people are calling in questions (as they did) saying, “Where is the line? I feel I can either be exed, or my TR taken, OR NOT depending on who my bishop is if I do certain things like march in a parade.” And then to top it off and say, “I don’t know about these things going on??” It isn’t like being excommunicated is the only thing that members care about. The threat of having a TR taken away is a BIG deal. Does Elder Oaks not know the blogosphere is all lit up about this actually happening THIS month – even the press has had articles on this.

On the “Leaders never make mistakes” line of thinking. I have found a way I can express this without ticking off most of the TBM folks that hear me. I state something like the following.

I find that one quote interesting where it states that catholic doctrine says that the Pope can not be wrong, but most Catholics don’t believe it. Mormon doctrine says that the Prophet of the church can be wrong, but most Mormon’s don’t believe it. It makes me think about the fact that I could have heard incorrect doctrine in the last general conference. It makes me realize the important responsibility that I have to find out from the Lord when I hear something from the leaders to make sure I know how and if it applies to me.

Enough of me rambling. I need to get some stuff done today before the superbowl.

Taking him at his word that “we look forward and not backward,” what are 5 things the church could do immediately that would be more impactful than an apology?

1 – relaunch & beef up mormonsandgays website (as Christofferson mentioned)

2 – educate bishops on how to counsel parents of gay children and also that we don’t counsel them to try to change their sexual orientation by marrying heterosexuals

3 – pour some of our vast resources into preventing gay teen homelessness and suicide

4 – launch a campaign for church members to volunteer to sit with gay members at church and to welcome them

5 – allow for open expression of diverse opinions on gay marriage and gay rights at BYU and in other Mormon settings – particularly among faculty

What suggestions would you make?

As a start, say every important thing from the news conference/press release/interview in a General Conference talk. I really think a lot of things would fix themselves if members understood that the content this last week wasn’t for “public consumption,” it’s for us.

… He feels the best way to deal with these things is not in a formal apology with words, but in talking about principles and good will among contending viewpoints.

My thought is if good will is desired an apology is often the shortest path to that end. I know in some cases it can get complicated, but it often seems there is a fear of the consequences of apology. “There is no fear in love.” …I like to see the power and confidence of love, …and of fearless voicing of truth.

On a personal level, my wife prefers an

apology with words

when I’m wrong.

And probably even when she thinks you are wrong (not always one in the same).

And it can be, “I am sorry that it felt that way to you, but I can tell you it wasn’t what I meant.”

Perhaps it is like when someone slips and falls in a casino environment.

You as an employee never help the person up. You are to encourage the person to stay on the ground until help arrives.

You never admit fault in any way. You never say “this was our fault.” You never suggest that this has happened before.

The casino is trying to protect itself from liability but I imagine that similar principles could apply to trying to protect the perception of the church in the minds of most members.

He didn’t quite grasp that at first, but I think he did when I explained how children have been disowned and ostracized in families simply because they’re gay and the church taught for years that being gay was a choice, was sinful, and could be “corrected.”

I find it interesting that in teaching these things the church was only doing the same as almost every other christian church. Somewhat reminds me of the priesthood ban being a product of the racism prevalent at the time. I know that there are some unique doctrinal challenges with gays but is it possible that in some 50 or 100 years we will be saying that our teachings about gays were a product of the prevailing environment of the time?