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

[Craig Paxton]

Boyd K. Packer said, “There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.” Dallan Oaks repeated this sentiment in a talk entitled “Reading Church History,” and again repeated it to the documentarian Helen Whitney, saying “that people ought to be careful in what they publish because not everything that’s true is useful.

If we take these men at their word…then surely the church’s position is that some things that are true are not very useful. In other words the church does not feel it has the responsibility to make a full disclosure of everything that is true....particularly if it is not faith promoting.

The church as an institution of religion, by its very definition, is established to promote faith and belief in its claims. If the church were to officially apologize for past mistakes, difficult historical realities or truths that are not faith promoting it would only lead to undermine its stated mission of promoting faith in the institution and its claims.

The church is caught in a classic catch 22 scenario. Does it step forward and promote “TRUTH” in all of its variations or does it only promote truth that supports its stated purpose. The church has elected to do the latter. It will only promote faith promoting truth…even if it is only half of the story.

The church can never apologize for truths that are not faith promoting because to do so would only shine a flood light of inquiry on that particular difficult issue and undermine the church and its stated purpose.

Despite all the claims of seeking truth, promoting truth and loving truth…church leader know that truth cuts both ways…it can both support and undermine the claims of the church. The leaders of the church have chosen to only tell that portion of truth that supports their worldview…and I cannot fault them for that choice. Any other choice would not further their cause.

[Questing Beast]

Apology is never a good move, imho. Individuals can apologize, institutions really can't; especially about the past leadership.

Mormonism has a VERY colorful history. It is very complex and variously interpreted. We live in an information explosion age. That is a huge difference from the past. Everyone can become an "expert" on Mormon history. So, in light of that change, I think that the Church ought to candidly admit that today the wheat is being separated from the tares; in the past this would have caused needless disturbance of the "wheat". But now, obviously, the separation is occurring and the Church is going to admit the existence of the controversial material, and openly discuss it, instead of pretend that nothing has changed and that the controversial material can be ignored or even condemned.

By admitting the material exists, and opening discussion of it, the Church will be able, through a rapid process of discussion, debate and publication, to establish a more nuanced "official history" that includes public presentation of all the "facts" in our possession. To leave this process to the critics and enemies of the Church is to give up the battle for truth. By not taking an open stand on every issue, the Church does not present a confident position, and that is not a good thing because of the need many members have to follow strong leadership.

And the result of such a policy would be what?

I believe that the mistakes and faults of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their successors can be admitted without prejudice. Polygamy was understood back then imperfectly. Where information as to motive and cause is open to question (it is and always will be), the Church can simply take the stand that "God works in mysterious ways": an obvious conclusion can be made, that without polygamy the Church would never have moved to the West and founded Utah; and likely as not the Church would have languished and never flourished through the trials the Saints endured. So, providing a prophet with the imperfect understanding of Joseph Smith set the stage for the eventual emergence of a major religion: in fact, the fourth of the great "Abrahamic religions".

All-such controversial topics can be handled the same way. The modern church is a fact, and its history is laced with apparent mistakes that have brought the church to where it is today. Can any other religion or denomination claim otherwise? Does the Bible itself portray perfect religion led perfectly? Quite the contrary: the OT (especially) is highly critical of the so-called chosen people, their leaders, even their prophets. Why should the fourth great appendage of the Abrahamic religions be any different?...

[cinepro]

This is an interesting article about Churches and apologies:

VIENNA, Va. — When officials at Vienna Presbyterian Church decided to acknowledge the church's failures in handling reports of sexual abuse by a youth ministries director, they thought it might upset some in the congregation.

What surprised them was the admonishment from the church's insurance company. And it wasn't the church's lapses in responding to the abuse a half-decade ago that bothered the insurer — it was the church's plan to admit those lapses and apologize to the victims.

The insurance company's position was clear: On March 23, a lawyer hired by the company, GuideOne Insurance, sent a warning to church officials:

"Do not make any statements, orally, in writing or in any manner, to acknowledge, admit to or apologize for anything that may be evidence of or interpreted as (a suggestion that) the actions of Vienna Presbyterian Church … caused or contributed to any damages arising from the intentional acts/abuse/misconduct" by the youth director.

But in a letter sent to congregants the next day, the church's governing board, known as a Session, took a different course.

"Members of Staff and of Session are profoundly sorry that VPC's response after the abuse was discovered was not always helpful to those entrusted to our care," the letter said.

In a sermon the following Sunday, March 27, Pastor Peter James went further: "We won't hide behind lawyers. … Jesus said the truth will set us free."

Church abuse cases and lawyers an uneasy mix

[Scott Lloyd]

My initial reaction in reading the title of this thread is to question who it is that needs to heal. Not the Church itself, surely, for I don't perceive any unhealed wounds it is suffering from as a result of its past behavior or the behavior of past Church leaders.

Is it the critics who need healing? If so, I would say they are suffering a self-caused injury, as they are taking offense where none has been given over wrongs that exist only in their own perception. Altering their own attitudes would thus provide any healing that may be needed.

[Brian 2.0]

The church has elected to do the latter. It will only promote faith promoting truth…even if it is only half of the story.

The church can never apologize for truths that are not faith promoting because to do so would only shine a flood light of inquiry on that particular difficult issue and undermine the church and its stated purpose.

I can understand their choice knowing their purpose. The Church should just be careful on how it portrays that side of the truth and also how it responds to direct questions about the truths they aren't promoting.

For example:

Truths: Joseph smith translated a great deal of the BOM by putting a seer stone in a hat and putting his face in the hat. This seer stone was found by Joseph when he was digging a well before the First Vision. Previous to using this stone to translate the BOM he also used it for treasure seeking purposes. (I tried not to put anything not backed up)

I understand why the church doesn't spell those things out in the missionary discussions. But they should never deny it's happened if asked in media questions (refusing to answer the question doesn't count as lying). They should never accuse people of "lying" that say these thing. And then should probably not show the translation process in a way that didn't happen (i.e. probably should reproduce the artwork of Joseph looking down at the plate with his fingers on them as if he is reading them during the translation process).

I'm not saying the church has done any of those things (exception to the artwork), but they should be careful not to because while they may not choose to tell ALL the truth, they shouldn't deny it is there or portray something AGAINST the truth they aren't telling, because in this day and age, people will find out and would feel like they have been lied to.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can understand their choice knowing their purpose. The Church should just be careful on how it portrays that side of the truth and also how it responds to direct questions about the truths they aren't promoting.

For example:

Truths: Joseph smith translated a great deal of the BOM by putting a seer stone in a hat and putting his face in the hat. This seer stone was found by Joseph when he was digging a well before the First Vision. Previous to using this stone to translate the BOM he also used it for treasure seeking purposes. (I tried not to put anything not backed up)

I understand why the church doesn't spell those things out in the missionary discussions. But they should never deny it's happened if asked in media questions (refusing to answer the question doesn't count as lying). They should never accuse people of "lying" that say these thing. And then should probably not show the translation process in a way that didn't happen (i.e. probably should reproduce the artwork of Joseph looking down at the plate with his fingers on them as if he is reading them during the translation process).

I'm not saying the church has done any of those things (exception to the artwork), but they should be careful not to because while they may not choose to tell ALL the truth, they shouldn't deny it is there or portray something AGAINST the truth they aren't telling, because in this day and age, people will find out and would feel like they have been lied to.

On the matter of the art work, are you stating unequivocally that it is inaccurate? That is to say, are you prepared to state categorically that there never could have been an occasion when Joseph Smith handled the plates themselves or placed his finger on the characters in an effort to read them? If so, on what do you base such a declaration?

[Jeff K.]

One does not lacerate one's self in the ocean when sharks are swimmng about.

[Brian 2.0]

On the matter of the art work, are you stating unequivocally that it is inaccurate? That is to say, are you prepared to state categorically that there never could have been an occasion when Joseph Smith handled the plates themselves or placed his finger on the characters in an effort to read them? If so, on what do you base such a declaration?

No, I am not. And I knew I would get this response the minute I wrote it.

I'm just saying that if your main purpose is to state things that are "faith promoting" then it might not be the best idea to promote something that has so many documented versions against that thing. I have never read an account where Joseph Smith is reading the character off the plate like he would a book, but I have read a number of accounts saying very different things that that. That doesn't mean it NEVER happened, but the promotion of the "quite possibly inaccurate" artwork may serve as a the opposite of "faith promoting" when those other accounts are discovered.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, I am not. And I knew I would get this response the minute I wrote it.

I'm just saying that if your main purpose is to state things that are "faith promoting" then it might not be the best idea to promote something that has so many documented versions against that thing.

The "many documented versions" are what they are: fragmentary recollections by different individuals from different periods of time. And I don't see how any of them argue against the idea that Joseph, at some point in time, may have handled the plates physically and looked directly at them while trying to decipher through revelation the characters that were on them.

I have never read an account where Joseph Smith is reading the character off the plate like he would a book, but I have read a number of accounts saying very different things that that. That doesn't mean it NEVER happened, but the promotion of the "quite possibly inaccurate" artwork may serve as a the opposite of "faith promoting" when those other accounts are discovered.

"Quite possibly inaccurate" (your own words, apparently, though you placed them in quotation marks) is a phrase that could be applied to virtually any artist's conception of virtually any subject. Does that mean, in teaching the gospel or portraying Church history, we are to discard anything other than certifiably undoctored photographs? Even photographs, you know, can convey a false impression, depending on how they are cropped and depending on the context of time and place.

Like much religious artwork, the depiction of Joseph to which you refer has a very simple and clear message as its intent. The message in this case is that Joseph Smith, by the gift and power of God, translated the ancient Nephite record written on plates that had the appearance of gold.

Once this message is grasped, no reasonable person should have his faith tried if he later learns that Joseph at various times did this with the aid of certain divine instruments — the Urim and Thummim and/or the seer stone — or through pure revelation without the aid of any instrument or without looking at the Nephite record at all.

[Brian 2.0]

Fine. Take out the reference to artwork and my post still stands on the other stuff.

I knew I shouldn't have put in the artwork because then the conversation would be only about that and not about my main point.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Before one gets to that question, I think this one needs to be answered first:

How does one determine a particular action or teaching was a mistake? Something beyond opinion or speculation that it was a mistake....

Excellent point; what do we apologize for? We have insufficient information to make these judgments. You can take what we think we know about anyone a couch it is the most vulgar terms to make anyone look like a great sinner…

Example, an argument can be made that Abraham was a very unrighteous man, one who practiced polygamy, turned out a wife and son to die in the desert. Then tried to murder his own son, in effect ending his marriage to Sarah; I have heard more than one Jewish Scholar say that after Abraham left with Isaac, he never returned to his wife except until after her death to bury her.

Yet the Apostle Paul teaches that when we accept Christ we become the “seed of Abraham”. There are only three men in all of human history (mortal men) to whom the “God of Israel” ever identifies his mane with…”The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”, all polygamist, and each screw ups in their own ways as fathers. (Some argue that Isaac is not but D&C 132 says otherwise)

“We” have no right to apologize for them without “all of the information”.

[ERayR]

This is why we have living prophets and continuing revelation. And changes come not because something in the past was wrong, but it is not meant for our day. What we may consider questionable in the past wasn't so for that time and that people.

We need to stop looking at the past with our present sensibilities and prejudices. I think it ironic some talk about BY for example for some of his statements which they consider racist, but they are blinded to their own bigotry in not understanding the times or the customs.

Exactly right.

Also if you are in a stranded handcart company in freezing weather, stranded on the plainse of Wyoming who would you rather have leading the church, A Brigham Young who when he received word immediatly adjourned general conference and called a rescue party to leave that very afternoon or someone who ran around wringing their hands and formulating an apology for letting them get stranded?

I really have a hard time with those who think we need to apologize and some how make reparations for what our ancestors did.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fine. Take out the reference to artwork and my post still stands on the other stuff.

I have no quarrel with the other stuff, but it does seem a tad self-evident.

[Brian 2.0]

The "many documented versions" are what they are: fragmentary recollections by different individuals from different periods of time. And I don't see how any of them argue against the idea that Joseph, at some point in time, may have handled the plates physically and looked directly at them while trying to decipher through revelation the characters that were on them.

Can you offer me any historical documented versions, even those that are "fragmentary recollection by different individuals from different periods of time" that talk about Joseph translating the BOM by "handled the plates physically and looked directly at them while trying to decipher through revelation the characters that were on them."

I'll go down this path if you want, but if you are going to call me out on evidence, then you need to do so for your own claim.

[Scott Lloyd]

Can you offer me any historical documented versions, even those that are "fragmentary recollection by different individuals from different periods of time" that talk about Joseph translating the BOM by "handled the plates physically and looked directly at them while trying to decipher through revelation the characters that were on them."

I never argued that there are any. I'm saying what recollections exist do not argue against the idea that Joseph may have, on some occasion or occasions, handled the plates and looked at the characters thereon. It's a point you seem to have conceded.

I'll go down this path if you want, but if you are going to call me out on evidence, then you need to do so for your own claim.

I don't need to provide evidence for a claim I never made. It's a reasonable supposition that Joseph may at some point have handled and looked at the plates directly, and that is justification enough to use the painting for the simple purpose I suggested earlier: to convey the understanding that Joseph translated the plates by the gift and power of God.

[Brian 2.0]

I never argued that there are. I'm saying what recollections exist do not argue against the idea that Joseph may have, on some occasion or occasions, handled the plates and looked at the characters thereon. It's a point you seem to have conceded.

I have conceded that point, but by no means do I think that point then should be expressed and taught without evidence. You can argue for almost ANYTHING by your logic.

The chruch could come out with a painting of Pionners crossing the plains in chariots of fire and being protected by angels with flaming swords. This photo is then used to talk about how Heavenly Father blessed and aided the pioneers in their trek west, with no reference to the artwork being metaphorical.

Then when one points out all the historical documents pointing to the facts that the pioneers drove covered wagons and not chariots of fire, and there are no accounts in the historical record of pioneers riding in chariots of fire... you can say, "none of those historical recollections that exist argue against the idea that the pioneers may have, on some occasion or occasions, crossed the plains in chariots of fire."

You can believe ANYTHING you want WITHOUT EVIDENCE by your logic. You are using flawed logic.

[LeSellers]

Then when one points out all the historical documents pointing to the facts that the pioneers drove covered wagons and not chariots of fire, and there are no accounts in the historical record of pioneers riding in chariots of fire... you can say, "none of those historical recollections that exist argue against the idea that the pioneers may have, on some occasion or occasions, crossed the plains in chariots of fire."

You can believe ANYTHING you want WITHOUT EVIDENCE by your logic. You are using flawed logic.

Except we know how every person who crossed the plains did so. We do not know every detail of Joseph's translating the Plates.

You are the one using poor logic. You're comparing apples to aardvarks.

Lehi

[Brian 2.0]

Except we know how every person who crossed the plains did so.

You know how EVERY person crossed the plains at ALL times?

[Libs]

I think it's good to apologize for past wrongs, if they can be specifically named.

A lot of churches have done that. The Catholics, for sexual misconduct (and, if I am not mistaken, they even apologized for the Inquisition)..

The Southern Baptist Conference apologized for past racism and their stance on slavery, within the church.

Rather than making the church more vulnerable (as someone suggested), I think it takes the ammunition away from their critics, if an apology is issued.

I don't think the LDS Church can apologize for polygamy, because it's too much a part of their doctrine (and I'm not positive that an apology for even the way it was implemented, is really in order).

I do know there was a lot of racism, in the church, though (as with most churches) and I don't think it would hurt to extend an apology for that. It could, actually, help many current black members (whom, I know, do struggle with it, to varying degrees).

It's not a sign of weakness to apologize, IMO. Just the opposite.

[LeSellers]

You know how EVERY person crossed the plains at ALL times?

The Church kept meticulous records. Everyone who came across the plains in a Church-sponsored company was part of a recored. It's much like a ship's manifest.

Lehi

[Deborah]

You can believe ANYTHING you want WITHOUT EVIDENCE by your logic. You are using flawed logic.

In the first place Joseph did handle the plates; after all he took them from the ground, had to wrap them and hide them in various places. It takes a great deal of mind-twisting to assume he didn't actually look at them. From the various accounts we have he used more than one method to translate and the stone in the hat was only one method.

I really don't understand the obsession with this since Joseph himself didn't reveal exactly how the translation took place. The BOM is evidence of an inspired work. There is more than sufficient evidence from those around him that he did indeed have the plates and they were the basis for the translation. So what's the issue?

[bookofmormontruth]

I think it's good to apologize for past wrongs, if they can be specifically named.

A lot of churches have done that. The Catholics, for sexual misconduct (and, if I am not mistaken, they even apologized for the Inquisition)..

The Southern Baptist Conference apologized for past racism and their stance on slavery, within the church.

Rather than making the church more vulnerable (as someone suggested), I think it takes the ammunition away from their critics, if an apology is issued.

I don't think the LDS Church can apologize for polygamy, because it's too much a part of their doctrine (and I'm not positive that an apology for even the way it was implemented, is really in order).

I do know there was a lot of racism, in the church, though (as with most churches) and I don't think it would hurt to extend an apology for that. It could, actually, help many current black members (whom, I know, do struggle with it, to varying degrees).

It's not a sign of weakness to apologize, IMO. Just the opposite.

Okay, I can see why other Churches have apologized, but what specifically is the Lord's Church suppose to apologize for? "Racism" amongst its members?

[Brian 2.0]

Except we know how every person who crossed the plains did so. We do not know every detail of Joseph's translating the Plates.

You are the one using poor logic. You're comparing apples to aardvarks.

Lehi

So because we do NOT know every detail of Joseph's translating the plates, we can assume anything about those gaps and portray it?

Then the church could come out with artwork showing Joseph Smith translating the BOM by putting the plates into a bowl of oatmeal and doing a handstand looking down into the oatmeal.

None of the seer stone in hat accounts prove the handstand-oatmeal-translation artwork false because Joseph Smith may have done this at some point.

That is the logic being used. Is that logic poor?

[bookofmormontruth]

In the first place Joseph did handle the plates; after all he took them from the ground, had to wrap them and hide them in various places. It takes a great deal of mind-twisting to assume he didn't actually look at them. From the various accounts we have he used more than one method to translate and the stone in the hat was only one method.

I really don't understand the obsession with this since Joseph himself didn't reveal exactly how the translation took place. The BOM is evidence of an inspired work. There is more than sufficient evidence from those around him that he did indeed have the plates and they were the basis for the translation. So what's the issue?

You are normal trust me.

You aren't suppose to understand the "obsessions" that deal with Joseph Smith in all its weird forms.

[Deborah]

As some others have expressed I don't understand this need some feel to apologize for perceived wrongs. Perceived of course in their own minds. Furthermore no one living today was a part of any of the alleged racism of the past. There are likely people today who are racist, but that, as in the past, is on the heads of individuals, not the church.