Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Should the church officially reject Illinois' apology?


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An apology entail acceptance of blame/culpability; an expression of regret does not. That is quite a distinction. I don’t know why you insist on minimizing it or its theoretical consequences. 

It appears that, in terms of implications, what you are calling for is what the Church has already done, essentiallly what the Illinois General assembly did for the Church. Why isn’t that a nice enough gesture?

I think the people wanting the apology don't make the distinction.  All they see is that no apology was given.  Those affected by the hoax seem to want an apology and I think it would do them a lot of good and maybe ease the view that mormons harbor racial sentiment.  I don't think mormons are racist but that is the view by some.  I get questioned from time to time when new african american clients see I graduated from the UofU, if they are familiar with the issue.  The apology may help change this bad perception toward a correct one and really allow the church to look forward as Pres. Oaks wishes.  Even so, I get why the church wants to make the distinction but I don't think an apology would diminish authority like maybe some believe. 

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
On 6/4/2018 at 4:29 PM, Exiled said:

I think the people wanting the apology don't make the distinction.  All they see is that no apology was given.  Those affected by the hoax seem to want an apology and I think it would do them a lot of good and maybe ease the view that mormons harbor racial sentiment.  I don't think mormons are racist but that is the view by some.  I get questioned from time to time when new african american clients see I graduated from the UofU, if they are familiar with the issue.  The apology may help change this bad perception toward a correct one and really allow the church to look forward as Pres. Oaks wishes.  Even so, I get why the church wants to make the distinction but I don't think an apology would diminish authority like maybe some believe. 

Assuming arguendo that what you say is correct — that “people wanting the apology don’t make the distinction” — then logically they ought to be content with the Church’s expression of regret, just as I am content with the expression of regret offered several years ago by the Illinois government for the wrongs inflicted on the Mormon people in that state in the 1840s. 

If, on the other hand, “the people wanting the apology” want the Church and its leaders and its people today to accept blame and culpability for acts committed more than 160 years ago by errant individuals acting on their own part, well, there is no justice in what they desire. 

Edited to add: I am speaking here about Mountain Meadows. You appear to be conflating that with the priesthood ban. I think they are dissimilar issues. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Assuming arguendo that what you say is correct — that “people wanting the apology don’t make the distinction” — then logically they ought to be content with the Church’s expression of regret, just as I am content with the expression of regret offered several years ago by the Illinois government for the wrongs inflicted on the Mormon people in that state in the 1840s. 

If, on the other hand, “the people wanting the apology” want the Church and its leaders and its people today to accept blame and culpability for acts committed more than 160 years ago by errant individuals acting on their own part, well, there is no justice in what they desire. 

Edited to add: I am speaking here about Mountain Meadows. You appear to be conflating that with the priesthood ban. I think they are dissimilar issues. 

I am unaware of any case where persons or organizations are held legally responsible for wrongs committed by persons and organizations some 4 or 5 generations earlier.  So, what harm is there in saying sorry for the acts committed by those from the past?  The church could even spell it out in a tactful way that "although we had no control over the actions of our predecessors, we are profoundly sorry for their actions and condemn them today.  Those actions should have never happened and will not ever again."  (Although, an apology or admission of error might be used by some to say that the church was always run by men.  However, they already say this regarding the two big issues of mountain meadows and the ban.  So, what is there to lose?  Maybe try it on a minor issue, study the reaction, and see if an apology helps?  I know that some say (from a cle I attended regarding legal ethics) that apologizing is a great way to avoid a medical mal-practice claim according to some study.  Perhaps religious leaders are on par with doctors and apologies from religious leaders go a long way toward healing?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Exiled said:

I am unaware of any case where persons or organizations are held legally responsible for wrongs committed by persons and organizations some 4 or 5 generations earlier.  So, what harm is there in saying sorry for the acts committed by those from the past?  The church could even spell it out in a tactful way that "although we had no control over the actions of our predecessors, we are profoundly sorry for their actions and condemn them today.  Those actions should have never happened and will not ever again."  (Although, an apology or admission of error might be used by some to say that the church was always run by men.  However, they already say this regarding the two big issues of mountain meadows and the ban.  So, what is there to lose?  Maybe try it on a minor issue, study the reaction, and see if an apology helps?  I know that some say (from a cle I attended regarding legal ethics) that apologizing is a great way to avoid a medical mal-practice claim according to some study.  Perhaps religious leaders are on par with doctors and apologies from religious leaders go a long way toward healing?

Um, except for the admission of error, I think what you are calling for here is pretty much what the Church has already done. Repeatedly. 

Your problem is you refuse to recognize the meaning of apologize. But I will apologize for your refusal to do that, so long as apologizing for something for which one is not to blame seems to be your order of the day. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, except for the admission of error, I think what you are calling for here is pretty much what the Church has already done. Repeatedly. 

Your problem is you refuse to recognize the meaning of apologize. But I will apologize for your refusal to do that, so long as apologizing for something for which one is not to blame seems to be your order of the day. 

Well, I think we reached the crux of the issue. You don't think the priesthood ban was a mistake and that it was from God. So, no mistake was ever made and therefore no apologies are necessary, right? Also, what harm is there in apologizing for mistakes committed by past leaders if it will heal a few today? It is true that it is impossible to apologize for what someone else did but people don't view it that way. They view the apology as an expression of understanding of how hurt they are as a result of mistakes made in the past. The apology would heal but obviously you don't see it that way and are hung up on definitions. In any event, I am sorry and apologize to those who see your unwillingness to yield.

 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Well, I think we reached the crux of the issue. You don't think the priesthood ban was a mistake and that it was from God. So, no mistake was ever made and therefore no apologies are necessary, right? Also, what harm is there in apologizing for mistakes committed by past leaders if it will heal a few today? It is true that it is impossible to apologize for what someone else did but people don't view it that way. They view the apology as an expression of understanding of how hurt they are as a result of mistakes made in the past. The apology would heal but obviously you don't see it that way and are hung up on definitions. In any event, I am sorry and apologize to those who see your unwillingness to yield.

 

Re-read the title of this thread. It was not intended to be about the priesthood ban, and trying to make it so is a derailment. 

The real “crux” here is the absurd attempt by you and others to try to establish guilt by proxy. 

The magnanimous gesture by the Illinois state government representatives is actually a very apt analogy. Throughout my life as I have read Church history, I have been incensed by accounts of atrocities inflicted upon our people in Missouri and Illinois. I was profoundly touched by the action of the Illinoisans of today while recognizing how unjust it would be to blame any of them for behavior of a century and a half ago in which they could have taken no part and which they earnestly deplore today. The actions by Church leaders today with regard to Mountain Meadows ought to be viewed in the same way. Guilt by proxy is vacuous and does no one any good. 

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Re-read the title of this thread. It was not intended to be about the priesthood ban, and trying to make it so is a derailment. 

The real “crux” here is the absurd attempt by you and others to try to establish guilt by proxy. 

The magnanimous gesture by the Illinois state government representatives is actually a very apt analogy. Throughout my life as I have read Church history, I have been incensed by accounts of atrocities inflicted upon our people in Missouri and Illinois. I was profoundly touched by the action of the Illinoisans of today while recognizing how unjust it would be to blame any of them for behavior of a century and a half ago in which they could have taken no part and which they earnestly deplore today. The actions by Church leaders today with regard to Mountain Meadows ought to be viewed in the same way. Guilt by proxy is vacuous and does no one any good. 

So, how do you square apology "does no one any good" with the reaction to the hoax apology and the outpouring of emotion that resulted from it?  Some on this board were caught up in it too.  I think it did some people some good.  Anyway, I won't hold my breath for any changes.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Exiled said:

So, how do you square apology "does no one any good" with the reaction to the hoax apology and the outpouring of emotion that resulted from it?  Some on this board were caught up in it too.  I think it did some people some good.  Anyway, I won't hold my breath for any changes.

As I said, the priesthood ban and Mountain Meadows are dissimilar issues. 

Insofar as can be determined, the priesthood ban was approved of God, though the reasons for it are unknown. Apologizing for it would amount to apologizing for God, and no mortal person ought to be that presumptuous, least of which ordained apostles and prophets. 

Incidentally, I’m astounded you think the hoax “did some people some good.”

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, the priesthood ban and Mountain Meadows are dissimilar issues. 

Insofar as can be determined, the priesthood ban was approved of God, though the reasons for it are unknown. Apologizing for it would amount to apologizing for God, and no mortal person ought to be that presumptuous, least of which ordained apostles and prophets. 

Incidentally, I’m astounded you think the hoax “did some people some good.”

 

Until they found out it was a hoax ....

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...