A Mormon Says Sorry

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think this defensiveness comes a lot from being told we are at fault in conjunction with demanding apologies....at least that has been my experience.

 

I tend to say more along the lines of "I feel saddened by" when there are things I've done wrong through no fault of my own.

 

This is not one of those things, I don't know how I managed to escape what appears from here to be a common experience, but I never felt the need to offer any explanation of the ban...I always just said "I don't know why".

I was thinking about this. This would be an apology of empathy. I think this is very useful. 

 

I am certainly sorry that any of the past teachings of this church alienated any son or daughter of God.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I actually have no problem with that if they decided to do so- it might be a nice gesture.

 

But should I apologize for Adam's transgression?  How is this different?

 

I hereby apologize to everyone on this board for Adam's transgression.

 

Do we feel better now?

The difference is that the institution sinned, and the institution needs to repent and make restitution if possible. It isn't about President Monson apologizing on behalf of President Young. It's about the institutional church apologizing for the behavior of the institutional church.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is this any different? Many of us (white and black) got lost as a result of these defunct teachings. For those of us who gave out "bad directions," is it really so outlandish to express regret?

No I don't think so.

 

I would hope that many (guilty of course) try not to read too much into what is being discussed. I think there may be some ground to be gained in general.

[mormonnewb]

I actually have no problem with that if they decided to do so- it might be a nice gesture.

 

But should I apologize for Adam's transgression?  How is this different?

 

I hereby apologize to everyone on this board for Adam's transgression.

 

Do we feel better now?

 

Sin is sin.  Apologies are for when you did something wrong.  Consequences are not taken away by an apology.

 

 

Serious question...

 

Do you really think this would be taken as a sincere apology and not just seen as a superficial attempt to make themselves feel better about themselves or make themselves look good?

 

I have seen a number of people blow off apologies if they feel negative about the individual to begin with.  I am wondering if this would only help with individuals who already feel positive towards the Church and its members and for those who don't, they will just see it as a big PR move and use it to justify trashing LDS even more.

 

I am afraid that my years have made me cynical to a certain extent...I would be all for apologizing if the end result was positive for all involved, if it instead leads some to feel like those apologizing are trivializing the harm or something else...well, then I get cautious...so often when we want to do good, we do harm instead and I can see this happening even when we are apologizing for the unintended harm of our original attempts to do good.

 

Your question and concerns seem reasonable to me?  Here's my question for you:

 

Did you think less of me when I apologized to mfbukowski and why me?  Were you offended?  Did you just assume that it was self-serving and insincere and that I really believe in my heart that I should have said worse (and will do so in the future)?

 

When I hear an apology, that's not usually the first place I go.  Even if I doubt its sincerity (such as when politicians apologize), I at least console myself with the fact that they thought enough of me to lie to me.  It's certainly better than when the person tries to justify their transgression and blames the offended parties for being "too sensitive."

 

Besides, I really don't think that our reputation could get in any worse in the black community (or the gay community for that matter, but we'll deal with that in another thread).

[Ahab]

I don't know how I managed to escape what appears from here to be a common experience, but I never felt the need to offer any explanation of the ban...I always just said "I don't know why".

I'm pretty much in the same boat with you, never having taught "why" there was a ban, other than because authorized leaders of the Church imposed the restriction, and for me that was enough for me to understand the "why" since I also knew they had the authority to impose that restriction based on the keys they were given to govern the Church on the Earth.

 

I have also noticed that some people tend to believe that if an authorized leader of the Church does something or says something then that means, to them, that the Lord has approved that, as if everything all of the highest leaders of the Church do or say is the same as if the Lord were to say it or do it, but I never got on board with that idea.  To me it's more like the Lord has given certain people in certain key positions the keys to goven the Church on the Earth, without the Lord necessarily needing to okay every decision or action.  And each member of the Church will still be judged for everything they have done in their life, whether or not they were an authorized leader of the Church with some keys.

[mfbukowski]

Your question and concerns seem reasonable to me?  Here's my question for you:

 

Did you think less of me when I apologized to mfbukowski and why me?  Were you offended?  Did you just assume that it was self-serving and insincere and that I really believe in my heart that I should have said worse (and will do so in the future)?

I don't see how that is relevant at all, but no, of course I did not think that.

On the other hand, I thought you actually were apologizing for something you felt that you could have handled better. Perhaps indeed that was not the case then.

If you did not feel apologetic, you should not have apologized. I think an insincere apology or one said sarcastically just makes matters worse.

 

When I hear an apology, that's not usually the first place I go.  Even if I doubt its sincerity (such as when politicians apologize), I at least console myself with the fact that they thought enough of me to lie to me.  It's certainly better than when the person tries to justify their transgression and blames the offended parties for being "too sensitive."

I find false apologies condescending, manipulative and counter-productive.  I would rather continue an adversarial relationship than bow to a false apology.

 

Besides, I really don't think that our reputation could get in any worse in the black community (or the gay community for that matter, but we'll deal with that in another thread).

We still have not established the reason for the ban.   Suppose the church would have been persecuted into non-existence if it had blacks in the leadership.  Would that have been a justifiable reason?  Might that even be an "inspired" reason? 

 

Clearly the rationales made up to justify it were not of God, and they have been repudiated. 

 

And you have not answered my other questions about whether or not we hold personal responsibility and why I should apologize to you, personally, for what the church used to believe.

[mormonnewb]

And as a church, how am I personally responsible for teachings I never taught, and never believed, and as I have stated before here, would not have joined the church if those beliefs were still in place when I joined the church?

 

...

 

But the question is- why am I personally to blame for it?  Why should I apologize?

This idea of only apologizing when I'm "to blame" is new to me so perhaps I'm way off base. Maybe it's being Baptist or just black, but I witnessed my parents time and again apologize for things for which they may not have been at fault. Whenever one of them bumped into someone in a crowd, they immediately said, "I'm sorry." If the other person dropped something as a result, they helped them pick it up. This was the case even if the other person was "at fault." In fact, in most cases, I don't think they ever even thought about whether they were WRONG. They were involved in causing harm/discomfort to someone else (even if unintentionally and through no fault of their own), so they apologized. As I think back, it might have been a reflexive action to the very real chance that accidentally bumping into the wrong white person could get you killed, but I rather like the outcome.

Whenever I collide with someone in the airport, I apologize. And 9 times out of 10, they apologize to me too (the 10th person must be Mormon ... hehe). I very seldom ever even think of who was AT FAULT. I just assume we both were (I was checking Mormon Dialogue on my phone and the other person was playing Angry Birds on hers). Of course, now that I've joined he church, I'm sure that I won't "take on the sins of Adam."

And speaking of which, if you never participated or ratified the false teachings and were no way involved in teaching other ideas of the superiority of "whiteness," an apology would be silly. When two other people collide, I don't stop to apologize. I just do so when I'm involved -- whether my fault or not. However, I'm sure that line by line and precept upon precept I'll learn the error of my ways.

[ALarson]

It's a shame he was perpetuating these ideas as late as 1993. I wonder if he was getting them from then-contemporary Church curricula as opposed to dredging them up from the past.

I have talked with someone who was baptized in 1999, and they were taught about the ban and how blacks were not valiant in the pre-existance and the curse of Cain (as the reason they were not allowed to have the Priesthood until 1978).  He asked the missionaries about the ban and this is what he was told.  

[mfbukowski]

This idea of only apologizing when I'm "to blame" is new to me so perhaps I'm way off base. Maybe it's being Baptist or just black, but I witnessed my parents time and again apologize for things for which they may not have been at fault. Whenever one of them bumped into someone in a crowd, they immediately said, "I'm sorry." If the other person dropped something as a result, they helped them pick it up. This was the case even if the other person was "at fault." In fact, in most cases, I don't think they ever even thought about whether they were WRONG. They were involved in causing harm/discomfort to someone else (even if unintentionally and through no fault of their own), so they apologized. As I think back, it might have been a reflexive action to the very real chance that accidentally bumping into the wrong white person could get you killed, but I rather like the outcome.

Whenever I collide with someone in the airport, I apologize. And 9 times out of 10, they apologize to me too (the 10th person must be Mormon ... hehe). I very seldom ever even think of who was AT FAULT. I just assume we both were (I was checking Mormon Dialogue on my phone and the other person was playing Angry Birds on hers). Of course, now that I've joined he church, I'm sure that I won't "take on the sins of Adam."

And speaking of which, if you never participated or ratified the false teachings and were no way involved in teaching other ideas of the superiority of "whiteness," an apology would be silly. When two other people collide, I don't stop to apologize. I just do so when I'm involved -- whether my fault or not. However, I'm sure that line by line and precept upon precept I'll learn the error of my ways.

Not what I am talking about at all!

 

Yes, when YOU bump into someone- or they bump into you- can't tell the difference, something happened between the two of you personally.  I bumped into you.

 

OF COURSE you apologize.  Something happened between the two of you- it doesn't matter who was "responsible"- there was contact, both apologize.  That has nothing to do with being Baptist or black or green, it is common courtesy!

 

But if you see someone ELSE bump into someone do you apologize to both of those people for bumping into each other EVEN IF YOU WERE IN ANOTHER ROOM WHEN IT HAPPENED?  Of course not.

 

You had nothing to do with their accident.  It was unfortunate and you might say "I am so sorry that happened to you" but that is NOT A PERSONAL APOLOGY.

 

See the difference?

[mfbukowski]

Whenever I collide with someone in the airport, I apologize. And 9 times out of 10, they apologize to me too (the 10th person must be Mormon ... hehe).

 

Totally uncalled for.  It appears you are not following the argument.

 

Edit:  I was wrong- see below

Edited December 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

I have talked with someone who was baptized in 1999, and they were taught about the ban and how blacks were not valiant in the pre-existance and the curse of Cain (as the reason they were not allowed to have the Priesthood until 1978).  He asked the missionaries about the ban and this is what he was told.  

It's an unfortunate fact of life that folk doctrine continues to be perpetuated long after it should have been abandoned. That's one purpose of the much-maligned program of priesthood correlation.

 

But with anecodtes and hearsay, such as the above, it's really hard for me to muster any credulity.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

This idea of only apologizing when I'm "to blame" is new to me so perhaps I'm way off base. Maybe it's being Baptist or just black, but I witnessed my parents time and again apologize for things for which they may not have been at fault. Whenever one of them bumped into someone in a crowd, they immediately said, "I'm sorry." If the other person dropped something as a result, they helped them pick it up. This was the case even if the other person was "at fault." In fact, in most cases, I don't think they ever even thought about whether they were WRONG. They were involved in causing harm/discomfort to someone else (even if unintentionally and through no fault of their own), so they apologized. As I think back, it might have been a reflexive action to the very real chance that accidentally bumping into the wrong white person could get you killed, but I rather like the outcome.

Whenever I collide with someone in the airport, I apologize. And 9 times out of 10, they apologize to me too (the 10th person must be Mormon ... hehe). I very seldom ever even think of who was AT FAULT. I just assume we both were (I was checking Mormon Dialogue on my phone and the other person was playing Angry Birds on hers). Of course, now that I've joined he church, I'm sure that I won't "take on the sins of Adam."

And speaking of which, if you never participated or ratified the false teachings and were no way involved in teaching other ideas of the superiority of "whiteness," an apology would be silly. When two other people collide, I don't stop to apologize. I just do so when I'm involved -- whether my fault or not. However, I'm sure that line by line and precept upon precept I'll learn the error of my ways.

I think some people just don't think very much about what an apology is. 

 

To me, at  least, the words "I'm sorry" translate to mean "I have sorrow"... for whatever I say I'm sorry for.  So if someone says "I'm sorry" for what a past leader of the Church has said that means, to me, that they have some sorrow for what that past leader has said.

 

But that's just one meaning of what an apology is, and as you probably know, all words in English have multiple meanings.

 

Like the one where an apology is understood to be a feeling of contrition from a person who believes he or she did something wrong.

[mormonnewb]

I find false apologies condescending, manipulative and counter-productive.  I would rather continue an adversarial relationship than bow to a false apology.

What part of LDS scripture is this? "Blessed be the adversarial ..."?

[Scott Lloyd]

Totally uncalled for.  It appears you are not following the argument.

Yes, that was quite the cheap shot.

[mfbukowski]

And speaking of which, if you never participated or ratified the false teachings and were no way involved in teaching other ideas of the superiority of "whiteness," an apology would be silly. When two other people collide, I don't stop to apologize. I just do so when I'm involved -- whether my fault or not. However, I'm sure that line by line and precept upon precept I'll learn the error of my ways.

 

A bit passive aggressive, but fine.  I apologize- I did not see this.

 

But thanks for telling me I do not need to apologize for the church, because I am one who

... if you never participated or ratified the false teachings and were no way involved in teaching other ideas of the superiority of "whiteness," an apology would be silly.

I don't mind being silly, I just mind for apologizing for things I had nothing to do with, other than to say I am genuinely sorry this happened to your people, just as I would be sorry if you were in some accident or got sick.

 

But that doesn't mean that I personally did anything personally to you.

[Ahab]

Yes, that was quite the cheap shot.

Perhaps you should apologize for him.

[bluebell]

Is there harm that comes from feeling sorrow for past wrongs committed by a church you belong to, and voicing that sorrow?

 

I mean, even if you don't feel you need to say you are sorry, is there any reason to argue with others who feel it's appropriate or who want to do so?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think some people just don't think very much about what an apology is. 

 

To me, at  least, the words "I'm sorry" translate to mean "I have sorrow"... for whatever I say I'm sorry for.  So if someone says "I'm sorry" for what a past leader of the Church has said that means, to me, that they have some sorrow for what that past leader has said.

 

But that's just one meaning of what an apology is, and as you probably know, all words in English have multiple meanings.

 

Like the one where an apology is understood to be a feeling of contrition from a person who believes he or she did something wrong.

I have always taken the term apology to connote some measure of accountability, while an expression of regret does not, necessarily.

[Ahab]

I have always taken the term apology to connote some measure of accountability, while an expression of regret does not, necessarily.

I think you'll find many people who consider an "apology" to be ANY event when a person says "I'm sorry".

 

Not that they're always admitting to some measure of accountability, but that they still consider that to be an apology.

[mfbukowski]

I have always taken the term apology to connote some measure of accountability, while an expression of regret does not, necessarily.

This is my only point- you just said it better, as usual.

 

You must be some kind of writer or something. 

[Scott Lloyd]

I think you'll find many people who consider an "apology" to be ANY event when a person says "I'm sorry".

 

Not that they're always admitting to some measure of accountability, but that they still consider that to be an apology.

Many people are imprecise in their use of language.

 

Be that as it may, an apology for a thing should not be expected from someone who is not personally accountable for that thing.

[mfbukowski]

What part of LDS scripture is this? "Blessed be the adversarial ..."?

I am adversarial because I don't like people to lie to me??

 

OK I hereby apologize to everyone who ever lied to me.

 

I mean this is cute and all but you are not answering the arguments.  Take them one at a time and show me how I am wrong.

 

I think all Americans should apologize for the holocaust because we are sorry it happened.  Get thee to youtube right now!

Edited December 19, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mormonnewb]

I think some people just don't think very much about what an apology is. 

 

To me, at  least, the words "I'm sorry" translate to mean "I have sorrow"... for whatever I say I'm sorry for.  So if someone says "I'm sorry" for what a past leader of the Church has said that means, to me, that they have some sorrow for what that past leader has said.

 

But that's just one meaning of what an apology is, and as you probably know, all words in English have multiple meanings.

 

Like the one where an apology is understood to be a feeling of contrition from a person who believes he or she did something wrong.

So how do you make the calculation as to whether you have ENOUGH contrition to warrant an apology. Do you have to be 100% to blame? Or is it a simple 51% majority at fault? What if three or more people are involved, is it a plurality fault system?

And it's amazing how words become so precious only when dealing in apologies? We toss around "love" in church with reckless abandon. Ward members are constantly approaching my family to tell us how much they love us, whether they know us well or barely at all. And you know what? I LOVE IT! I don't feel that they must love us X amount in order to express affection for us. They love us SOME and that's fine.

Likewise, if someone apologizes to me, I don't assume that they are accepting ALL of the responsibility for the situation. I take it that they are accepting SOME of the responsibility.

Is there something about our Gospel that restricts us from apologizing unless we are TOTALLY at fault?

[Ahab]

Many people are imprecise in their use of language.

 

Be that as it may, an apology for a thing should not be expected from someone who is not personally accountable for that thing.

I totally agree with both statements.  Some people just don't think very much, or very clearly, about what an apology is.

[mormonnewb]

A bit passive aggressive, but fine.  I apologize- I did not see this.

 

But thanks for telling me I do not need to apologize for the church, because I am one who

I don't mind being silly, I just mind for apologizing for things I had nothing to do with, other than to say I am genuinely sorry this happened to your people, just as I would be sorry if you were in some accident or got sick.

 

But that doesn't mean that I personally did anything personally to you.

Let me be clear: YOU ... Mfbukowski ... are blameless in this matter. However, SOME of the other 15 million members might have some level of culpability and an apology might bring to healing to those who have been affected. I think we can agree on that, right?