Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Salt Lake City lawyer Steve Evans, writing on the Mormon blog By Common Consent, took up the question of institutional LDS apologies.

"We've come close," Evans wrote. "Pastor Cecil Murray received a personal apology from President Gordon B. Hinckley for the church's participation in slavery and racism. In 2007, Elder Henry B. Eyring offered words of apology on behalf of church members at a memorial service for victims of the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre

I don’t know about the other incidents cited in this BCC blog post, but Steve Evans was incorrect about Elder Eyring. What Elder Eyring did was give an “expression of regret.”

Some might say that’s a distinction without a difference.  But it’s not. “Apology” implies admission of culpability; “expression of regret” does not. 
 

Nor should it. The Church as an institution or as a body is not culpable in the errant behavior of individual members. I’m a member of the Church, and I don’t accept culpability in the wrongdoing of anyone who might claim membership. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know about the other incidents cited in this BCC blog post, but Steve Evans was incorrect about Elder Eyring. What Elder Eyring did was give an “expression of regret.”

Some might say that’s a distinction without a difference.  But it’s not. “Apology” implies admission of culpability; “expression of regret” does not. 

I think that's too fine a distinction for most people.  If my son got into a car accident and injured a person, I may well go to the person and express either "regrets" or "apologies."  Not because I am admitting culpability, but because I want to express an acknowledgment of and sorrow for the pain caused - even though it wasn't my fault.

I can see how the Church would be artful in its terminology, and I'm fine with that.  But for me, Elder Eyring's comments amounted to an apology, though not an admission of culpability.

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nor should it. The Church as an institution or as a body is not culpable in the errant behavior of individual members. I’m a member of the Church, and I don’t accept culpability in the wrongdoing of anyone who might claim membership. 

Same here.

Personally, I'm not big into the whole "collective guilt" thing.  And I am really not into public demands by Person A for an apology from Group B.  Such a public demand cheapens any subsequent apology, and also tends to be made in a spirit of arrogance and condemnation.  And Person A is often not in a position to make such a demand anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that's too fine a distinction for most people.  If my son got into a car accident and injured a person, I may well go to the person and express either "regrets" or "apologies."  Not because I am admitting culpability, but because I want to express an acknowledgment of and sorrow for the pain caused - even though it wasn't my fault.

I can see how the Church would be artful in its terminology, and I'm fine with that.  But for me, Elder Eyring's comments amounted to an apology, though not an admission of culpability.

Same here.

Personally, I'm not big into the whole "collective guilt" thing.  And I am really not into public demands by Person A for an apology from Group B.  Such a public demand cheapens any subsequent apology, and also tends to be made in a spirit of arrogance and condemnation.  And Person A is often not in a position to make such a demand anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

It may be too fine a distinction for others, but it’s not for me — precisely because I hold with what you say here about collective guilt and public demands for institutional apologies. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

It's depressing just talking about the Tanner's. I haven't heard their names in almost 15 years.

Me either. ZLMB started in Sept. 2000. Before that there was the UTLM Board, and I thought the LDS did very well defending themselves from their attacks, in the late 90's.

Damien...we don't attack, we defend. We can defend forever. They can't explain their Apostasy. The Tanners attacks on LDS are nothing compared to the serene and courageous Catholic faith that subdued a pagan empire and civilized barbarian Europe. According to Restorationist thinking, Apostasy established the faith in the East and in the West. Without a valid priest, apostate martyrs shed their blood for the name of Jesus for three centuries until no one wanted to kill them anymore. Instead of wanting them dead thepagans admired the priestless apostates so much that they wanted to emulate them! Goodnight who could care about those Tanners who buy into the LDS Apostasy theory, without taking it to a consistent conclusion. I am happy to acknowledge that I could be LDS long before I could be a Tannerite. But...I am Catholic. Mormons are better Catholics than the Tanners.

Written ferociously fast as I prep[are for a visitor. I am sending. St. Francis de Sales, ora pro nobis.

Rory 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I don't think that is the reason. I do believe they know they make mistakes but I think it is important that to them to not admit them for some reason.

The reason they don’t admit them is to present the aura of infallibility. That is why they are not to be criticized. Others may lose faith when they know the leader is wrong. What else is he wrong about? Lots 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Why hide the ball?  Why not just tell them?
Not hiding the ball. I gave them enough info that when read should have made their eyes pop out their head. I worked HR and similar positions in the corporate world. Even an accusation as vague as I described it would make ANY HR manager anywhere drop pretty much everything and get the accuser in for a chat. At least the world I have worked in. 
image.jpeg.475c66365befefb5d972d52926e20aae.jpeg

Well, they should, particularly if they keep saying they are going to.
Agreed. 

I think some, perhaps even many, local leaders, are like Rex from Toy Story:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSm5gdbnIzwxc1QbOxyADZ

This is understandable and human, but working out problems is part of the gig.

Exactly- why should I be the grownup in the room? 

That said, your local leaders may not understand the severity of the situation because you have not shared it. 

See my first response above- the first one

That you are withholding information because you want to share it in person may also be construed as a desire to be confrontational.  I'm not saying such a surmise is accurate or fair, but it could be sidestepped by you just sharing the information you have and then letting them deal with it.

Not sure what you are referencing here.  And I don't think I should know.

Ecclesiastical Duress...you know. Go do this.. NO?! Well how would it make your family look in the stake / area if you were released for failure to sustain a leader who you covenanted in the temple to sustain? Something like that. You and I know this happens and you cannot defend yourself. Church policy makes the leader right 100% of the time. If he is not and it gets resolved privately all anyone remembers is you.

My two bits: Stop hiding the ball.  Write a letter to the stake president and the area authority laying out what you witnessed and expressing your concern.  Avoid personal opining, speculation and innuendo.  Avoid passing judgment on the bishop.  And don't tell them what they should do in response to the allegations.
I'm not hiding the ball. They know enough to know it needs to be taken seriously. That is of course unless they think I'm kidding around. Who has time for that?

Not sure what this means.  But in any event, I think it is better to not provide details here.  

Not sure what this means.

Get family high enough in the church and this becomes a thing. Hey look you know just forget it-we will take care of this. This will make the church look bad and call your loyalty to the church in question. Then that calls your family into question. Everything is about how you can be leveraged to keep your mouth shut to avoid having the long serving pioneer polygamist family descendants get embarrassed because their wingnut family member beefed the church. Couple that with family (some) who may choose siding with the church over you (even if you are right) and then you have a viable threat. Like I said I grew up in this environment. The rumors are true. They can make you persona non grata real fast and it never gets reversed...something about not apologizing. I guarantee once I spill the details of this, I will be the focus of the inquiry first and I have ZERO to do with it. I just know about it. Shut me down, the problem takes care of itself. I'm not afraid of that happening. 

I think you would be surprised at how often the Church addresses problems.  It happens quite a bit in my experience.  There are obviously some very real constraints on what the Church can to to "deal {with} problems."  It is not a governmental agency.  It has no meaningful investigative apparatus, and no law enforcement authority.  It's a private religious association.

I know they address problems. Like I said I grew up in this stuff (higher ranking church leaders in immediate family) and heard it all.

I agree with the sentiment that the Church should address problems that arise within its sphere and purview.  To do that, it needs information.  It cannot extract that information through force or compulsion, and has no desire to do so.  So if an individual member of the Church has information about a problem pertaining to the Church, such as misconduct by a local leader, that member can and should disclose that information to the Church so it can address the issue.

If the issue you are describing is so serious, why sit on the information about it for "over a year?"  Could you see how how the urgency and seriousness of the problem might not realized by your local leaders if you refuse to communicate it over a prolonged period of time?  Could you also see that adopting an "I will only tell you if I get a face-to-face with an area authority" approach for "over a year" might come across . . . badly?  That it might make you look like you are spoiling for a confrontation?  That you have some sort of vendetta?

Again because of who it is, the Bishop and SP have no business in it other than to forward the letter. Need to know basis only. My Bishop agrees.
I have not been sitting on it for a year. They have been ignoring it for a year.

Conversely, you could write a letter to the stake president (and area authority, if you feel so inclined) that lays out your concerns and the evidence you have.  You could ask them to consider the matters you have disclosed.  Then . . . leave it to them.
The SP has seen the letter. Any SP with half a brain cell know this is waaay outside his lane.

I don't understand.  Do you think the general public should know about these things?  

I think they should know, but Im not gonna publicize it. I used that as an example of what kind of attention it would garner in that community. Keep in mind they have a former Area Authority who went on and spilled the beans and described the second anointing and who gets it. That got attention and this likely would be just as interesting in a different way. The letter I sent is substantive enough in information even a leader who is asleep at the switch would go out of his way to find out more. 

I don't see much value in publicizing misconduct by a local ecclesiastical leader.  If there is something illegal (criminal) going on, then that should likely be addressed by law enforcement.  Otherwise, importing Cancel Culture-style tactics into the Church is not a good idea.  If a local leader screws up, he needs to have space to make things right.  He needs some patience and accommodation.  He needs some grace.

It isnt a legal issue. Non police business. Needs much more than  "some grace."  After hearing it I bet I could change your mind. Grace would come along eventually sure, but this is pretty nasty.

Being a bishop or a stake president is pretty challenging.  Time-wise it's often equivalent to a part-time, or even full-time, job.  And that time is spent away from family and friends, away from hobbies and exercise and relaxation and quiet personal time.  And there is no pay.  And it lasts quite a while, typically five years for a bishop and nine for a stake president.  It is a genuine and meaningful consecration of time and effort and emotional energy.

Believe me I know. Problem is the Bishop and SP have no other role in this than to be a freakin mailman. The intended recipient has it and has chosen to ignore.

That said, if a local leader messes up in some material respect, I think Elder Oaks' counsel in the 1987 article I referenced earlier can and should be put to use.  If you have information about misconduct, write a letter and disclose it to those who are in authority over that individual, and then pray that the matter will be handled appropriately and wisely.

That isnt reality. When you let it go, they generally do as well depending upon who is the subject of the accusation. Look how they handled Paul H Dunn after he went round the world telling tall tales to gin up faith. That is someone who as a Seventy knew better (Primary Children know better) and reportedly other GAs knew about it and chose to ignore as well. He should have been excommunicated (no one asked me though---ha). Instead they let him go in the dark of night for medical reasons lol. Like who believes that? Nice fat pension though Im sure added to the years of royalties from selling books and tapes makes for a nice retirement (Financially)even though non of your church friends will be seen with you in public anymore. He used the church, his position and its bookstore to make a fortune all based on lies. Anyway- we will see what happens. It is their choice.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by secondclasscitizen
Link to comment
23 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Mormons are better Catholics than the Tanners.

I'm still trying to parse this through my laughter, hoping not to wake my wife! It's half past 1 in the morning here...

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...