- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
From another thread. This question was asked to SilentDawning, but I welcome any input. Quote:Silentdawning. Do you think that some blanket apologies from the LDS Q15 and/or newsroom would mend some of the harm, divide (pain, bitterness) with you personally. ..kind of like DHO did a couple of years ago with MMM?
Sincere question, perhaps to focus the topic more: For what specific thing would an apology of some kind make a difference for people here?
My own initial response is that someone has to recognize harm before a sincere apology can be given – and that harm generally has to be widespread, avoidable and/or deal with incorrect assumptions to warrant an institutional apology. If many members believe and teach something, for example, but many others don’t, I personally can’t expect an institutional apology. Education of some sort is critical before apologies become possible.
For me, the way teachings about homosexuality have done real harm is what comes to mind immediately, even though I think they were unavoidable in the past, given their place in Christian thinking for a long, long time. (I am not talking about teaching that homosexual activity is a sin, since that obviuosly is highly subjective, but rather the teachings that led to things like parents kicking kids out of their homes and disassociating from them completely, and the suicides that occur as a result.) I think that fits the description above and movement to recognize, address and correct that sort of thing already is occurring throughout the Church and society. There is more movement necessary before I think an apology can be given, but that is what I would like to see.
The church must apologize for past racism. I don’t really begrudge or believe the church is racist today. That is because people like BRM admitted he was wrong and the church pretty well have apologized (kind of) for past racism practices and statements. Thanks Urchtdorf. 
I think the same could be said of MMM.
I do think the church needs to apologize to the individuals and the families of those they excommunicated in the 70s who spoke out against the priesthood ban though. But that might be a whole other thread?
I judge the church on its current practices and teachings. And that includes dishonest and misleading statements about past practices and mistakes. So if they would apologize for some of their past egregious mistakes like polygamy and how they handled and marginalized “apostates” in the past, as well as recently, i just think it would help middle way or cafeteria mormons like us here on staylds better find solutions to remaining in the church, or at least not have so much collateral damage when they go through a faith crisis.
I don’t know if I’m so much wanting an apology as much as a cessation of the practice. I’d be happy if they just threw it all out there on the table, ceased making films showing JS with one finger on the plates translating, openly taught about polygamy, etc. Coming clean, in a way, is an apology. Quote:Coming clean, in a way, is an apology.
I think this is where I am at. I get that its impossible to apologize for stuff done/said/practiced before you were a GA or whatever, but I think coming forward and addressing stuff even with “we no longer do/believe/practice this” type of statement would go a long way to bridging the divide. It would also tear down the wall, that I believe needs to come down, if the church wishes to thrive. As long as families, wards, marriages and so on are ham stringed by divided stories – we will, as Abraham Lincoln said, “Be a house divided” and we will not stand.
So yes, MMM acceptance and responsibility, disavowing of prior teachings, and other things would help immensely.
KeitherB wrote:The church must apologize for past racism.
I don’t disagree with your statement, but I do wonder to what end? While I believe it would be good for church PR, beyond that what else is to be accomplished? I don’t think an apology really rights those wrongs. My thinking is still evolving on this topic, so my questions are sincere. Why are we hoping for institutional apologies on the part of the church? What will they accomplish?
DarkJedi wrote:KeitherB wrote:The church must apologize for past racism.
I don’t disagree with your statement, but I do wonder to what end? While I believe it would be good for church PR, beyond that what else is to be accomplished? I don’t think an apology really rights those wrongs. My thinking is still evolving on this topic, so my questions are sincere. Why are we hoping for institutional apologies on the part of the church? What will they accomplish?
Perhaps the biggest accomplishment from church institution apologizes is that the local leaders and faithful family members will listen to their own prophets and realize they should stop marginalizing and ostracizing other church and family members, those who have stood up, spoken up and dreamed of a community the church actually purports to be…you know, spoke up to the abuse in the past, present and future…. things like MMM, racism, sexism, polyandry, proclamation to the family/SSM, distorted history etc.
I think blanket apologies toward the blacks they denied the priesthood, blanket apologies to families of MMM would help in general. It would help change my perceptions of the church as somewhat egocentric. It would help change my perception that the church is arrogant in its relationships with member and non-members on certain issues than I would expect from an organization with its truth claims. But it wouldn’t effect a radical change in my thinking overnight. It took decades for me to get to the place I am right now, and while an apology would help, it would not replace my current attitudes.
Just like the WW training a while ago tried to move to a kinder, gentler approach to volunteerism — like BKP asking leaders to not view members as simply resources to staff the church, or even the articles on the priesthood ban and polyandry. They are a positive step, and we should congratulate the church on making this step, but until it percolates to the local wards and culture, it still won’t make everything acceptable to me as a place to serve.
For me, the leaders would have to change the experience of being a member of the church, and this would take time.
For other, less difficult cases than myself, I think these apologies might help. I’d like to hear what others think.
A few nights ago I saw a documentary movie about MMM called “Burying the Past: Legacy of the Mountain Meadows Massacre” from my local community college library (it didn’t seem to be getting much use [both the film and the library 😆 ])It was fairly balanced and informative – particularly of the developments of the last several decades with the erection of the new monument etc.
I was disheartened when GBH stood to speak and said things to the effect that much of this stuff is shrouded in mystery and unknowns and it is not profitable to speculate about them. (I was like “what the heck?
:wtf: you could say the same about any historical event!”) He did acknowledge local LDS leader involvement and spoke with confidence that BY did not know and would have stopped it if a faster mode of communication had been available. He talked at length about how the monument came to be and to me it came off as if the church was doing a favor by building it. He made it clear that the church building the memorial was not an admission of guilt or liability.Overall in the documentary the modern church seemed corporate and somewhat tone deaf. Very interested in controlling the site to control the way the story is told (or not told as there is such little information given about what exactly took place). To this day there have been efforts for the church to turn over the site to the feds as a national historic monument and the church has repeatedly declined. The Church PR spokesman in the film said paraphrased “what better than a church, an organization that sees its mission as to look after men’s souls, to oversee and maintain this sacred resting place.”
The film ended by saying that the families of the survivors were still waiting for an apology from GBH.
After the film DW and I discussed the film. She asked why seek an apology for something so long ago. I expressed that I feel that it would go a long way to 1) acknowledge that local community/militia/LDS church leaders were responsible for the attack (this has been done several times). 2) That this was wrong and we see it as murder. (There was a big different the way that church reps. talked about this event and how the families talked about it. The families repeatedly called it murder and the church reps. called it something else – like an atrocity or a tragic event. I just felt that to call this murder would put us on the same page linguistically.) 3) To say that on behalf of the church we are sorry. (It is of some debate whether this has been done or not. Please see below for more discussion.)
I would choose Jeffery R. Holland to give the apology. He is both an Apostle and a descendant of massacre participants. He could symbolically apologize for both the church and his dead ancestors. He was also an English Student of Jaunita Brooks in high school. He could simultaneously apologize for the unjust intimidation that was directed at her while she worked to bring these issues to light in the books that she wrote.
I do not know if this would open another can of worms. Would the church then be opening itself up to criticism for having murderers on its records as having full fellowship? Yet, I believe it would be the right thing to do…let the consequences follow.
I noticed in this thread reference to an apology and decided to look it up. Here is what I found:
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]
Again the wordplay seems disingenuous and diffusive of responsibility. What’s the difference between saying the word apology or sorry and saying “profound regret?” It sounds as though the church is trying to satisfy those that have been looking for an apology and yet have it so carefully worded as though to keep their fingers crossed behind their backs at the same time. Seems very politically motivated to me.
Thanks Roy. I guess i am wrong and I APOLOGIZE and will take back my comment that the church has apologized for MMM. I am sorry for mistake.
I think you have summed up very well what I have been trying to express only to get moderated. So thank you for chiming in.
I think we are generally on the same page cwald. As we have frequently mentioned here – in any message there is the content, the delivery, and the forum.
You are generaly more concise and direct than I. (“call a spade a spade”) There are tradeoffs to any approach.
Fortunately, we are among friends here that know our background and intent to some degree give us the benefit of the doubt or reign us in if we stray too far.
The MMM specifically stands out to me as something that could be condemned as murder and apologized for.
I’ve always wished the church would apologize about the priesthood ban. I deffo agree with Cwald that the church should apologize like the members have to sometimes.
To me it looks even worse than a case of Church leaders feeling like they shouldn’t ever have to apologize for past mistakes; basically it seems like they have an unusually difficult time even considering the possibility that the Church could actually be wrong in many cases to begin with. For example, if you look at the historical essays they are basically making excuses and trying to explain why it supposedly isn’t as bad as it sounds. In particular, for the plural marriage essays rather than openly considering even the possibility the JS, BY, and others could have simply been acting on their own they insisted that this was directly commanded by God. Personally I think this kind of inflexible and dogmatic overconfidence in revelation is one of the biggest weaknesses in the Church. For example, in science theories can be tested and eventually proven unlikely or increasingly supported by the available evidence. In business, companies can change their products, prices, etc. to try to improve customer satisfaction. In politics, candidates can occasionally be replaced or avoided by voting for someone else. By contrast the Church has a relatively difficult time adjusting to the current reality largely because so many of the leaders apparently think the Church is already the way it should be and the way God wanted it. So we see them stubbornly resist changes long after the status quo has proven to be highly problematic (I.E. the practice of polygamy, the racial priesthood ban, strongly condemning evolution and birth control, etc.) only to later change or soften their tone anyway. Maybe some things will never change as long as the Church has some influence over people but at least I don’t feel like I need to believe them or even listen to what they say most of the time anymore.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.