- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree, LH. Old-Timer wrote:I had an interesting experience today.
The US Rep from this area came to campus and spoke to students, faculty and staff. It was a wonderful presentation, and it included a question and answer session at the end. In that session, in response to a question about working with people who see things radically differently, he said:
Quote:I don’t demand apologies, and I don’t apologize with a goal in mind. There is no power or depth to a forced apology, nor is there power in a conditional one. People have different views, and I don’t believe anyone should have to apologize for that –
and, too often, those who demand an apology are demanding people see things the same way they see things. What he said gets to the heart of my own concern about the way apologies are approached so often. Again, I believe in apologies, but I agree with him:
Apologies given in response to a demand and apologies given with a desired objective in mind are equally insincere. I want apologies to be given freely and unconditionally or not given at all, since I believe those given freely and unconditionally are the only ones that actually change behavior – both of the offender and the offended. If an apology is given but behavior doesn’t change, the end result is worse than before the apology was given.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with those statements and they’re much more succinct than anything I can come up with.
My own personal feeling is that if I were to demand an apology and receive one as a result it wouldn’t feel like I had received an apology at all. The “apology” would have absolutely no effect because it only came at my insistence, it wasn’t genuine.
I don’t feel like an apology should be a condition for forgiving people. I should strive to forgive irrespective of whether or not someone apologizes. Offering an apology is a part of
myrepentance process, it’s something that I need to do for myself as much is it is something that I do for other people’s benefit. I can’t repent for other people, so I do my best not to expect apologies from others. Old-Timer wrote:As a friend and not an admin:
Don’t be a troll, cwald. Honor the wishes of the people who write posts here.
At some point you have to forgive others and apologize for your own mistakes. Until you do that, blasting others for not doing it merely is hypocritical and a sign of bitterness that is cancerous.
Got to admit I agree with Cwald here, we get this burden continually while the church refuses to in order to maintain an image of perfection.
SamBee wrote:Old-Timer wrote:As a friend and not an admin:
Don’t be a troll, cwald. Honor the wishes of the people who write posts here.
At some point you have to forgive others and apologize for your own mistakes. Until you do that, blasting others for not doing it merely is hypocritical and a sign of bitterness that is cancerous.
Got to admit I agree with Cwald here, we get this burden continually while the church refuses to in order to maintain an image of perfection.
THANK YOU!
Quote:we get this burden continually while the church refuses to in order to maintain an image of perfection.
I have to confess, this was one of the stumbling blocks for me in the church. won’t go into details, but when we were terribly wronged by a church agency, we received two letters back from our complaint. One was from the FP’s office (not my idea to write the FP, my wife did it) — that one put all the onus back on us and avoided any semblance of apology. The writer was the secretary of the FP office. I still can’t mention that letter 20 years later as it inflames my wife, nothwithstanding her TBM-ness.
The second was from LDS Social Services for the same offence. They gave what I felt was a half-apology, and then ended with a statement that made it sound like the reason they looked into our issue was part of a continuous improvement program — not to establish whether an apology or recourse was in order.
In the latter case, the “apology” only intensified the hurt we felt, and it was there that my belief that the church behaves inconsistently when it a) makes huge claims about its divine connection and truthfulness, while demanding/expecting much from its members b) fails to show divine character, such as unfettered apologies when apologies are due — or admission of wrongdoing.
In my view, a “partial apology” or one given reluctantly is worse than no apology at all.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:we get this burden continually while the church refuses to in order to maintain an image of perfection.
I have to confess, this was one of the stumbling blocks for me in the church. won’t go into details, but when we were terribly wronged by a church agency, we received two letters back from our complaint. One was from the FP’s office (not my idea to write the FP, my wife did it) — that one put all the onus back on us and avoided any semblance of apology. The writer was the secretary of the FP office. I still can’t mention that letter 20 years later as it inflames my wife, nothwithstanding her TBM-ness.
The second was from LDS Social Services for the same offence. They gave what I felt was a half-apology, and then ended with a statement that made it sound like the reason they looked into our issue was part of a continuous improvement program — not to establish whether an apology or recourse was in order.
In the latter case, the “apology” only intensified the hurt we felt, and it was there that my belief that the church behaves inconsistently when it a) makes huge claims about its divine connection and truthfulness, while demanding/expecting much from its members b) fails to show divine character, such as unfettered apologies when apologies are due — or admission of wrongdoing.
In my view, a “partial apology” or one given reluctantly is worse than no apology at all.
What i don’t understand is why DHO would make the comment. Why? “We dont seek apologizes, nor do we give them. ” What was the point? Why even day this to begin with? He did this at a news conference, knowing, even wanting this message to go out to masses. What was the actual message he was trying to teach? It just seems so blatently hypocritical and so arrogant, especially coming from an Apostle from the Lord’s one and only true church….regardless whether he was meaning as an individual or an organization/corporation.
Because he is human? Because he didn’t want to open a floodgate of demands by everyone who felt wronged in some way? Because he didn’t want the Church to have to try to figure out what warranted an apology and what didn’t – and have people condemn the decisions in some way, regardless? Because he felt seeking an apology is counterproductive and not worth the effort? Because he felt changing things means more than forced apology? I have no idea, but, even though I disagree with the sentence in isolation, I can see reasonable justifications for the statement – from the standpoint of an organization.
Old-Timer wrote:Because he is human? Because he didn’t want to open a floodgate of demands by everyone who felt wronged in some way? Because he didn’t want the Church to have to try to figure out what warranted an apology and what didn’t – and have people condemn the decisions in some way, regardless? Because he felt seeking an apology is counterproductive and not worth the effort? Because he felt changing things means more than forced apology?
I have no idea, but, even though I disagree with the sentence in isolation, I can see reasonable justifications for the statement – from the standpoint of an organization.
In our society, aren’t people who are “human” as well as organizations that make mistakes that harm other people expected to apologize?
I don’t understand how an apostle of the church make this statement, and then expect its members to do just the opposite. Especially in reference to how we teach the repentance process starting in primary. I don’t get it. You are beating a dead horse, cwald. I have said already that I don’t agree with the statement, in and of itself. However, I also just listed multiple reasons that he might say it in that context – and they aren’t ridiculous reasons. Again, I might not agree, but they aren’t ridiculous. It completely makes sense from a retention viewpoint. In my experience, most TBM believe the church is perfect (just not the people, as the saying goes) so under that paradigm, why would the church ever need to issue an apology? If the church is perfect, it doesn’t need to apologize. Also, recalling from my TBM thought processes, I would think that if the church were to issue an apology on something then the anti-Mormon world and media would blow it up out of context and it would be bad PR for the church and hinder missionary work (again, this would be my TBM perspective). For these reasons, I would think church apologies should be few and far between as a TBM.
I feel like TBM’s are the blood of the church. Their faith and testimony drives the work and success of the church. Doing something that had the chance of harming their faith wouldn’t be good for retention purposes. I feel like in this case, it’s organization over individual, the needs of the majority of devout Mormons over the rest being prioritized.
Even knowing all this, it hurts.
I do think it’s worthy of discussion though, as it hits a nerve with me personally. It’s kind of at the core of what has floored me about the church over the years when its leaders have behaved badly. Now, context is important. As a blanket statement, I think DHO’s statement is outlandish and VERY unbecoming, and in my view — arrogant — for an organization that follows the perfect man that Christ embodied.
Within a certain context, it might make sense. For example, with reference to a specific incident where someone is clearly trying to draw the church into some kind of fruitless argument, or trap them in some way. In those cases, I don’t mind isolated statements of “parameters” on the argument — I even consider them the tools of gentlemen and cultured women.
Christ used a similar approach when the Pharisees tried to get him to answer whether John acted under God’s authority or not — and Christ sidestepped the question. If that was the context of DHO’s statement, then it might be justifiable, in my view, the way DHO said it. But as a blanket statement, it makes me “see red”. I admire organizations that admit fault, make amends and then move on, because that is what I believe good people, good leaders, and good organizations do….
Take the example of Tylenol — someone tampered with their pharmaceuticals and someone died. Tylenol made an open statement about the problem and recalled everything. Then, had the right to call themselves “the brand you can trust” — and they earned it by taking the temporary hit to their reputation, showing integrity and honesty.
I think organizations that apologize for their mistakes earn the statement “the brand you can admire”.
Now, I did see an apology from DHO in the PBS special a few years ago — he apologized to the families of the people killed in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It makes me wonder if his statement is situational and and not a blanket statement of principle or policy.
university wrote:…the needs of the majority of devout Mormons over the rest being prioritized…
Wow. Yes. I think you are right. That says a lot IMO.
SilentDawning wrote:I do think it’s worthy of discussion though, as it hits a nerve with me personally…
Thank you.
university wrote:It completely makes sense from a retention viewpoint. In my experience, most TBM believe the church is perfect (just not the people, as the saying goes) so under that paradigm, why would the church ever need to issue an apology? If the church is perfect, it doesn’t need to apologize.
Also, recalling from my TBM thought processes, I would think that if the church were to issue an apology on something then the anti-Mormon world and media would blow it up out of context and it would be bad PR for the church and hinder missionary work (again, this would be my TBM perspective). For these reasons, I would think church apologies should be few and far between as a TBM.
I feel like TBM’s are the blood of the church. Their faith and testimony drives the work and success of the church. Doing something that had the chance of harming their faith wouldn’t be good for retention purposes. I feel like in this case, it’s organization over individual, the needs of the majority of devout Mormons over the rest being prioritized.
Even knowing all this, it hurts.
Excellent point, University. I believe it is true that the vast majority of our more orthodox friends believe the church was established and is governed directly by Jesus Christ himself. Hence, the church should be infallible, although the people are not perfect and could be fallible (although I think a good number of them also don’t believe someone at the apostle level is actually fallible). That leads to another topic we often discuss here – when are they speaking as apostles and when are they speaking as men? DHO in this case was on assignment by the church to be part of this interview/news conference (I don’t recall which it was off hand) and there fore should have been stating the church’s point of view. The church’s point of view is that the church is perfect, and therefore, as you say University, would never need to apologize because it couldn’t be wrong.
FWIW, this issue does hit me personally as well, but not quite at the same level as it does guys like cwald. Institutionally I have come to expect there will be no apologies, and statements like that of Elder Oaks are proof of the unlikelihood of it happening. I still believe it would be of benefit to the church’s image, however. I also think that that type of apology as opposed to a local leader apologizing for something he did wrong are two different animals – but nonetheless extremely rare.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.