- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
BJE wrote:
For me the gospel topic essay Race and the Priesthood really got me thinking.If something that was preached from the pulpit as doctrine for more than a hundred years can suddenly be called opinions of men based on the culture of the day and not doctrine, what taught now as doctrine will in the future be called opinions of men based on the culture of the day?The children of gay parents policy was “revelation” when it came out a few years ago. Now the reversal of the policy is “revelation”.
Mistakes are never made and the church doesn’t apologize.
To quote an article from the Salt Lake Tribune in regards to a statement from Dallin H Oaks;
“I know that the history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them,” Oaks said in an interview Tuesday. “We sometimes look back on issues and say, ‘Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,’ but we look forward and not backward.”
The church doesn’t “seek apologies,” he said, “and we don’t give them.”
You just summarized my thoughts on this exactly. The Race and the Prieshood essay was a turning point for me, for exactly the reasons you point out above.
And the fact that “we don’t apologize” is a kick in the gut for me. Righteous people, and organizations, apologize. To do otherwise, and to simply state this as DHO did, is downright arrogant. Granted, I realize that as a temporal organization with lots of money, if you apologize it could land you in court with a liability claim. And with the way the church has hurt so many people over the years, the losses coule be staggering. I get that, but to openly state it like DHO does, or to not apologize even in situations where there is no risk of a lawsuit — that’s just wrong and unChristlike.
I thought the gospel topic essay referred above was also pretty weasley when they said “we don’t know where this came from”. Really? Will we know where current policies/doctrine/practices came from in years hence? To me, this was a pretty shallow way to deal with the problem, to obfuscate. Particularly when everyone knows this came out under Brigham Young.
By the way, how would it look if, in a church disciplinary council, I did something I shouldn’t have, and part of making restitution was to apologize to the person I wronged? And I replied “I don’t apologize or ask for apologies either”. I’d be dead in the water. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, particularly when the risks are low for a temporal claim against the church.
Another concern I have is the difference between forgiveness and trust. For forgiveness, no apology is necessary on the part of the wrong-doer. Sure, apologies help speed the forgiveness process, but I guess they aren’t required for forgiveness given the New Testament. But for restoration of trust? Apologies and restitution are critical.
So my question — if the church is one that never apologizes, how can I trust its leaders on future issues if they feel no obligation to admit mistakes, apologize and thus help restore trust lost?
To apologize admits a wrongdoing. So I guess no apologies means no wrongdoing. What if I were to tell my bishop that some of the things I have done (sins I have committed) have been counterproductive to what I want to accomplish but I look foreword not backwards?
BJE wrote:
To apologize admits a wrongdoing. So I guess no apologies means no wrongdoing.
In the context of this thread… to apologize means wrongdoing. The church can change and people can come to all sorts of explanations as to why. “That was what was right for the time.” “The people were not ready for the higher law.” “The process of restoration is still ongoing.” I have even heard that say that the church was more blunt about gospel truths before but now has to soft peddle them because of our politically correct atmosphere. Were the church to apologize – that would deflate all those arguments. It would mean the church had been wrong … and some people cannot really handle the implications of that.There also is the view that someone can’t apologize for someone else. The only thing the new someone can do is change what the old someone did. I don’t accept that view fully, but I understand and can’t condemn it.
Old Timer wrote:
There also is the view that someone can’t apologize for someone else. The only thing the new someone can do is change what the old someone did.I don’t accept that view fully, but I understand and can’t condemn it.
While I believe it’s true that you can’t apologize for someone else, I also believe leaders of an organization can apologize on behalf of the organization for past mistakes the organization has made.
BJE wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
There also is the view that someone can’t apologize for someone else. The only thing the new someone can do is change what the old someone did.I don’t accept that view fully, but I understand and can’t condemn it.
While I believe it’s true that you can’t apologize for someone else, I also believe leaders of an organization can apologize on behalf of the organization for past mistakes the organization has made.
I am in the camp of not being able to apologize for someone else. Here’s a specific example. During my time of inactivity the SP at the time tried to apologize for something the bishop had done. The bishop was still here and there’s no indication he was willing to apologize. I was polite and told the SP how I felt – that he couldn’t apologize on some else’s behalf, especially when I knew the bishop wasn’t sorry for what he did. The SP accepted that and the matter was dropped. The bishop never apologized on his own behalf. Could the SP just have been saying “I’m sorry this happened to you?” Certainly, but he didn’t indicate that, and that’s different from an apology. That said, I think it might be appropriate for the current church leadership to offer some sort of “We’re sorry” for something that happened 150 years ago and those involved are all gone. Those people can’t apologize on their own behalf.
DarkJedi wrote:
BJE wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
There also is the view that someone can’t apologize for someone else. The only thing the new someone can do is change what the old someone did.I don’t accept that view fully, but I understand and can’t condemn it.
While I believe it’s true that you can’t apologize for someone else, I also believe leaders of an organization can apologize on behalf of the organization for past mistakes the organization has made.
I am in the camp of not being able to apologize for someone else. Here’s a specific example. During my time of inactivity the SP at the time tried to apologize for something the bishop had done. The bishop was still here and there’s no indication he was willing to apologize. I was polite and told the SP how I felt – that he couldn’t apologize on some else’s behalf, especially when I knew the bishop wasn’t sorry for what he did. The SP accepted that and the matter was dropped. The bishop never apologized on his own behalf. Could the SP just have been saying “I’m sorry this happened to you?” Certainly, but he didn’t indicate that, and that’s different from an apology. That said, I think it might be appropriate for the current church leadership to offer some sort of “We’re sorry” for something that happened 150 years ago and those involved are all gone. Those people can’t apologize on their own behalf.
For me, the BP’s SP making the apology carried weight. He was more senior than the Bishop, and his is a higher apology from an organizational perspective.
Interpersonally, it’s inadequate as the BP isn’t at all sorry.
For it to be a complete apology, I would need the SP to indicate he was sorry for what happened, and had also spoken to the BP about it. As the SP, if the infraction was severe, I’d also encourage him to apologize to the wronged person. But if the BP was unwilling, there would be little I could do.
I had a BP apologize for atrocious behavior from LDS Social Services. It didn’t matter to me. What I needed was an apology from the guy who did it as the BP and LDS Social Services were two different organizations.
Just to clarify my earlier post, the bishop was still around but not bishop. I didn’t take the “offense” (for lack of a better word) as an offense perpetrated by the church, rather it was more personal using the church “authority” and policy as a pretext. The SP couldn’t do (and probably wouldn’t have done) what the bishop did. And just from another perspective, the SP was in fact barking up the wrong tree at the time on the assumption that the offense was the cause of my inactivity – it was not, as others were figuring out when I did not return to activity when the bishop was released. The whole thing with the bishop was sort of a side show. If the SP were apologizing on behalf of the church/organization or if it were clear he was just saying “I’m sorry this happened to you,” I would have seen the apology in a different light but that was not the case. (FWIW there was no consequence for the bishop and I’m pretty certain that even now, 15ish years later, he likely thinks he did no wrong and would remain unapologetic because that’s part of his personality. He moved away several years ago and Utah is welcome to him.) Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
I know the thread went in an entirely different direction, but every time I see the topic title I can’t help but think: How much can the church remain the same yet still remain credible?
Good point nibbler. The church can change too much and people may question the “unchanging” nature of the doctrine. If the church doesn’t change enough it can cause people to question the claim of continuous revelation and the church loses relevance for our modern lives. nibbler wrote:
I know the thread went in an entirely different direction, but every time I see the topic title I can’t help but think:How much can the church remain the same yet still remain credible?
+1000nibbler wrote:
I know the thread went in an entirely different direction, but every time I see the topic title I can’t help but think:How much can the church remain the same yet still remain credible?
As the “living gospel” with a “living prophet” there should be change as often as needed. What concerns me is that after having a living prophets for 175 years since Joseph Smith’s death and only three sections and two declarations have been added of the Doctrine and Covenants that we’re not written by Joseph Smith.
If I were a prophet, and I didn’t have an actual visitation commanding me to write a revelation (or a compelling vision), I would be reluctant to publish anything. First, it’s weird in current society for a prophet to say they had a revelation and put it into scripture. We’re already marginalized enough. it’s way easier to believe in old revelation than new revelation when given formally like this.
Second, I’d feel this great responsibility to make sure what I eventually end for publication was internally consistent with the scriptures as a whole.
Third, I’d be concerned about unintended consequences of people going off the deep end with the scripture by taking parts literally, or justifying bad things with it. We already see the FLDS church and what they have done with some of our scripture.
Those are just a few reasons I wouldn’t do it — and I wonder how current prophets would be influenced by such practical concerns.
The main problem is if the church goes to a more liberal church and they accept more things that older prophet declared as a sin! Sec the church don’t explain why the did change the policy!
The church doing the same mistake as the Protestant church and Catholic Church giving in from pressure from outside!
So I think church losing big in credibility because of all this adaptation to external pressure and not following the doctrine!
Another question popped up is how modern revelation that contradict earlier revelation of early prophet of the church fits! Did the early prophet revelation been wrong or the new revelation is wrong, because both can’t be true!
Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
SilentDawning wrote:
If I were a prophet, and I didn’t have an actual visitation commanding me to write a revelation (or a compelling vision), I would be reluctant to publish anything.First, it’s weird in current society for a prophet to say they had a revelation and put it into scripture. We’re already marginalized enough. it’s way easier to believe in old revelation than new revelation when given formally like this.
Second, I’d feel this great responsibility to make sure what I eventually end for publication was internally consistent with the scriptures as a whole.
Third, I’d be concerned about unintended consequences of people going off the deep end with the scripture by taking parts literally, or justifying bad things with it. We already see the FLDS church and what they have done with some of our scripture.
Those are just a few reasons I wouldn’t do it — and I wonder how current prophets would be influenced by such practical concerns.
The prophet doesn’t just decide to add revelations to our scriptures. Here is the process by which revelations are added to our standard works of scripture as outlined on lds.orgIn the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.
The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:
“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.
“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:
“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’
“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.