- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
[Admin Note]: This topic and thread, and Elder Oaks’ statement, are worthy of discussion. There has been excellent conversation about it. It hasn’t been shut down and won’t be. It also won’t be ignored. [Admin Note]: If the only answer to the question of the specific statement from Elder Oaks that will be accepted is, essentially, “He is arrogant and doesn’t deserve to be called an apostle,” there is no place for that here. There are other places where that stance can be taken and accepted. (I edited my original wording to avoid having it taken literally, despite my use of the word “essentially”. I should have been more careful in my wording.) If the answer anyone wants to give is, “I see no justification whatsoever for that statement,” that is fine – as a one-time statement, since there is no room for discussion with that foundation. Repeating it multiple times is not discussion of any kind.
All other answers that allow for respectful discussion are fine.
That is how we operate here, and it is how we always have operated.
There will be no more admin notes about that aspect.
Silentdawning. Do you think that some blanket apologies from the LDS Q15 and/or newsroom would mend some of the harm and divide with you personally. ..kind of like DHO did a couple of years ago with MMM? DarkJedi wrote: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.
pretty good summary IMO. I readily admit that i hold the the church institution responsible for most of the pain I and my family has experienced…not the individual local leaders.
I appreciate the discussion that has gone on in this thread. It has led me to pondering deeply, and my view of apology as well as my view of forgiveness have expanded. Frankly, I think we have hit a dead end in the discussion of institutional apology, especially regarding the church. We can think it would be good all we want, but that does not make it any more likely. So, my initial question really was more focused on individual apology, even though I admittedly did bring in institutional apology. Can we now focus more on individual apology, perhaps related to the repentance and restitution process? Thanks.
Old-Timer wrote:[Admin Note]: ..
(I edited my original wording to avoid having it taken literally, despite my use of the word “essentially”. I should have been more careful in my…
Thank you. I appreciate it. It’s not right to call me a troll, delete my comments and then misrepresent what it was i said.
cwald wrote:Old-Timer wrote:[Admin Note]: ..
(I edited my original wording to avoid having it taken literally, despite my use of the word “essentially”. I should have been more careful in my…
Thank you. I appreciate it. It’s not right to call me a troll, delete my comments and then misrepresent what it was i said.
[Moderator note: Now that you two are making a bit nice, let’s be done with it. If you want to bicker, take it out of the public forum, please. You are both good men whom I respect.]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.