Pope apologizes to Latin America

I know we’ve hashed this out here before, but if the Pope can do it, why can’t (or won’t) the prophet?

The second article of faith on steroids?

Some people probably view apologizing as a sign of weakness and they are afraid of the implications of a perfect church showing a sign of weakness (I see it as a sign of strength myself). Some might view apologizing as admitting culpability, again something a perfect church shouldn’t have.

A lawyer said that right? He’s probably coming from a place where he feels that apologizing opens the church up to litigation. I’ve got this mental image:

Guy with a court date looming: “Look, I apolo…”

Lawyer: “MY CLIENT HAS NO FURTHER COMMENTS. SHUT. UP.

To reject an infallible teaching of the First Presidency is material heresy. To do so knowingly and deliberately is the grave sin of formal heresy, which includes the penalty of automatic excommunication. If Thomas S Monson or any other valid prophets teaches something under any type of infallibility, you are required to give that teaching the full assent of faith. Otherwise, you commit heresy and formally separate yourself from the one true Church.

Do you think most members would agree with this statement or have issues with it?

Because all I did was take the paragraph as it was in that article you linked, nibbler, and changed pope to prophet. Makes me think we have similar approach on authority the catholics do, they are just 1.2 Billion across the world…and we’re small potatoes…which naturally leads to more members = more disagreement and opinions for the catholics.

To me, the approach about not challenging the pope on some things sounds very similar to what I think as a mormon…that some things cross the line to heresy, and some things are OK to believe differently.

That is when there is an appeal for some people to break off and have their own church that is more unified in thought, simplified in infallible source, restorations of what the large church has moved away from to accommodate more people and thought.

I wonder what teachings the Catholic church has that are infallible.

I wonder if the LDS church has similar categories of some things OK to disagree, some fallible teachings that can change and different church leaders may disagree on, and some infallible things you can’t disagree with or be faced with action like John D did. I mean, if a GA writes a book…we are all free to disagree with his opinions in a book. We just usually don’t mention the things we disagree with. But no church leader would say…”the book Teachings of Thomas S Monson is infallible and you must agree with it or be excommunicated.”

Maybe something infallible becomes non-infallible once enough people shrug off their leaders insistence that it’s infallible.

So, perhaps to the point of the OP, perhaps there are things that do warrant a good apology…when it was taught as infallible in the past and caused pain or suffering to a certain group, and they were wrong to teach it as infallible.

Things that are opinions, things that are non-infallible, or things that are prudential judgement are open for the individual to take the advice as it applies.

Things that are told “You much believe this infallible teaching or be considered a heretic and separating yourself from the church if you reject it”…and then told it has changed…those seem to be things I think the church could own up to.

The other stuff the individuals should take responsibility for how they believe it or apply it. But the church should take responsibility for something that is clearly changing.

I don’t think the church owes apologies for mistakes of individuals, or if individuals take things wrong, or take it as infallible when it was never intended to be that.

Example:

Church changes the Word of Wisdom and says interpretations of D&C 89 to include coffee or tea were never intended to be in there, and have caused some members denial of temple recommends or callings, because it was in the CHI. Church should apologize when making a change to leave out coffee and tea as it isn’t doctrine according to new prophetic clarification of the scripture.

Church clarifies that coca cola and dr pepper are allowed on BYU campus…no apology from the church is necessary…people just created a traditional teaching on that standard, it was never in the CHI. That’s on people who interpreted it the way they did, not the church. If prior bishops denied temple recommends for drinking DR Pepper, well, that is on that bishop for doing it wrong…because that isn’t what the CHI says.

That is my opinion. But the church hasn’t done that in the past. They just publish a manifesto, or SWK revelation on the priesthood to all members, and want to celebrate the new revelation…not apologize for the past. MMM should have an apology if the church wants to teach members by example.

Apologies, especially for things that caused cruel and unusual effects, are one thing; expecting apologies for every mistake ever made that caused some kind of harm to some degree is quite another; expecting apologies for changes in teaching is another thing entirely.

As I have said in the past here, I think apologies are important – but hypersensitivity to the issue can dilute things to such a degree that all meaning is lost. For example, we have done that to the word “bigot” (in many cases, making it mean nothing more than “someone who disagrees with me about something that is deeply important to me”), and I am concerned we can do it to the idea of apologies, as well.

There is a reason the Pope is apologizing for mass murder and near genocide but not for teachings that have been changed over time.

As much as I admire this pope, I think he has a tendency to spout off about things that aren’t in his realm of expertise. He should be talking about greed, envy, etc, probably not about economic systems and financial systems. For example there is evidence that free markets and free trade agreements can be good things. It’s also possible I’m only getting 15 second soundbites from the news and not hearing the whole context.

Not sure why the LDS church can’t apologize. Maybe it’s because we think our prophets are infallible.

As much as I admire this pope, I think he has a tendency to spout off about things that aren’t in his realm of expertise. He should be talking about greed, envy, etc, probably not about economic systems and financial systems.

I generally prefer religious leaders who lack expertise in greed and envy.

From the fourteen fundamentals:

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Since we’re sort of comparing the prophet and the pope here, I suppose we could legitimately substitute pope for prophet in each of the above. Or not, and still wonder why the prophet does address some things and not others.