- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:On Own Now wrote:
On behalf of the Church, I apologize for everything the Church has done to offend anyone.
OK, are we good?
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 This is exactly the kind of thing that has irked me in the past. I did receive an apology once, but it was from a person remote to the situation that had no stake in the bad decision that affected me. It was hollow, and it didn’t undo the damage to testimony and deflated expectations about this supposedly perfect and divine organization I had given my soul to (literally). This was in spite of the fact a Bishop, and official church representative, did the apologizing. But he was still too removed from the situation to make his apology meaningful.
I don’t know what it takes to make apologies meaningful — normally you are expected just to forgive and move on. Ideally, that is the best way, but there is nothing like restitution or some act that cancels the wrong, or compensates for it. Words are cheap….
I had a very similar experience, SD, but it was the stake president. I appreciate that he recognized I had been hurt and that he recognized the leader who perpetrated the harm was wrong. But his apology was meaningless – he did not do or condone the harm. I would have been much more satisfied with the apology coming from the person who did do the harm. Yet, the harm was done and cannot be undone. And frankly I struggle with forgiving, especially where great harm has been done.
I feel we’re having two different conversations about apologies. Maybe it would help to parse things out a little more. 1) There’s an apology that may be offered as a part of the repentance process. This type of apology may (or may not) help the offended party in the healing process. I’d say we shouldn’t let our healing process be hindered by whether someone apologizes. That part of the equation is outside of our control.
Then there’s:
2) The implication that someone or something is perfect and therefore has no need to apologize. To that I’d say… lol.
Is #2 at the root of the issue, that the debate over apologizing is a variant of taking issue with the supposed perfection of the church – where church is defined in this instance as church leaders?
I’m really sorry, nibbler, for not keeping the discussion focused. :wtf: …I guess that there is a 3rd way…
3) Not really sorry or feeling I did anything wrong, just being nice and apologizing since you seem to have your panties in a wad over it. To keep the peace, I’ll apologize and move on…I don’t have pride.
:angel: On Own Now wrote:On behalf of the Church, I apologize for everything the Church has done to offend anyone.
OK, are we good?
Nice try…but your post makes a good point. It does matter how and who says it.The Pope’s apology means something. He has authority to extend an apology.
The church is an organization…but it can apologize…if the Q15 write a letter or have their PR dept write it on their behalf. It isn’t impossible. There just has to be a compelling reason for it.
Old Timer wrote:4) I have a hard time agreeing that the Church leadership doesn’t repent. They don’t apologize publicly often
Then they don’t repent by the Church’s own standards:
Quote:We must confess all our sins to the Lord. In addition, we must confess serious sins—such as adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, spouse or child abuse, and the sale or use of illegal drugs—which might affect our standing in the Church, to the proper priesthood authority.
If we have sinned against another person, we should confess to the person we have injured.Of course, in the next paragraph, the Gospel Principles manual goes on to talk about restitution, which is also a sticking point, especially when the actions caused second and third order reactions which cost/harmed victims significantly.
“Sinned against another person” is the tricky part, since it requires a recognition of “sin” being committed. That gets even more squishy when we teach that sin is an intentional or knowing act of wrongdoing and not a simple mistake of ignorance or wrongness (which is transgression and requires no confession). It is really hard to expect an institutional “confession” for something that isn’t seen as “sin” (even if it is understood to be a mistake after the fact, like the Priesthood ban) – and there is nowhere in our core doctrine of which I am aware that requires apology for every time we unintentionally or ignorantly offend or harm someone else, as good and noble and healing as an apology can be.
In other words, repentance doesn’t require apology for all wrongdoing (even though that is a good ideal when wrongdoing is recognized); it requires confession for harm caused by sin. That requirement is based on recognition of harm and of the sin that caused it, and that is subjective enough to cause difficulty with the sinner and the one against whom the sin is committed.
As with lots of things, we tend to see this issue in black-and-white terms – even in complex situations.
Heber13 wrote: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.
I don’t know if this still fits into the thread, but as a woman who one might think is interested in an apology for polygamy, I’m not. I just want to know what you (leaders) think now. And that’s why the essays were so devastating. No apology necessary – strike that – no apology is even possible. The silences and elliptical story-telling said it all.Time is ticking so loudly on this, at least in my head. No one can or should apologize for polygamy, but what about for perpetuating the doctrine? I’m not looking for a thread about pXXXXXXX, but I think it’s a good example for discussing responsibility and meaningful change.
thanks for sharing Ann. BTW – has anyone read Carol Lynn Pearson’s book “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy?
I agree the crux of the matter is the perception that “we are perfect, so we don’t have to apologize”. Although probably not intentional, that is the way it comes across from our church leaders. I realize that an apology, or admission of wrong doing can lead to financial consequences in some cases, which is part of the issue. But nonetheless, an apology goes a long way for an organization that claims to have divine authority.
I have often thought, that if I was in an interview with a SP and he criticized me for my own gospel habits, I might, in an inoccuous way, say “I don’t envy you — the incredible pressure you must feel. From being the official representative of an organization that claims to have a divine head and divine commission, led completely by inspiration. It must put a lot of pressure on you to make the right decision, every day, because if you don’t so many people’s expectations are affected”.
What I am really saying is that yes, I may have my deficits, but you also have a lot to live up up to, and from my perspective, your failure to do so, as an organization, is part of what has me in this position I’ve chosen toward the church, today”
Of course, since I now live my life cautiously around church leaders, I’ll never say it. Unless I have a whim.
😆 😆 😆 SilentDawning wrote:I have often thought, that if I was in an interview with a SP and he criticized me for my own gospel habits, I might, in an inoccuous way, say “I don’t envy you — the incredible pressure you must feel. From being the official representative of an organization that claims to have a divine head and divine commission, led completely by inspiration. It must put a lot of pressure on you to make the right decision, every day, because if you don’t so many people’s expectations are affected”.
A few month back I was in a SS meeting taught by our former SP (recently returned from a 3 year call as MP). He was talking about how church leaders are lead by inspiration but not in every moment. Sometimes they make the best judgments call that they can based upon the available information and sometimes that ends up being a bad call.
I was very impressed by the admission. I raised my hand and asked if this ever happens with callings – that sometimes there are vacancies that need filled and judgment calls are made with the people available. This former SP told me that extending callings was in his experience an exception to the not always inspired clause. Every calling is (according to him) confirmed by the spirit.
This to me seemed like he was saying that our leaders are not perfect…except when it comes to important matters.
Roy wrote:A few month back I was in a SS meeting taught by our former SP (recently returned from a 3 year call as MP). He was talking about how church leaders are lead by inspiration but not in every moment.
And you didn’t burn him at the stake for suggesting that anyone in a leadership position in the Church ever does anything without an angelic visitation?
NightSG wrote:Roy wrote:A few month back I was in a SS meeting taught by our former SP (recently returned from a 3 year call as MP). He was talking about how church leaders are lead by inspiration but not in every moment.
And you didn’t burn him at the stake for suggesting that anyone in a leadership position in the Church ever does anything without an angelic visitation?
I think we are hearing more of this type of admission from the local leadership. They know people some people aren’t buying it. I think that kind of honesty is refreshing.
DarkJedi wrote:I think we are hearing more of this type of admission from the local leadership. They know people some people aren’t buying it. I think that kind of honesty is refreshing.
Still got a long way to go in some places, though. Around here, if you complain about the single ply toilet paper you might as well be burning Bibles because all decisions are presumed to be Divinely inspired and questioning them is attacking the Church.
Local leadership roulette is a huge factor in SO many things. I appreciate the honesty of someone who admits to not be always inspired. The people who hear the Voice of God speaking to them all the time and feel everything they do is always inspired — those are very scary people.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.