Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[cion]

In conclusion, (it is always nice to conclude a thread) the answer to the question "Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?" is

No. There is really nothing to apologize for.

I started out with the assumption that people here believe there are things to apologize for but I was mistaken. I'm not trying to dig up dirt and make the church look bad. I just made a bad call, that's all. One call, that's all... as they say...

[thesometimesaint]

cion:

I fail to see where my apologizing for what someone else did as very effective.

[cion]

cion:

I fail to see where my apologizing for what someone else did as very effective.

Me too. I don't think you should apologize for anything.

[Calm]

Well, now I realize that people on this board do not feel there were any mistakes made that need to be acknowledged by the church as a form of apology. There is nothing to apologize for. I'm cool with that.

Strawman

[Mars]

Well, now I realize that people on this board do not feel there were any mistakes made that need to be acknowledged by the church as a form of apology. There is nothing to apologize for. I'm cool with that.

In conclusion, (it is always nice to conclude a thread) the answer to the question "Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?" is

No. There is really nothing to apologize for.

I started out with the assumption that people here believe there are things to apologize for but I was mistaken. I'm not trying to dig up dirt and make the church look bad. I just made a bad call, that's all. One call, that's all... as they say...

Oh please.

Here, I'll nullify your flimsy conclusion: If the Church did something wrong, it should apologize.

Now, I'm going to ask you specifically: What did the Church do wrong? Why is what it did wrong? What 'new' accusation are we going to hash? Blacks and the Priesthood? Joseph and Polygamy?

Spit it out and quit trying to 'catch' us. It's bull.

[Pahoran]

Well, now I realize that people on this board do not feel there were any mistakes made that need to be acknowledged by the church as a form of apology. There is nothing to apologize for. I'm cool with that.

Y'know Cion, I've never been a very big fan of public institutional apologies over things that were done long ago by someone else, to people who were never seen by anyone now living. But if you are, then perhaps you might want to set the example you'd like to see us follow.

So, would you like to apologise for being more than a little bit devious about what you were really trying to achieve in this thread?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Oh please.

Here, I'll nullify your flimsy conclusion: If the Church did something wrong, it should apologize.

Now, I'm going to ask you specifically: What did the Church do wrong? Why is what it did wrong? What 'new' accusation are we going to hash? Blacks and the Priesthood? Joseph and Polygamy?

Spit it out and quit trying to 'catch' us. It's bull.

Amen. I agree that if there is some institutional error in what Joseph, Brigham or anyone else has done, the Church should apologize. If there is a personal and private error that any prophet did, I see no problem with identifying them and stating that JS or someone else made a mistake....probably would take issue with issuing an apology on their behalf though as that seems presumptuous...like me offering an apology for cion's mistake in this thread of not identifying up front what was wrong instead of making vague, generalized statements and thus impeding actual discussion, thus harming readers by wasting their time and causing confusion.

Now let's identify them and discuss how an apology is beneficial in these specific cases.

[bookofmormontruth]

I apologize for people taking cion seriously.

[Calm]

I apologize for people taking cion seriously.

Thank you, that will help me move past the painfulness of the thread.

[cion]

I have a better picture of where people on this board are coming from. Thank you for your time. I sincerely mean it.

I don't understand why people are saying I was trying to "catch" you. Unfortunately, I came across as not being sincere. It's too bad, really.

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

Well, some church members in 1998 asked if the Church would repudiate the Curse of Cain doctrine and say that the Priesthood-ban was an "unfortunate mistake". When reporter asked for a response, The Church told reporters and others that they would let the 1978 Revelation "speak for itself". Some Mormons consider the 1978 Revelation to be an 'apology'. The Church has denied the racist rationalizations for it, however leaders of the Church has asked that EVERYTHING taught on this subject in the past should be discarded (Paraphrasing Bruce R. McConkie's apologetic statement). Apologies have been done (such as with McConkie), now to what end? It won't comfort those who were "wronged". Who was wronged? In the case of the priesthood, through being denied the priesthood - its assumed there must be someone entitled to it that was denied getting it. No one is entitled to the priesthood. No church that I know of disavowed Curse of Ham. Only president they point to is that there were churches that apologized for using the Curse of Ham theory to justify segregation and slavery, something the Latter-day Saints were not a part of. Latter-day Saints didn't have segregated churches and the Curse of Ham was never a doctrine and the ban was lifted, that should be the end of it.

That simply isn't good enough for those who seek to be offended, who search for reasons to denigrate and tear down the work, they only feign to care, but they really don't. Over what? Church policies what were abandoned decades or centuries ago, that started under other people with their own long forgotten reasons for which some of us are in no position to presume to make apologies on their behalf.

[Calm]

I don't understand why people are saying I was trying to "catch" you.

I can't speak for others but for me it was the multiple claims that the comments conveyed a consensus of "there is nothing to apologize for" or that someone believed that the prophets had made no mistakes. To me that was a misrepresentation of what was being said and that you continue to claim this even after it was pointed out it was incorrect was highly problematic in my view.

[cion]

Thanks Ray! Great post!

[Calm]

Well, some church members in 1998 asked if the Church would repudiate the Curse of Cain doctrine and say that the Priesthood-ban was an "unfortunate mistake". When reporter asked for a response, The Church told reporters and others that they would let the 1978 Revelation "speak for itself". Some Mormons consider the 1978 Revelation to be an 'apology'. The Church has denied the racist rationalizations for it, however leaders of the Church has asked that EVERYTHING taught on this subject in the past should be discarded (Paraphrasing Bruce R. McConkie's apologetic statement). Apologies have been done (such as with McConkie), .....

Excellent, some specifics! I like specifics.

[jskains]

I have a better picture of where people on this board are coming from. Thank you for your time. I sincerely mean it.

I don't understand why people are saying I was trying to "catch" you. Unfortunately, I came across as not being sincere. It's too bad, really.

You started with basically demanding the Church made mistakes it must apologize for. You created a logical fallacy. It's kinda like saying "does your mom know your dumb?" So it comes off as a trap question.

I don't believe Plural Marriage was a mistake. I think Brigham Young was more of a man than all those kids today who run around impregnating women and leaving them to be single moms. In the end, at least they paid for their seed spreading.

*Shrug*

JMS

[Nathair/|\]

It absolutely drives me nuts when people apologize for doing what is right. Do we ask the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to apologize?

[cion]

I don't believe Plural Marriage was a mistake. I think Brigham Young was more of a man than all those kids today who run around impregnating women and leaving them to be single moms. In the end, at least they paid for their seed spreading.

*Shrug*

JMS

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's just that some Mormons around me (family / friends) believe things like polygamy to be a mistake. I think it is possible to stay temple worthy and believe it was a mistake because I see all these people going to the temple still. Don't take this as an attack. I'm just reporting what I see.

I made an assumption that others on this board agreed there are some mistakes to apologize for but obviously, I was wrong in that assumption.

[cion]

It absolutely drives me nuts when people apologize for doing what is right. Do we ask the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to apologize?

I agree. But I'm glad they clarified the slavery issue.

[Calm]

It absolutely drives me nuts when people apologize for doing what is right. Do we ask the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to apologize?

But isn't the assumption in the request and action that something has been done wrong? It makes sense to respond by demonstrating the perceived wrong is a right, of course, when that is the case.

[Calm]

I made an assumption that others on this board agreed there are some mistakes to apologize for but obviously, I was wrong in that assumption.

Okay, I am just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is a reading comprehension problem, perhaps the result of expectations or something.

[Craig Paxton]

I can’t imagine the church ever apologizing or saying that it was wrong for past doctrine or difficult historicity. I think the very best one could hope for is something similar to what Bruce R. McConkie did when the church changed its stance of excluding the African race from equal participation in all church programs.

“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles”

Bruce R. McConkie was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this address

was given at the CES Religious Educators Symposium on 18 August 1978.

Note there was no admission of past error…only a broad statement that previously held views and all the thoughts of the past didn’t matter anymore.

[Sleeper Cell]

Since it is quite obvious that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other top leaders of the church made mistakes (just like any other person on this earth has done), do you think the Church will ever decide to make a big announcement to the world that these mistakes were made in an effort to heal and move on with their current agenda of becoming a more "mainstream" church?

Thoughts?

I suspect that what really bothers the OP is the fact that the church has healed and moved on. Hence the frustration that 21st century Mormons feel no need to apologize for whatever mistakes or personal sins that its 19th century leaders may have committed.

[Brian 2.0]

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's just that some Mormons around me (family / friends) believe things like polygamy to be a mistake. I think it is possible to stay temple worthy and believe it was a mistake because I see all these people going to the temple still. Don't take this as an attack. I'm just reporting what I see.

I made an assumption that others on this board agreed there are some mistakes to apologize for but obviously, I was wrong in that assumption.

I'll come out and say that I'm in the same boat as your family/friends and I personally think that Joseph Smith made some mistakes in how he implemented plural marriage, mistakes in how he understood the sealing doctrine, and even think it's highly possible that the whole concept of plural marriage was a mistake made in trying to "restore all things." That's just the only way I personally have been able to come to terms with how certain aspect of polygamy went down.

BUT, I also don't think that the institution necessarily NEEDS to make an apology for it. I'm not too huge on requiring institutions to make formal apologies for all things done by it's leaders. PLUS, I know there are some that don't believe those things were mistakes, so it doesn't make sense that they would say that, since I doubt there is even consensus among the brethren if those things were mistakes.

The larger question is how I view current leadership and their instructions on matters of policy and doctrine, if I have concluded that prophets can get things wrong in regards to policy and doctrine.

[cion]

thanks for sharing Brian!

I agree that if many of the members don't see them as mistakes then the institution should not move in an apologetic direction.

[bluebell]

Note there was no admission of past error…only a broad statement that previously held views and all the thoughts of the past didn’t matter anymore.

The lines directly before the ones you quoted acknowledge that a specific belief concerning blacks and the priesthood, one which McKonkie held himself, was in error.

"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things. . . . All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet."