- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Is the church on record as ever coming forward and apologizing for anything on behalf of the church and something it did? Henry B. Eyring said the following on the 150th anniversary of MMM: Quote:We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time. A separate expression of regret is owed the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local church leaders and members.
There was also an apology of sorts for doing baptisms for the dead for Holocaust victims.
Scott Trotter wrote:We sincerely regret that the actions of an individual member of the church led to the inappropriate submission of these names. These submissions were clearly against the policy of the church. We consider this a serious breach of our protocol and we have suspended indefinitely this person’s ability to access our genealogy records.
Take what you will from that one.
Elder Oaks is on record as saying the church neither seeks nor gives apologies. He’s very close to correct. I’ve looked, and haven’t found anything more than what nibbler posted. The church doesn’t repent. This is one of my biggest complaints.
It seems to follow the same script my parents did: maintain authority by maintaining the appearance of infallibility. I follow a different script with my own children: immediately apologize when I’m wrong or have hurt them, and try to repair the damage. The idea is to model repentance, and to save them from an FC-like crash when they realize I’m not perfect. It’s working so far. At least, I haven’t been accused of hypocrisy yet.
Hopefully this different script is actually a generational thing.
In 2012, there was a thread here that explored the possibility of an apology for the Ban. Here’s what I wrote: On Own Now wrote:The ban was wrong. It was arrogant and un-Christlike. And parenthetically, the worst part wasn’t the priesthood, but the temple exclusion. The church stayed with it too long. I’m grateful it was resolved finally, if belatedly, 34 [now 38] years ago. I was around during that time, and I didn’t like the ban… I mean, I was a youngster, but old enough to start wondering why God would have such a policy, and right about that time, it was changed, which I found exciting and wonderful. So, that’s my history. I’m not young enough to think of the ban in strictly theoretical terms, and I’m not old enough to have accepted and defended it (thankfully).
I consider that time to have been a great time to grow up, because there was a strong emphasis in the country that we are all just people, and skin color is entirely superficial. I think it was a less cynical time, than either the time before (institutionalized segregation) or the time after (excessive differentiation in the pursuit of diversity)… in the 70’s it was all about being color blind… ignoring the outward appearance and treating all as not only equal but as not different. Sort of an innocent adolescence, not only for me, but for the country, in terms of race relations. Heck, I had a serious crush on a black girl in my junior high school, before the ban was lifted.
So, I view myself as not a racist and as never having been a racist. I’m not a former racist, I’m not a reformed racist, I’m not an apologetic, repentant, racist.
Given that, from my vantage point, I would rather that the church NOT apologize specifically for the ban. Doing so, I feel, would implicate me as needing of absolution. All of my adult life, I have bristled anytime the notion comes up that we are racists because of the past practices of the church. I look around the church and I don’t see racists… sure, there are a few, but no more than in any other cross-section of society at large. In my view, and from where I stood at the time that it happened, my perception is that there was a collective sigh of relief among the rank-and-file church membership when the ban was lifted… not all, but the vast majority.
Apologizing now would go against the idea that we are not responsible to answer for the actions of our predecessors. In fact, there’s a bit of irony there… because when I was a young man, and not understanding of the ban, what was confusing to me is why a “curse” placed on people in an ancient time would have any impact on their posterity. By the same token, I don’t feel responsible and don’t want to have to answer for the church’s prior failures, false teachings, and false practices… The church did eventually get it right. That’s good enough for me, and I would hope that would be good enough for my neighbors.
There are plenty of other areas where the church hasn’t gotten it right yet. Having a long memory about past failures, rather than being ready to forgive the church when it does set things aright, will only strengthen the church’s resolve to justify current practices and slow its willingness to change.
Quote:On September 11, 2007, at the memorial ceremony for the sesquicentennial anniversary of the massacre, Henry B. Eyring, an Apostle who would join the First Presidency of the LDS Church the following month, read an official statement, saying:
“We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time. A separate expression of regret is owed the Paiute people who have unjustly borne for too long the principal blame for what occurred during the massacre. Although the extent of their involvement is disputed, it is believed they would not have participated without the direction and stimulus provided by local church leaders and members.”
Eyring was careful to place responsibility with local LDS civic and religious leaders, rather than with Brigham Young. Some, including Baker-Fancher Party descendants and historian Will Bagley, did not see this as an apology.
Church spokesman Mark Tuttle agreed, saying “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’ We used ‘profound regret.'”[8] However, Richard E. Turley, managing director of the Family and Church History Department, said it was intended as an apology[8] and the church-owned Deseret News called this message “a long-awaited apology” from the LDS Church.[9] Emphasis mine.
I believe that the church is very sensitive to the legal ramifications of giving an apology. Apologies accept responsibility. Institutions that publicly accept responsibility are much harder to defend in a lawsuit for damages than institutions that do not publicly accept responsibility. It can be good legal advice for the institutional church to never “apologize” for anything.
It looks like MMM and Holocaust situations were apologies to me. The priesthood ban…not really, because of their authority…they would claim to be following God, so God would have to apologize, not the church. Roy wrote:Apologies accept responsibility.
I’d agree that it is a safer legal route, and one that puts the burden on any kind of prosecutor to prove responsibility.
Like OON wrote, it doesn’t help heal. It helps protect.
In our family relationships…are we supposed to protect ourselves, or heal relationships? If the latter, why is the church different?
Reuben wrote:Elder Oaks is on record as saying the church neither seeks nor gives apologies. He’s very close to correct. I’ve looked, and haven’t found anything more than what nibbler posted.
The church doesn’t repent. This is one of my biggest complaints.
It seems to follow the same script my parents did: maintain authority by maintaining the appearance of infallibility. I follow a different script with my own children: immediately apologize when I’m wrong or have hurt them, and try to repair the damage. The idea is to model repentance, and to save them from an FC-like crash when they realize I’m not perfect. It’s working so far. At least, I haven’t been accused of hypocrisy yet.
Hopefully this different script is actually a generational thing.
I also have only found the 2 Nibbler mentioned. And just like Reuben, this is a huge issue for me. It is another notch of the church leaders overextending on just how inspired they are and lack of humility saying when they are wrong. I think the reasons are as Reuben states. But I think that isn’t going to continue to work.Heber13 wrote:In our family relationships…are we supposed to protect ourselves, or heal relationships? If the latter, why is the church different?
I don’t know, what did the SCotUS have to say about corporations being people?
:angel: 😈 It is not wise to repent and apologize for something just to make others feel better or smooth things over. Let’s say you are falsely accused of lying about something. You don’t think you really lied…perhaps the problem is in communicating clearly. You can apologize for a misunderstanding, but not to an accusation of outright lying that might bring responsibility to rectify something.
In that case, I’m not sure an apology is the right thing to do. It means that sometimes there will be conflict and opposite positions. You can try to be kind, but you might have an impass…and simply agree to disagree.
I’m sensitive to this. I’m not apologizing for something I didn’t do.
I do think you can prove that the Holocaust situation was wrong by members of the church and the church is wise to take responsibility for those actions. Ask to heal and move on. The fighting over that only makes them look worse. MMM…hmm…perhaps it is also something members of the church did…questionable if the church was responsible. I’m kind of surprised at that one.
And if the MMM apology was effective…or needed…why not for the ban, why not for other things? Members of the church did racist things, based on teachings of the church. Own up to that and apologize and repent so that we can move forward with a strong conviction that we all know that it is no longer part of our church. Closure. Move on. Save the relationship based on real actions done, not just accusations, but real things like teaching race was determined by pre-earth fence sitting. If members of the church taught that…essays should be clearly apologizing for those wrong things.
Polygamy…apologize to women ever being told they are to belong to a man…and set the record straight we do not view women’s identity less than a man’s in any way. Polygamy needs to be in our past and separated from our forward doctrine. Repentance is needed for that, not hushed tones that still allow people to think we secretly teach it in temples and in the future…my daughters deserve to know that their eternal marriage will not be barbaric.
Heber13 wrote:It looks like MMM and Holocaust situations were apologies to me.
Not to be a stick in the mud, but I disagree. The statements state “profound regret” or “sincerely regret”. I believe that this is similar to saying “I am so sorry for your loss.” This might just be a coincidental way to frame an apology if not for Church Spokesman Mark Tuttle saying, “We do not use the word ‘apology.'” He did not say “I personally do not consider that an apology” or “I do not know that I would use the word ‘apology'” – his statement was much more certain and declarative. “
WE DO NOT USE THE WORD ‘APOLOGY.’” It certainly appears that he is referencing some sort of internal protocol or directive. I agree that MMM and Holocaust situations were not the church’s fault per se but that gets into a discussion of what it might take for an organization like a church to ever to be at fault. Is the sexual abuse and resulting cover-up associated with the catholic church and boy scout organizations the fault of the organization (for having a culture that gave priority to sweeping allegations under the rug), the pope/organization president (for failing to investigate and/or putting in place policies to prevent reoccurrences), the local leadership either collectively or as individuals (that actually had the most direct hand in covering up the allegations), the local organization unit, or merely the individual perpetrators of the abuse? In this scenario, who should apologize? Who is responsible?
Roy wrote:The statements state “profound regret” or “sincerely regret”. I believe that this is similar to saying “I am so sorry for your loss.”
Well…as a stick in the mud…you make sense. OK…I can agree with that. I guess I would take it as a nice gesture…but maybe technically you are correct. 1 point for Roy.
The Pope sent apologies:
Quote:. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:
– The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
– Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
– The Church’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).
– The injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women (29 May 1995, in a “letter to women”).
– The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998).
– For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter “to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church’s reformers, and acknowledged that “independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation’s moral education.” It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.
– For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).
– For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said “Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?”.
On 20 November 2001, from a laptop in the Vatican, Pope John Paul II sent his first e-mail apologizing for the Catholic sex abuse cases, the Church-backed “Stolen Generations” of Aboriginal children in Australia, and to China for the behavior of Catholic missionaries in colonial times.
An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.— Pope John Paul II
It seems it can be done by an organization, even for things done generations in the past by others of that organization.
I was going for the thought of maybe it’s a legal thing. But since the Catholic church has apologized, that makes it difficult to see as a good reason. Unless after those apologies the Catholic church faced legal issues from them. Even then, the church seems to be very comfortable as ‘God’s favorite church’ that the work will go forward and no one can stop us. Kind of how they think there are angels guarding the entrance to the temples so no one unworthy can enter. I would think repenting would be more important than the risk of legal matters in the church. Then again, I am starting to see it as more of a business lately.
Someone mentioned something about not being responsible for our fathers mistakes like the second (?) article of faith states. That may be accurate. Maybe they feel like it is something those individuals involved in the MMM have to apologize for, not the entire church since it was the work of specific individuals. I’m not sure. It is an interesting topic.
DHO did apologize for MMM on the PBS.org special to the families of the people affected. That moved me. They did somewhat apologize for the priesthood ban in the Priesthood Ban Disavowal Gospel Topic essay. I always feel moved when they do that, as I have seen such arrogance in the pats. DHO’s statement that “we neither seek or give apologies” sounds incredibly unChristlike for an organization with a divine commission. I would expect an organization headed by Christ to try to make restitution when it does things wrong. This is where the temporal and the spiritual get mixed up, and makes it hard for me to fully commit to it for the time being. When we went through our adoption problem years ago, a new executive director sort of apologized for the behavior of the past director who really disadvantaged us. But it didn’t seem to help as I find it’s way easy to apologize for the sins of someone else, who, as the offender, is still in their position and fully capable of apologizing themselves. It was a hollow apology.
But there have been apologies of sorts over the years.
It’s strange. There is the “everything is rosy and beautiful” culture at church that is top down, and then the culture here which is so different. I was reflecting on this when a member of the Bishopric stood up and said “we have been commanded to…[insert church policy] here”. it’s a forgone conclusion that the hierarchy knows everything and is rarely, if ever wrong. But we know differently. They are often right but so often are dead wrong….I wish they would acknowledge it. It would mean a lot to me. I felt emotion once or twice when I have seen them apologize. It’s beautiful and what I would expect from an organization that claims to have divine guidance unlike any other church on earth.
Heber13 wrote:Roy wrote:The statements state “profound regret” or “sincerely regret”. I believe that this is similar to saying “I am so sorry for your loss.”
Well…as a stick in the mud…you make sense. OK…I can agree with that. I guess I would take it as a nice gesture…but maybe technically you are correct. 1 point for Roy.
The Pope sent apologies:
Quote:. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:
– The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
– Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
– The Church’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).
– The injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women (29 May 1995, in a “letter to women”).
– The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998).
– For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter “to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church’s reformers, and acknowledged that “independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation’s moral education.” It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.
– For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).
– For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said “Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart?”.
On 20 November 2001, from a laptop in the Vatican, Pope John Paul II sent his first e-mail apologizing for the Catholic sex abuse cases, the Church-backed “Stolen Generations” of Aboriginal children in Australia, and to China for the behavior of Catholic missionaries in colonial times.
An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded.— Pope John Paul II
It seems it can be done by an organization, even for things done generations in the past by others of that organization.
I agree that Roy deserves a point. I don’t the “we regret X” and apology, either.
And I think the Pope may be a bit of a Samuel the Lamanite.
Always Thinking wrote:But since the Catholic church has apologized, that makes it difficult to see as a good reason. Unless after those apologies the Catholic church faced legal issues from them.
To me…this helps the Catholic Church. Going forward…if more priests are caught molesting children…there is a precedence set on the church never approving it, and saying they dont, and that priest should have action taken against them as an individual. It separates the church from the sin, and helps make it clear to other clergy how they handle it…they should report it.That exemplifies to individuals how to repent, and how to move forward, and how to strive for healing.
However…as I said before…a fool admits to things they didn’t do. The legal advice is to be listened to in the real world. I just don’t see why the church can’t ever do it. Some things would benefit them. Not bowing to public opinion. But hopefully having the spirit of discernment.
I appreciate the Pope’s example.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.