We as members are expected to right our wrongs in the process of repentance and part of righting a wrong is an apology to those who were wronged. The church and church leaders should not be above this. They should even be held more accountable because of the positions that they hold.
My thought is maybe the individual leaders should be apologizing, and not the church, because that would remove some level of accountability from the individual. Though in cases where the individual(s) has passed away, some kind of statement of sorriness should be expressed when a specific mistake is made known.
People can "regret" things not because of godly sorrow but because the consequences of their acts have caught up with them. I agree with your reasons. For example, Reason #2: Undermining faith and causing fear. Current leaders, some members of the greatest generation, operate on the principle of loyalty while this generation operates on the principle of authenticity: This generation will respect the Church for its simple honesty. This is an honest, thoughtful post. Thank you for this.
This underlines the importance of the 1st Presidency apologizing for the "safe and effecrive and its a miracle and follow your wise government leaders" letter... while they are still here.
2 thoughts;: apologies can only come from the person who committed the offense. We can express embarrassment or shame for something someone else has done but we cannot apologize. If my family member were to commit adultery (using your example) I can't apologize for them: they must do that themselves, I didn't commit adultery. If the church ie the 3 members of the First Presidency all agreed on something, spoke in the name of the Church and what they did was wrong, then yes they should right the wrong and tell the truth. Apologize. If the church had to apologize for each error or willful incorrect conduct committed by members, there wouldn't be time to do anything else. If they are a church employee, fire them and express regret that they misused their agency. We should look to the past to improve the future but we shouldn't dwell on it or improving and moving forward cannot occur. Make a statement of correction or explanation and move on. Once is enough for ancient history that current leadership had nothing to do with. Brigham Young made comments about race based on his opinion. How could Pres Hinckley apologize for him? The brethren need to remember the early Christian church. The Brethren were always traveling and sending letters to get local leaders back on track. We need more of that! Another great conversation!
The internet teaches clearly that apologies are used as stepping stones for further subversion 99.999% of the time. I think that an apology in private to a genuinely aggrieved party seeking reconciliation is appropriate. In private. Public apology is unfortunately, simply an attack vector. Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.
A thousand amens to this!! “…if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” The game of public apologies and shaming is simply a way for radicals to tear down institutions and individuals.
Im deeply disturbed by so many here commenting, excusing the church from offering an apology (where appropriate) due to the consequences. Shameful. CTR means nothing to you! To apologize for mistakes is Choosing The Right. Let the consequences follow. The Lord will take care of the church if we do what is right, not what is easy. Where is your faith? Where is your testimony of forgiveness? Smh. 🤦♂️🤨
At stake conference this morning , Elder Richard Youngblood of the Seventy emphasized saying I’m sorry as being very important. I have to say that I was very upset to hear that Pres. Monson said that we don’t know what was right or wrong back then when the play about the courageous young man Helmet was shut down. Anyone who doesn’t know what was right or wrong about the Holocaust and that executing this young man was horrible , needs a history lesson. I still loved Pres. Monson & it doesn’t shake my testimony. And I’m glad to know that BYU wanted to recognize that young man’s courage. And Conner that was courageous of you to share your personal experience and I respect you more knowing how hard it must have been to do the right thing. I think apologies are necessary.
I do too. Apologies are to me a part of repentance. Yo be truly sorry brings a broken heart, that leads to repentance and personal spiritual growth. Just my own opinion and belief
The young man was excommunicated from the church, perhaps to placate Nazi officials. He was posthumously reinstated with all of his blessings restored.
It has been stated that the POPE is "Infallible" but Roman Catholics in general do not believe it. The Church state the Prophet (12 Apostles) are not infallible, but to many Mormans do not believe it * and thus fall away) when they find out they were misguided in their faith in the imperfect men..
I have not listened to this just reading the comments. But I have read history. Helmet was not excommunicated buy the Church itself but by local Nazi leadership who was politically deceived. The prophet had nothing to do with that..his name was reinstated when it came to SLC church headquarters attention..
Thank you for your personal MTC story. I think you’re a principled, thoughtful, faithful member and it’s because of your courage to make that choice, to do what is right and owning up to the consequences, that I think you’re of strong character today. That’s what it’s all about. That’s how we become true disciples. Respect. 🙏🏼
Whether or not church leaders apologize or show regret, we as members should stop teaching and believing this idea of “you’ll never be wrong if you follow church leaders.” While we do have prophets and apostles that are led by Christ, they are still humans, allowed to make human choices for themselves. The truth we should be teaching and believing is that “we will never be wrong if we follow Christ.” The concept of “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” does NOT mean that everything a church leader does is what Christ would do. Two things can be true: leaders can be both inspired at times and fallible at times. If we didn’t have to “study it out in [our] mind, and ask if it be right,” then we would have no skin in the game, no responsibility, no accountability. It’s ok that we have to put in effort, including mental and spiritual energy, as we follow Christ (1st) while seriously considering the words of inspired humans (yet being careful not to trust in the arm of flesh).
@@user-tz3zl1kr7r Of course they do! And we will do well to listen to them when they receive direct revelation and when they are simply giving good advice as a more experienced human being. But to say you’ll NEVER be wrong if you follow their EVERY word elevates leaders from fallible humans to deity. The prophet himself says “follow Him.” I can’t think of a single scripture where a prophet has said “follow me.” I’m just saying we should teach the same thing.
I think the last four years has shown us that it is time in our spiritual journey, to have a direct line to Christ (which gives us spiritual discernment that is oil in the lamp.)
I begin to distrust and lose respect for those who do wrong or make mistakes that cause harm to others but never apologize. When they put out false information and never retract it, that also causes a loss of credibility. Church leaders should lead by example and with humility. Sadly, I have not seen that in the top leadership. You may be right that they think it will cause them to lose credibility. But only for those who see them as infallible. To never apologize is to promote this false idea of infallibility. For me, the absence of admitting mistakes has caused a loss of trust. I think so for many others.
Who cares, is not judgement made by God. If God tells us to apologize sincerely should we not do that, it seems to me that you are more concerned with men and what they can do than having a humble and submissive heart.
As I was listening to this video, the phrase "Remember, remember' kept coming to me. I don't know how many times that phrase is said in the Book of Mormon, but it is A LOT. I know the word encompasses many meanings, concepts, principles, and things to remember, but I think part of if is to make sure we don't make the same mistakes as we have in the past. If we, as a church, or individual consider a matter closed, and put it away, we don't follow the counsel to 'remember'. How many times did Alma use his repentance process to teach his sons, ancient church members and us the importance of repenting and changing. If he had considered the matter closed, and only looked forward, we wouldn't have his great example to learn from. In remembering, we don't have to carry the guilt (if we've repented) with us, but the counsel (or command) to remember is given for a reason!
Loved the quote: "All progress starts from telling the truth." I agree with you that God's servants should be subject to the same laws as the members of the church.
If I'm ever brought before a council for "apostasy" or whatever, they can expect that I'll just repeat over and over "I regret mistakes that were made, I consider this matter closed."
By not apologizing, it seems the church wants to look infallible - and that bothers people. They apparently aren't infallible, but they won't admit it. Apologizing means you admit that you were wrong or you did not have the intentions of hurting another. I understand why some want apologies. People are hurt. It's tempting to leave the church because of no articulate, sincere apology from certain leaders. Troubling on many levels, as Connor points out.
Strange that you say, "They apparently aren't infallible, but they won't admit it." when in this very musing Connor gives examples of when they have done just that. Apparently you just notice the parts of Connor's musings that support your own established beliefs. We all do that to some extent, but we should strive to avoid it.
@@jfcannon2008 Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit and being myopic to make a point. I understand that enemies demand apologies as a weapon and there is a fine balance to make. But I honestly think that the leadership under does it.
I find it interesting that a group of people (institution) is different than an individual in respect to "apologizing". So I guess institutions like the church is "above" repentance, a principle & doctrine it teaches? That can excuse a lot of wrongdoing an instituion can make. That in itself is immoral, unethical and un-christlike. The church needs to seek forgiveness or perhaps it doesnt believe in forgivesness? Apologizing or reconciliation is a part of forgiveness. Regret is different. Its not forgiveness. Its not an apology. Connor is right. This policy needs to change and not let the churches fear keep it from doing the right thing. CTR is just a meaningless thing if it can be pushed aside due to fear of being held accountable.
I told my children all the time that the only person they can control is themselves. Jesus teaches for us to forgive even 70×7. We should focus on forgiving others trespasses. Even in real life we could wait forever for apologies we don’t have control over when they come. However, we do have the choice to forgive and move on.
I agree that apologies are weapons in this day and age. This is a fact of our society worldwide. None of us are exempt from the circumstances. The acts of repentance are between our heavenly father and the individual, not the public at Large! My personal opinion, regret is sufficient from our church leaders.
The Church should never apologize to Babylon for holding on to basic eternal laws that God has set for to us. However not every policy or practice that the church has done is from God in my opinion. I believe God allows us lots of room to make decisions that will result in mistakes so that we can grow. In situations like this, there is nothing wrong to apologize. The problem with apologizing is some people will NEVER be satisfied. People will then use the apology as a weapon to beat the church on.
Totally agree with you. If you do not apologize how can you repent. As for not looking backward, isn't the Book of Mormon based on looking at the past so we do not make the same mistakes in the future? The church is partners with the United Nations and sits on their religious board. I believe they have been infiltrated and I am sure we will see a lot of wrong doings, but hopefully Heavenly Father will bring it to light.
I think it has already been brought to light, but based on their lack of any acknowledgement of misspeaking, means they do not think they made any mistakes.
You MTC story is the same as my dear friend's. The pain of unresolved sin as you head out to be a missionary. That is a powerful example of how we should be, willing to repent instead of just save face.. I thank you and my friend again for being brave and honest and coming out stronger after such an ordeal. Perfect example of what this video is saying. I know that's a personal and painful story, Thank you for sharing.
Perhaps it's accurate to say... The Church as an institution is the Lord's and has no need to apologize for its official beliefs and practices and such. The Church's individual members sometimes need to apologize for not living up to the Church's standards as well as they should.
There have been official policies that in retrospect Church leaders have regretted. I know that there may not be unanimity in how and why the Priesthood ban occurred, but I believe most of them would now say it was a mistake. And more recently, the November 2015 policy of preventing children of gay couples from being baptized turned out to be a mistake. To their credit, they corrected their direction more quickly. Again, I wonder if, behind closed doors, they acknowledged that it was a mistake. Either way, I truly believe that the Church can be led by Jesus Christ, yet directed here on earth by good but fallible men. It doesn't shake my testimony that they make mistakes, even big ones.
Something like that. If the institution apologizes for something then great, but going on and on about how they better tends to just be virtue signaling, especially when individuals can still be living the Gospel as individuals.
Of course, the Church does not need to apologize for its beliefs and practices, any more than any other religion needs to when its beliefs are sincere, but if actions taken in a religion's name by those who represent it cause harm, and the organization ratifies their actions, then apologies are in order -- especially if the religion preaches the importance of sincere repentance. If a religious organization fails to act according to its own professed beliefs, its beliefs are not sincerely held.
There’s a fundamental difference in connotation between “apology” and “expression of regret.” “Apology” implies an assumption of blame or accountability; “regret,” not so much. No one now living bears any blame for the mass murders at Mountain Meadows, nor does the Church as an institution bear accountability for the wrongdoing of some errant members. The concept of institutional guilt or guilt by proxy is not rational.
Correct. People want to be able to perpetually say that the Church is in the wrong still and that they have to apologize but also that no apology will ever be quite enough.
100% the church at large shouldn't be responsibly for errors f a select few. Nor should we apologize for the mistakes of others in the past. I'm a black member of the church should I apologize for the priesthood ban against my ancestors? That makes no sense. Nor does it make sense for my white bros and sisters that never even played a part in the ban. Nor does it make sense when there were people before 1978 that didn't support the ban. Just one simple example that shows how convoluted this becomes.
@@maskofscience to clarify, I dont like oaks statement at all. In fact, the only good thing about it is it hopefully can show some people how far off the mark he is and they'll see he's a false prophet. I think the church has a lot to apologize for.
An apology suggests that a blatant mistake was made while regret merely suggests that someone was hurt by an action. Apologies do open you up to further ridicule and risk of litigation. Correcting behavior is better than an apology. Put all the pros and cons of apologizing on a balance scale and you'll see that the Church is probably right by not apologizing.
There is a difference between abuse committed by leaders, abuse that the Church would never condone, and acts by Church leaders taken on behalf of the Church, actions that the Church accepts and ratifies. The Church should not apologize for things done by its leaders because of personal agency, such as abuse -- nor should it even settle such matters out of court -- in fact, it should fight them as a matter of principle. However, for matters that cause harm in which the leader was acting as the Church's agent, the principle of repentance requires apologizing and making restitution. I find President Oaks's assertion that the word "apology" is not found in the Book of Mormon so disingenuous that it borders on dishonesty. Even prophets, seers and revelators are human! The principle of repentance behind apologizing is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ and he knows it! (Does he need to apologize for this statement?) I suspect that the Church neither seeks nor gives apologies more because of expediency than morality. It's vital to distinguish between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ, between the Church of Jesus Christ and the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, between the Church of Jesus Christ and the culture that has grown up within and around it -- which might be called "Mormonism" if a term is needed for it. These are all distinct. If a person has a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith and his successors at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a person can weather the storms of adversity, including the insidious gales of the faults and follies of its leaders.
I have long called this "The pride of the church" Failure to repent or apologize as an organization. Sets the standard of self protection and appearance above truth and change for all members. My children are less fearful of admission of mistakes because they know I will apologize to them when I mess up. Even if the mistake is small. This lets them know I value them and I want us to have the best relationship we can. How is a church diffrent? I don't see how an organization could possibly be exempt from repentance or apologies. How many times has a group of people been called to collective repentance? What about the first and second great awakening? What about Lincoln's second inaugural address? I hope one day the church becomes humble enough to do this.
If we warn of the government breaking the commandments should we not do the same for the Church. There are opportunities for the Church to apologize about its mishandling of child abuse cases. There are many more cases that have not seen the light of day because of current processes.
I can’t help but notice how many of the Church’s controversial positions are disproportionately championed by Pres Oaks. As for the SEC scandal, yes, it was a scandal. As a CPA who does federal reporting for a Fortune 500 wealth manager, I can attest to this matter being a clear instance of wrongdoing. I am willing to explain the issue to anyone who is looking to understand it better. I am an active, faithful member. Taking accountability is an important part of moving on from mistakes.
Oaks is only controversial to those who don’t like the truth. He isn’t afraid of cry-bully leftists and speaks frankly and clearly on difficult issues, which is a rare attribute. I stand with him and sustain him completely.
The church's stated position on never apologizing and only looking forward, not back, reminds me of this verse, Mosiah 27: 35, which is shortly after Alma and the sons of Mosiah learned of the error of their ways: "And they [Alma and the sons of Mosiah] traveled throughout all the land of Zarahemla, and among all the people who were under the reign of king Mosiah, zealously striving to look forward, not back, denying all their sins, and publishing all the things which they would later see, and explaining the prophecies and the scriptures to all who desired to hear them." Oh, wait...
@jonny6man Yes, in our church we believe in agency and faithful disagreement. There are a wide variety of views held by differing individuals and congregations. The Book of Mormon is an important part of the lives of many members.
@jonny6man I would say yes. However, personally, I am more interested in the enduring message of a scripture than historical proof. I feel the same way with the bible.
I don't t think you can apologize for something someone else or a past leader may have done. If they didn't feel the need to do it it's between them and Heavenly Father. Also meaningful apologies are between individuals the church apologizing dosen't seem like it would acomplish anything except asigning blame to the church as a whole. We belive in individual salvation the church appologizing feels like accepting collective guilt. If current leader changes policies or has an opinion on a previous issues I don't think it gives them the authority to apologize for the past. I do think it is productive to look at issues and see what can be learned from them. The Helmuth Hubner story is one of my favorites for standing up for truth.
In the UK the BLM are seeking for an apology from our king, for the slavery of Black people. It was recognised that the reason being, if he did they would be able to seek financial reparations that would bankrupt the country. Now the UK did not start slavery, but they were the first to abolish slavery. The BLM are not concerned about slavery, just the money they would get from people who living today have nothing to do with slavery. Why should the whole nation pay for their livelihood because of actions of people in the past, if the King apologises for something he never participated in? If BLM was concerned about African slavery they should go to Africa and Asia and Middle East. There is more slavery still going on there.
Isn’t saying “I’m sorry” an apology? Isn’t that part of the repentance process? Isn’t that part of the gospel? Ho’oponopono Apologizing has power like words have power.
The Church should apologize for past mistakes and current mistakes with finances or those temporal polices... I think it would be the only way to soft many hearts of people so they come back or accept the Gospel.
DHO also has said “I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever.” The Untouchables!!
The Church doesn't give "apologies" because an apology, by its very nature, is an inherent admission of guilt. You can't pay for someone else's sins (AoF 2), nor should you be held accountable for them. Connon, I'm afraid you are giving into the woke requirement of systemic guilt. The Church will never buy into that. In cases where the Church has issued "statements of regret", in the case of Mountain Meadows, etc., it has been to address the feelings of the inquirer at the time in as Christ-like a manner as possible, showing forth sympathy, empathy, and "love unfeigned". But to think that the Brethren of today are responsible for the actions of the past is fallacious if you are truly the libertarian you profess to be. Each of the examples you give in your monologue is of the actions of an individual, an adulterer, embezzler, etc. You can't equate individual actions and choices with institutional ones. In the case of Ensign Investments, the firm was following the law as it was then understood. The SEC came out and said, "We are going to interpret the statute differently now, so here's your fine." The Church said, "ok, here's your penalty, we will comply moving forward, and we consider the matter closed." The SEC has a history of acting like this, even going so far as to reject previously issued No-Action Letters, etc. Your example of Elder Holland's story is case-in-point: He personally made a mistake, or more accurately, recounted a story, that to him at the time, was presumably shared with him and contained erroneous points. He withdrew the story, but did he apologize for sharing it? Not really. He acknowledged that it contained factual errors and inconsistencies as purported by those who would know (the family) and also acknowledged that the story, in its corrected state of factuality, wouldn't support the reasons he shared it to begin with, and asked that it not be shared further, which acknowledges its irrelevance to his talk. Remember Paul Dunn and the controversy he created? Dunn was asked by the Brethren to apologize because he himself had erroneously used inflated stories to teach doctrine. The Church didn't "apologize", but did issue a statement of regret that such actions by an individual had detracted from the work. If Dunn's inflationary stories had come to light after his death, there would have been no one to apologize, since there would have been no one around who was culpable. But the Church would have still issued a "statement of regret" and then behind the scenes given all the General Authorities specific instructions on stories, quotations, etc. The content should never detract from the message, something the Trib loves to revolve around. The Church will never apologize for or "regret" doctrine. Anything else "regretted" is the result of either the implementation of doctrine or the day-to-day decisions of fallible leaders, which, in expressing "regret" for, the Church does not accept accountability for. Accountability is an individual thing. To expect the Church to apologize means you don't understand the nature of Church leadership. This doesn't mean the Brethren, as individuals are infallible. But the governing councils of the Church are. Otherwise, there is no substance to the profession of faith that they, when acting together, are "prophets, seers and revelators".
@@laynekoyle9272 Blood Atonement is disputable as to whether or not it was ever taught, not to mention that it was most certainly never practiced, but you can't say that Blood Atonement is paying for someone else's sins. Blood Atonement is the belief that there are some sins so egregious that the Atonement of Christ doesn't expiate for them - murder, e.g. It is not the belief that the person whose blood is being shed is paying for someone else's sins, but the belief that anyone who commits such heinous acts must pay for them personally through the shedding of their own blood. (See Alma 34 - 11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. 12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. 13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.) But I don't see how your statement about blood atonement is irrelevant to the topic, which is Church apologies.
I don't think the church should apologize for past dealings with homosexuality. In fact, we've become far too soft on the issue. It is and still should be classified as a state of Apostacy and nothing less. If not then it spreads and becomes rampant, which is exactly what it's doing. Members think it's okay and it is not.
An apology is more of an expression of individual mistakes than an institutional thing. The Gospel is perfect but the people implementing it are not. I think that is why the Church should not be offering apologies especially for doctrine that comes from God. Individuals making mistakes implementing the Gospel should apologize.
One of the questions each member in good standing is expected to answer: Is there anything in your past that’s hasn’t been resolved…etc. I think there are definitely things in the church’s past that haven’t been resolved. When it comes to controversial things Brigham Young said, those were not all just his opinion. They were taught, established and practiced as the doctrine of the church, and generations of individuals and families reaped bitter fruits because of what was sown then. Maybe apologies for what was done are not necessary, but for the pain and trauma that was caused, and the perpetuation of falsehood. Acknowledgment is huge. If there’s no acknowledgement it’s an additional misdeed.
From Miriam Webster site: The first meaning of 'apology' was “something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others to be wrong. Or “something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others to be wrong or of what may be liable to disapprobation.” This to me isn’t really the sorrow one feels at hurting others or making a mistake. On the other hand the word sorry is "distressed, grieved, full of sorrow.” So the word sorry is truly what is part of repentance.
Persons responsible for wrong should apologize. The institution of the Church should not be expected to apologize for acts that church members as a whole may not have been responsible for. The person in authority who is responsible for an error should personally apologize. The institution of the Church should apologize only for those things the institution of the Church has done in error.
Perhaps it's useful to consider when a parent does something they regret reading children, but an apology would not be warranted or helpful. Often times, actions might be justified, and thus require no apology, but are not up to the standard with which one holds oneself, thus causing feelings of regret. Just a thought.
This is my personal opinion....Its not wither they should or shouldn't give apology for mistakes. Any apology will be exploited against the church. It seems to be strategy at this point to keep the church operating until the judgements come upon us.
Only 10 minutes in so maybe you'll get to this but I think it's possible, from a legal perspective, that an apology could be equated with an admission of fault or wrongdoing. Possible legal ramifications.
@@franciegwin Sadly Satan(gadiantons) has pushed the world in this direction. Bring on the tribulation and then the fixes shortly thereafter. It's not always so cut and dried in a failing/falling society. The Lord will hopefully break it all soon. Then we can fix it. We're in the worst part of the pride cycle. IMHO
Connor, I couldn't agree more. I'm surprised by some of the comments here--calling you woke etc. So strange! If you were suggesting that the Church should SEEK apologies, that would seem woke to me. But the principles that would guide the Church to ISSUE apologies are simply the principles of Christian discipleship. Of all organizations, the Church should be best at modeling apologies. And President Oaks' justification for not doing so ("the word apology isn't in the scriptures") is just silly. How many times do we read in the scriptures about confessing and forsaking sins, repenting, etc.? That excuse is like saying that the Church shouldn't worry about producing wholesome media because the word "media" isn't in the scriptures. Makes no sense. Clearly, if the leaders of the Church hope to inspire the people to repent, they need to model repentance. It's no wonder so many Church members struggle with the idea of confessing and forsaking their sins because they see so much resistance to the idea at the very top of the organization. In my opinion, the Church doesn't issue apologies because (1) like you suggested, avoiding costly litigation and bad press seems more important to the Church than modeling repentance and (2) issuing apologies would call into question the Church's greatest heresy--that the president of the Church could never lead us astray. That heresy is too fundamental to our identity, and we'd seemingly rather maintain our idolatrous prophet-worship than model confessing and forsaking our sins. I agree with you -- do what is right and let the consequence follow. I have always appreciated the example of the sons of Mosiah, whose conversion led them to travel throughout the church confessing and forsaking their sins--and their willingness to do so brought "much consolation" to the church. Certain leaders of the latter-day Church have engaged in egregious sins on behalf of the Church that have (1) led the Church astray, (2) alienated millions of people not of our faith, and (3) crippled the growth of the Church. From the priesthood ban and blood atonement and polygamy in the early years to jabs and shell companies and concealing abuse in the modern era--the Church has done a lot of bad stuff because the Church and its leaders and its members are all fallible. I guarantee, like you said, that issuing sincere apologies and forsaking institutional sins would increase trust, create healing, and lead to dramatic growth.
I don’t think that our church needs to apologize for their stance in regards to any of the rainbow brigade‘s point’s of view or anything. We have basic fundamentals of our church because they are passed down from God. Apologizing for that is it like saying God has made a mistake. God does not make mistakes; it is man who makes mistakes or intentionally does things. If you’re angry with the way that the church does things go straight to the source “God”. We’re also going under the assumption that because the rainbow brigade is upset about something that they must be correct. The only “correct” they have is being politically correct, which blows where ever the wind takes it.
After the church corporation was fined by the SEC for creating shell companies to hide their assests and deceive the government and members of the church, how could anyone involved have a temple recommend? How does a person answer question #9, "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?" I quess when the Bishop asks me this question I can say, "mistakes were made, and I consider the matter closed."
If yuou have been through any formal repentance possible, you would know the weakness of your statement. There is no requirement to apologize, but to recognize your error. confess, and make restitution and sin no more. Did Christ tell the people accusing the woman of adultery - or the woman herself - to apologize? He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." and told her to "Go and sin no more."
Hinckley’s defensive answer about flicks of history was disappointing. The priesthood/temple ban came with 130 years of horrific statements justifying the ban and caused so much pain to so many people. The gospel topic essay on race denounced the reasons given for the ban but could have gone one step further to admit that the ban was a mistake of man and not from God, and apologize for the pain it has caused. Blaming God is taking his name in vain.
A 10 year old girl told her little brother that he is stupid. The mom insisted that the girl apologize. So, the girl said to the little brother, "I'm sorry that you are stupid". People who require apologies, for intentional or unintentional verbal "insults", need to learn how Not To Be Insulted. "An offender for a word" is how Jesus phrased it. Some people are so testy, so prickly, so uptight, so emotionally fragile that anything could be construed as offensive, insulting, hostile ... such as referring to a male as 'he', or to a 200 pound woman as 'large', or to a homosexual as ... hmmmm ... queer. Oh, skip that last example; nowadays homosexuals call themselves queer ... and 200 pound woman call themselves large or 'plus sized'. I can't keep up with the current woke Offense Olympics.
This isn't about apologizing when there's no real offense. This is about apologizing when something was done that was legitimately wrong - Black's and the Priesthood, banning children of same-sex couples' from being baptized, Mountain Meadows massacre, etc. The Church should be "quick to apologize" but I think this is more about liability than anything else. If the Church "apologizes" it opens up possibility for litigation, right? If that is true, they should at least state that so that it gives the message "We regret this but cannot formally apologize for legal reason".
@duncansh81 Black Polynesians, black Mid-Easterners, black Indonesians and black Indians never were Priesthood Prohibited. Only Sub Saharan Africans were prohibitted, due to a phenomenon referred as Jeffersonianism. Thomas Jefferson's biographers are at a loss to rectify his "all men are created equal" to his "Africans are a smelly, uneducated people". This Jeffersonianism pervaded 1) the southern democrats' mentality (coupled with their greed to steal labor from their slaves) and 2) the US Air Force and 3) John Kennedy who told his Inaguration Gala Coordinator, Frank Sinatra, to dis-invite Sammy Davis Jr and 4) the LDS Apostles of the early 20th century. Gradually, this Jeffersonianism wore off and Spencer Kimball de-institutionalized this pervasive false notion. IF the LDS Church were to "apologize", what would that apology be? The official Church "apology" was to reverse the policy and ordain and endow people of Sub Saharan African decent, which began to occur immediately, world wide the day following the reversal. Per Mountain Meadows, read my earlier comment regarding Pre-emptive Defensive Strikes. As for not baptizing minor children of gay couples, research the legal issue of Familial Disenfranchisement. The Church is sensitive to teaching minor kids that their parents are overtly breaking God's commandments.
I think apologies are hard, admitting guilt is hard, shifting blame is easy. I think that refusing to apologize makes repentence hard. I think there are personal things in my life the church should apologize for. Beyond that we should never trust our spiritual safety and that of pur children to anyone blindly.
When honesty, integrity and reputation are the casualties, only unflinching recognition of past errors and bold assertions of truth can affect adequate enough course corrections.
We regret that some among our party acted foolishly. This is not the Church apologizing. President Oaks is right we don't apologize for the true Church of Jesus Christ that would be saying that Jesus Christ himself is sorry.. we do Express regret for some decisions that "some" make OR what transpires from what some do. Jesus Christ does not owe anyone an apology.. but the church or people that speak for the church can express regret for what some have believed or said or done.. But now I just see you going around dissecting what more than one leader of the church has said that you disagree with so now it's starting to feel like you are just being disagreeable. Gordon b Hinckley said. That that's what some leaders believed. He didn't focus on how they were wrong, nor did he apologize for them. So Connor Boyack knows better than many men who have been called of God? Isn't this kind of what pride is? Do you believe in the mantle? Do you think that you have some hidden knowledge that Gordon B Hinckley President Oaks and many others in the church we're clueless about? 15 men get together and make decisions without you brother.. 15 men get together and fervently pray ponder with issues with the Lord and also they have the mantle and authority to make decisions so I wouldn't doubt that some of the things that you have brought up have also crossed their minds plenty of times... pardon for the speech to text I was driving. Connor, you argue that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should apologize for past mistakes or actions. You provide four reasons why you believe this is important: (1) repentance requires apology, (2) apologizing shows that the church fears God rather than man, (3) progress requires acknowledging and correcting past mistakes, and (4) apologizing builds trust and credibility. You reference statements from Church leaders, including President Oaks, who said that the history of the Church is not to seek apologies or to give them. However, you also point out that there have been instances where the Church has apologized or expressed regret, such as in the case of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims. You also discusses the importance of looking backward to learn from past mistakes and to make progress. You argue that the Church's stance on not apologizing may be based on fear of how others will respond, rather than a desire to do what is right. So you in essense believe that apologizing is an important part of the repentance process and that the Church should model this behavior for its members. That apologizing builds trust and credibility and is necessary for progress. The 15 men who gather often prayfully with more education and lifes wisdom and revelation, inspiration would agree. However, it is important to note that even in the instances that you mentioned , it was NEVER the Church apologizing. Instead, they are only sources saying "we did" or authors from columns or pieces saying "we did". This distinction is crucial, as it highlights that THE LORD HIMSELF has not apologized, but rather individuals or sources have expressed regret or acknowledged mistakes. The TRUE CHURCH is infallible! JESUS CHRIST doesn't owe ANYONE an apology! That is why we only express regret for others decisions and/or mistakes. In Doctrine and Covenants 1:38, it says, 'What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself.' The Lord doesn't apologize for His actions or decisions. A single leader can apologize. But The leaders will not DARE APOLOGIZE for GOD!
Though they should be in sync, most of the time, The Gospel and the Church are quite different, otherwise it would not be under condemnation by Jesus. Jesus is not the Church, that is simply not true. Troy, I like your channel a lot, but I have noticed a change lately. Offer your own perspective. I think criticizing Connor will hurt you. I don't always agree with Connor either, but I appreciate his contribution like I do yours.
@@csmusix I'm not allowed to disagree with Connor? I am glad you like the channel . . You say "BUT" I have noticed a change lately, meaning the change isn't good in your eyes? I think the changes are spiritually safer.
@@TheLastDispensation you are most definitely allowed to disagree, I am suggesting that it will not help you. Here is my #1 concern about your channel and a few others like it. Priestcraft is preaching for money. When you call us brothers and sisters and then do more lecture format than your opinion format it feels preachy to me. Then you ask for money, what am I to think? Now if you are selling t-shirts, a book you wrote, etc. I am ok with that. I like Ward Radio as well but I don't like them necessarily asking for money. I do like it when you give your opinions and ideas, those are interesting and helpful.
@@csmusix That isn't the definition of priestcraft. “Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (2 Nephi 26:29) . . I seek the WELFARE OF ZION! . . And I set Christ up for a light to the world, not myself. Anymore than this gentelman here. I also am nit "CHURCH" I am an independant content creator that talks about many things.
@@TheLastDispensation, Troy I couldn't ask for money and feel ok about it. Perhaps that is just me. I do feel you are a very faithful and good person and I feel the same about Connor. I do have a concern about Deseret Book as well something about it seems off and eerily familiar to the money changers that I have to navigate before I can get my temple clothing. I hope Connor does a musing on Deseret Book in the near future.
You mentioned that the church is under condemnation. Have you done an episode on this to explain the reasons you feel this to be true? I feel this as well but haven’t been able to fully square my thoughts on it.
You mentioned that you had to apologise for your own mistakes, that's fine, but you mother and father didn't have to apologise for you. Elder Holland apologised for personal comments he made. He did not apologise for someone else or the church. Why should the current members of the church suffer because you want an apology. The ones who did these things will have to answer for them. The people living today should not be paying for it, the church needs to improve by actions, that is more effective. People need help today, that should be our focus, not to bankrupt the church and its people today.
It won’t matter. The church has apologized before. They have admitted mistakes. All that contrition meant nothing but more lawsuits and “told you so’s”. Did it change anything? No. The reality is people who don’t like the church just won’t like it. We slice and dice the words to death - apology vs regret - and build all kinds of false moral requirements like saying the ACTUAL word apologize or it doesn’t mean anything. 🙄. In the end, it doesn’t matter.
This is a really immature view of repentance. Apologizing never promises an easier life afterword. But it’s the right thing to do when you’ve done something wrong.
@@noespensos is it immature? No reason to call me that, but I’ll play along. Can you tell me in scripture where it says saying “I apologize” is part of repentance?. Is saying “deeply regret” better or worse? Quibbling about the words used seems rather immature. Furthermore, let’s be honest about what is driving this. Is it true repentance? Or is it some public contrition? Yes, the demands are more for a public humiliation of some kind, or an “I told you so”. In the context of repentance, is pres hinckley supposed to apologize for something another man (BY) did over a hundred years ago? That’s not even doctrinal! The church corrected course and fixed a bad policy. Should every generation and every leader constantly apologize forevermore? That’s not scriptural either. Once something is made right, it is done. It is over. We move on. It is history. That’s section 58, again scriptural. So, is what I said really that immature? No, it’s not. However, there is a good argument that demanding the church keep apologizing very every mistake leaders from Joseph forward ever make is not just immature, it is unrealistic, absurd, and not even remotely doctrinal.
and there we have it!! Even when they do and express deep regret, it is never enough. Didn’t you listen to the podcast? Oh, well they didn’t say the exact words you wanted! When does it end? How can one man apologize for another’s mistakes? How can a church, which is only an entity apologize and repent for a man’s mistakes? Which offenses shall be brought forth in sackcloth and ashes before the world? Which ones shall be ignored? Nope…it never ends. Demands for apologies are impossible, so the church corrects and moves on. You may not like it, but there is no other relevant way.
@@jeremybelinski7713 the limit to your ethics is if it’s in the scriptures? (Trump voice) sad. If an institution does something wrong, the institution can make a statement apologizing. Not a hard concept to understand unless your worldview relies on believing the church is perfect and can do no wrong.
What you said at ~32:00, 100%. And I think the church would do a lot of healing and unifying if an apology took place. This is all really well done and said. Appreciate these principles openly discussed. An apology not only builds trust and respect, but it also reaffirms that we are all people who make mistakes and we are reminded to turn to the Lord and rely on Him, not flesh. To think that any person or organization would never need to make an apology because they are above making mistakes is actually sourced in pride.
If we truly believe that man is accountable for their own sins and not Adam's transgressions, and the church is made up of individuals, is it the church that apologizes on behalf of the individuals, or are they accountable for their own sins or transgressions?
An apology is an excuse. To express regret for something seems more appropriate to me. Especially if we are talking about the church dealing with things imperfect people of the church do or say. This seems to be a non issue to me. Just something more for those who choose to be offended to demand of others.
Apology, as a word, seems to mean "I acknowledge that I did wrong". But, that acknowledgement must be accompanied by Mosaic Restitution. Eye For An Eye means to repair the damage that you have caused. Simply saying "Ooops, my bad. Sorry" ain't good enough. Apology , as an act, means to make whole.
I have never had any misunderstanding of church leaders thinking or saying they are perfect or never makeing errors. I believe thry are guiding us with light most of the time which is why they typically or alway preface statements as words from the church leaders versus these guys speaking as men. Not sure how some have such a hard time with this subject.
The top priority of the church is reputation. It is all about maintaining the good name of the church, or doing what is best for the church. Doing what Jesus would do, or doing what is right, is irrelevant to them. They won't think twice about excommunicating an innocent member simply in the interest of preserving or improving their reputation or financial interests. Their moral code is very corporate. Can you imagine what Jesus would have done if he had had a team of lawyers to advise him and if he had heeded them. That's the difference. The LDS church is absolutely not the church of Christ. It's the church of lawyers and corporate interests. It's the church of following the prophet and temple attendance. The Doctrine of Christ is merely a talking point.
I think you answered your question, individuals should apologies, but the Church should not apologize for individual actions. If the Profit or any of us makes a mistake he/we can apologise for it. But the Church cannot sin because it is not a soul, so it has no need to apologize. Regretting is enough for me along with making amends when we can. As we look backward we do learn and correct and move forward.
Interests video (again). We look backward when we remember Jesus Christ, when we study the Old Testament, when we liken any scripture to ourselves, and when the Church honored the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
They talked about following Jesus Christ, repentances, and being good examples in General conferences and magazines, but the repentances don't apply to them in action. The apostles of old who walked with Christ side by sides and seeing the miracles that Jesus performed. Yet they still made mistakes and they repented and willing to humble themselves. I guess the leaders these days who never walk with Christ and see Christ face to face must be "Perfect er" than the prophets of old!
@user-tz3zl1kr7r most of "they" spend spend decades to become the businessmen, CEOs, doctors, lawer and doctors, or politicians serving themselves first, then they got notice by the top, become noticed by the top. The seventies are great paid, a quarter millions as seventies. I personally know one seventy and one of the 12th. They are rich. They didn't spend decades to serve full time volunteers. They people that who really spent decades to sever or work for the church were president Hinckley and Monson or some leaders before them without much wealth profiles. I am looking forward to see they actually called a farmer to be in the leadership position.
@user-tz3zl1kr7r you mean decades to become millionaires as lawyers, doctors, CEOs, politicians? Then, called into the seventies to live million dollars apartments, and getting quarter millions salaries? No many people like president Hinckley and Monson who actually serve decades in the church
With the Lord's kingdom on the earth, as members, apologizing is key and also part of the repentance process. Just because you're an institution, that does not eliminate the need for the institution to do the same. Hypocritical to teach that members need to apologize repent and change and yet the organization itself does not. Another note, covenant path is not in the scriptures either and yet we use it over and over again. Maybe I'm old school, I always liked endure to the end.
They should acknowledge mistakes and trust the Lord to fight their battles. The bandage must be large enough to cover the wound. What is necessary to acknowledge/ correct past wrongs is the question. But ignoring faults is not the way to move forward.
As a world wide institution, the church’s credibility is in question. I agree, why should I apologize for my transgressions, if the church just “looks forward and not backward”? It looks hypocritical, looses respect. They are men, not Gods. They err. When did God ever choose his prophets by consensus? Not until Brigham Young was this a practice. So yes the church is under condemnation.
You’re missing the very important distinction between apologizing (first person) and regret (which can be personal, but also regret for 3rd party actions).
Connor, you bring up a lot of really good points in your Sunday Musings. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. It's okay, I don't have to agree with everything you say. Don't stop bringing what you feel is important to light.
If I follow the “Leaders’ example I never need to be responsible of my past offenses whether they were years ago or my offense 5 minutes ago. Where does repentance in this guide fit in? If we avoid the steps of repentance, there is no forgiveness!
Institutions are different than individuals imo. I don't think the church as an institution should apologize for a few reasons: 1. Apologies are admissions of guilt and lead to litigation as you mentioned. Sacred tithing funds going to the world seems ridiculous to me. Seems like giving the Lord's money to worldly groups is backwards. I saw too many impoverished saints in Argentina on my mission sacrificing their precious funds why should these humble saints pay and especially for events they are so far removed (which leads to my next point). 2. We should be punished for our own sins. I'm a black member of the church which obviously brings up the question of the priesthood ban. Should I be apologizing the the temple/priesthood ban against black people? Should our general authorities who played a role in extending the blessings to the entire world apologize? Even before 1978 before the official declaration some faithful members of the church actively fought against the ban. 3. History and groups. Most of the examples of events to apologize for are in the past and/or done by small groups or individuals. Mountain meadows massacre was a small group of individuals and doesn't reflect the actions or beliefs of the entire church. Past beliefs like the priesthood ban or past comments don't reflect our current beliefs. We shouldn't be judged by the mistakes of our parents and forefathers. Really the only argument I see is for current churchwide policy, but I don't see any examples of that. Maybe in the future we will look back and see areas of error, but as far as world wide offical church policy I can't think of anything. EVen in this case, church leaders are imperfect and will make mistakes, but that doesn't reflect God's church. Additionally, I think we church members need to apologize to God not God's church apologizing to the world. However, I am imperfect myself. I could be wrong and I enjoy this discussion. I'm open to arguments against these points! 👍
Connor, the dismissing of the Church’s responsibility to apologize for its past in its entirety speaks to a lack of understanding of generational sin and iniquity. The nature of generational sin is it must be repented of just as current sin requires it. Until both generational sin and current sin is repented of, both at the individual level as well as at the organizational level, the suffering of the people will not be alleviated by covenantal deliverance. To say we look do not backward and we don’t apologize destroys the hope of future deliverance because God won’t deliver the unrepentant both individually and collectively within an organization until the covenant is kept. It is kept via complete and full repentance as individuals and as people.
The Difference between Sorry and Apology - Meanings You might have seen people saying ‘sorry’ or asking for an ‘apology’, and you might think that both are the same. But there’s a subtle difference between these two terms. The word ‘sorry’ is used to express remorse or sympathy. The word ‘sorry’ has a personal essence in it. Whereas the word ‘apology’ is used in a formal tone and used to represent the feeling of regret one has after doing something wrong. While being apologetic, one might or might not be sorry for what they did wrong, for example, ‘Sheldon faked an apology for his rude behaviour though he didn’t regret his actions for a moment.’ Another example is ‘Raj was sorry for not being able to attend his mother’s birthday.’ Once students understand this basic point of difference, it will be easier for them to use these words accurately.
Regret implies repentance while apology is asking for forgiveness. The most common definition of apologize is to express regret. The church does this. But there are also other baked in meanings (like your legal council example and mentioned by Oaks). An apology should come from the perpetrator to the victims. Why should the Church apologize to me or the general public for what Brigham said? The public isn't a victim and the Church didn't do it. But we do regret it (repent). Also, more importantly, an apology implies that the victim or public has the power to hold the church accountable or under condemnation. It's not appropriate for God's Church to treat itself as accountable to anybody other than God. The Church seeks forgiveness from God, not the general public.
The church is a big complicated organization. It would be so much easier to run a local community church instead of something with so many parts running all over the world with so many volunteers. I think it’s important to look at the big picture instead of focusing on the inevitable problems that pop up. People like train wrecks and drama. Those always attract attention.
We as members are expected to right our wrongs in the process of repentance and part of righting a wrong is an apology to those who were wronged.
The church and church leaders should not be above this. They should even be held more accountable because of the positions that they hold.
Absolutely agree 👍
3 Nephi 27:27 and D&C 1:31 were directed specifically at Church leaders.
My thought is maybe the individual leaders should be apologizing, and not the church, because that would remove some level of accountability from the individual.
Though in cases where the individual(s) has passed away, some kind of statement of sorriness should be expressed when a specific mistake is made known.
People can "regret" things not because of godly sorrow but because the consequences of their acts have caught up with them. I agree with your reasons. For example, Reason #2: Undermining faith and causing fear. Current leaders, some members of the greatest generation, operate on the principle of loyalty while this generation operates on the principle of authenticity: This generation will respect the Church for its simple honesty. This is an honest, thoughtful post. Thank you for this.
This underlines the importance of the 1st Presidency apologizing for the "safe and effecrive and its a miracle and follow your wise government leaders" letter... while they are still here.
They will hold to their guns til their dying breaths on that issue. 🙄To admit otherwise steps on the toes of seeing around corners.
I waited so long for the apology to come. They only buckled down harder.
It'll never happen unfortunately.
What does this babble mean?
@@gregj4509 If you are honestly asleep and don't know by now, it's too much to explain to wake one up.
2 thoughts;: apologies can only come from the person who committed the offense. We can express embarrassment or shame for something someone else has done but we cannot apologize. If my family member were to commit adultery (using your example) I can't apologize for them: they must do that themselves, I didn't commit adultery. If the church ie the 3 members of the First Presidency all agreed on something, spoke in the name of the Church and what they did was wrong, then yes they should right the wrong and tell the truth. Apologize. If the church had to apologize for each error or willful incorrect conduct committed by members, there wouldn't be time to do anything else. If they are a church employee, fire them and express regret that they misused their agency.
We should look to the past to improve the future but we shouldn't dwell on it or improving and moving forward cannot occur.
Make a statement of correction or explanation and move on. Once is enough for ancient history that current leadership had nothing to do with. Brigham Young made comments about race based on his opinion. How could Pres Hinckley apologize for him? The brethren need to remember the early Christian church. The Brethren were always traveling and sending letters to get local leaders back on track. We need more of that!
Another great conversation!
The internet teaches clearly that apologies are used as stepping stones for further subversion 99.999% of the time. I think that an apology in private to a genuinely aggrieved party seeking reconciliation is appropriate. In private. Public apology is unfortunately, simply an attack vector. Wise as serpents, harmless as doves.
Correct
great post
That's what I wondered. It's a legal take. In a car wreck, insurance always tells you do not admit fault.
A thousand amens to this!!
“…if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.”
The game of public apologies and shaming is simply a way for radicals to tear down institutions and individuals.
@@littled6698 The Church's refusal to apologize is a matter of expediency, not morality.
Im deeply disturbed by so many here commenting, excusing the church from offering an apology (where appropriate) due to the consequences. Shameful. CTR means nothing to you! To apologize for mistakes is Choosing The Right. Let the consequences follow. The Lord will take care of the church if we do what is right, not what is easy. Where is your faith? Where is your testimony of forgiveness? Smh. 🤦♂️🤨
At stake conference this morning , Elder Richard Youngblood of the Seventy emphasized saying I’m sorry as being very important. I have to say that I was very upset to hear that Pres. Monson said that we don’t know what was right or wrong back then when the play about the courageous young man Helmet was shut down. Anyone who doesn’t know what was right or wrong about the Holocaust and that executing this young man was horrible , needs a history lesson. I still loved Pres. Monson & it doesn’t shake my testimony. And I’m glad to know that BYU wanted to recognize that young man’s courage. And Conner that was courageous of you to share your personal experience and I respect you more knowing how hard it must have been to do the right thing. I think apologies are necessary.
I do too. Apologies are to me a part of repentance. Yo be truly sorry brings a broken heart, that leads to repentance and personal spiritual growth. Just my own opinion and belief
The young man was excommunicated from the church, perhaps to placate Nazi officials. He was posthumously reinstated with all of his blessings restored.
Life is Politics 🙄
It has been stated that the POPE is "Infallible" but Roman Catholics in general do not believe it. The Church state the Prophet (12 Apostles) are not infallible, but to many Mormans do not believe it * and thus fall away) when they find out they were misguided in their faith in the imperfect men..
I have not listened to this just reading the comments. But I have read history. Helmet was not excommunicated buy the Church itself but by local Nazi leadership who was politically deceived. The prophet had nothing to do with that..his name was reinstated when it came to SLC church headquarters attention..
Thank you for your personal MTC story. I think you’re a principled, thoughtful, faithful member and it’s because of your courage to make that choice, to do what is right and owning up to the consequences, that I think you’re of strong character today. That’s what it’s all about. That’s how we become true disciples. Respect. 🙏🏼
Corporations with lots of funds & apologies don't mix that well.
Whether or not church leaders apologize or show regret, we as members should stop teaching and believing this idea of “you’ll never be wrong if you follow church leaders.”
While we do have prophets and apostles that are led by Christ, they are still humans, allowed to make human choices for themselves.
The truth we should be teaching and believing is that “we will never be wrong if we follow Christ.”
The concept of “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” does NOT mean that everything a church leader does is what Christ would do. Two things can be true: leaders can be both inspired at times and fallible at times. If we didn’t have to “study it out in [our] mind, and ask if it be right,” then we would have no skin in the game, no responsibility, no accountability.
It’s ok that we have to put in effort, including mental and spiritual energy, as we follow Christ (1st) while seriously considering the words of inspired humans (yet being careful not to trust in the arm of flesh).
I think leaders help us learn how to follow, Jesus.
@@user-tz3zl1kr7r Of course they do! And we will do well to listen to them when they receive direct revelation and when they are simply giving good advice as a more experienced human being.
But to say you’ll NEVER be wrong if you follow their EVERY word elevates leaders from fallible humans to deity.
The prophet himself says “follow Him.” I can’t think of a single scripture where a prophet has said “follow me.” I’m just saying we should teach the same thing.
I think the last four years has shown us that it is time in our spiritual journey, to have a direct line to Christ (which gives us spiritual discernment that is oil in the lamp.)
I begin to distrust and lose respect for those who do wrong or make mistakes that cause harm to others but never apologize. When they put out false information and never retract it, that also causes a loss of credibility. Church leaders should lead by example and with humility. Sadly, I have not seen that in the top leadership. You may be right that they think it will cause them to lose credibility. But only for those who see them as infallible. To never apologize is to promote this false idea of infallibility. For me, the absence of admitting mistakes has caused a loss of trust. I think so for many others.
To NOT apologize causes even greater loss of credibility!
Apologies are weaponized .
Who cares, is not judgement made by God. If God tells us to apologize sincerely should we not do that, it seems to me that you are more concerned with men and what they can do than having a humble and submissive heart.
As I was listening to this video, the phrase "Remember, remember' kept coming to me. I don't know how many times that phrase is said in the Book of Mormon, but it is A LOT. I know the word encompasses many meanings, concepts, principles, and things to remember, but I think part of if is to make sure we don't make the same mistakes as we have in the past. If we, as a church, or individual consider a matter closed, and put it away, we don't follow the counsel to 'remember'. How many times did Alma use his repentance process to teach his sons, ancient church members and us the importance of repenting and changing. If he had considered the matter closed, and only looked forward, we wouldn't have his great example to learn from. In remembering, we don't have to carry the guilt (if we've repented) with us, but the counsel (or command) to remember is given for a reason!
Same thoughts I had! Remember!!! The Book of Mormon is all about remembering.
@@kellywilson8322 Don't forget that it's in Moroni's promise to those who read the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10:3).
Excellent point!
Loved the quote: "All progress starts from telling the truth."
I agree with you that God's servants should be subject to the same laws as the members of the church.
If I'm ever brought before a council for "apostasy" or whatever, they can expect that I'll just repeat over and over "I regret mistakes that were made, I consider this matter closed."
By not apologizing, it seems the church wants to look infallible - and that bothers people. They apparently aren't infallible, but they won't admit it.
Apologizing means you admit that you were wrong or you did not have the intentions of hurting another. I understand why some want apologies. People are hurt. It's tempting to leave the church because of no articulate, sincere apology from certain leaders. Troubling on many levels, as Connor points out.
Strange that you say, "They apparently aren't infallible, but they won't admit it." when in this very musing Connor gives examples of when they have done just that. Apparently you just notice the parts of Connor's musings that support your own established beliefs. We all do that to some extent, but we should strive to avoid it.
@@jfcannon2008 Yeah, I'm exaggerating a bit and being myopic to make a point. I understand that enemies demand apologies as a weapon and there is a fine balance to make. But I honestly think that the leadership under does it.
To apologize could be considered acknowledging liability. As for me, I agree with your arguments.
One rule for the members another rule for the institution
I find it interesting that a group of people (institution) is different than an individual in respect to "apologizing". So I guess institutions like the church is "above" repentance, a principle & doctrine it teaches? That can excuse a lot of wrongdoing an instituion can make. That in itself is immoral, unethical and un-christlike. The church needs to seek forgiveness or perhaps it doesnt believe in forgivesness? Apologizing or reconciliation is a part of forgiveness. Regret is different. Its not forgiveness. Its not an apology. Connor is right. This policy needs to change and not let the churches fear keep it from doing the right thing. CTR is just a meaningless thing if it can be pushed aside due to fear of being held accountable.
Thank you for speaking to this.
I told my children all the time that the only person they can control is themselves. Jesus teaches for us to forgive even 70×7. We should focus on forgiving others trespasses. Even in real life we could wait forever for apologies we don’t have control over when they come. However, we do have the choice to forgive and move on.
Good point, but that's tangential. Yes we forgive the brethren, but that does not negate the power of owning up to mistakes.
Yes! It takes being honest and humble. Lead by example.
In current times, public apologies are used as ammunition and only make things worse
I agree that apologies are weapons in this day and age. This is a fact of our society worldwide. None of us are exempt from the circumstances. The acts of repentance are between our heavenly father and the individual, not the public at Large! My personal opinion, regret is sufficient from our church leaders.
The Church should never apologize to Babylon for holding on to basic eternal laws that God has set for to us. However not every policy or practice that the church has done is from God in my opinion. I believe God allows us lots of room to make decisions that will result in mistakes so that we can grow. In situations like this, there is nothing wrong to apologize. The problem with apologizing is some people will NEVER be satisfied. People will then use the apology as a weapon to beat the church on.
No. The church should apologize FOR being so much a part of Babylon. The LDS church is Babylon.
Totally agree with you. If you do not apologize how can you repent. As for not looking backward, isn't the Book of Mormon based on looking at the past so we do not make the same mistakes in the future? The church is partners with the United Nations and sits on their religious board. I believe they have been infiltrated and I am sure we will see a lot of wrong doings, but hopefully Heavenly Father will bring it to light.
I'm thinking of Nephi's scriptural admission of his own faults, and overcoming them.
I think it has already been brought to light, but based on their lack of any acknowledgement of misspeaking, means they do not think they made any mistakes.
You MTC story is the same as my dear friend's. The pain of unresolved sin as you head out to be a missionary. That is a powerful example of how we should be, willing to repent instead of just save face.. I thank you and my friend again for being brave and honest and coming out stronger after such an ordeal. Perfect example of what this video is saying.
I know that's a personal and painful story, Thank you for sharing.
Perhaps it's accurate to say... The Church as an institution is the Lord's and has no need to apologize for its official beliefs and practices and such. The Church's individual members sometimes need to apologize for not living up to the Church's standards as well as they should.
Amen
There have been official policies that in retrospect Church leaders have regretted. I know that there may not be unanimity in how and why the Priesthood ban occurred, but I believe most of them would now say it was a mistake. And more recently, the November 2015 policy of preventing children of gay couples from being baptized turned out to be a mistake. To their credit, they corrected their direction more quickly. Again, I wonder if, behind closed doors, they acknowledged that it was a mistake.
Either way, I truly believe that the Church can be led by Jesus Christ, yet directed here on earth by good but fallible men. It doesn't shake my testimony that they make mistakes, even big ones.
Something like that. If the institution apologizes for something then great, but going on and on about how they better tends to just be virtue signaling, especially when individuals can still be living the Gospel as individuals.
Of course, the Church does not need to apologize for its beliefs and practices, any more than any other religion needs to when its beliefs are sincere, but if actions taken in a religion's name by those who represent it cause harm, and the organization ratifies their actions, then apologies are in order -- especially if the religion preaches the importance of sincere repentance. If a religious organization fails to act according to its own professed beliefs, its beliefs are not sincerely held.
@@brb5506 Define ‘cause harm’.
There’s a fundamental difference in connotation between “apology” and “expression of regret.” “Apology” implies an assumption of blame or accountability; “regret,” not so much. No one now living bears any blame for the mass murders at Mountain Meadows, nor does the Church as an institution bear accountability for the wrongdoing of some errant members. The concept of institutional guilt or guilt by proxy is not rational.
But it makes people feel good... Irrationality is the way of the day.
Correct. People want to be able to perpetually say that the Church is in the wrong still and that they have to apologize but also that no apology will ever be quite enough.
100% the church at large shouldn't be responsibly for errors f a select few. Nor should we apologize for the mistakes of others in the past.
I'm a black member of the church should I apologize for the priesthood ban against my ancestors? That makes no sense. Nor does it make sense for my white bros and sisters that never even played a part in the ban. Nor does it make sense when there were people before 1978 that didn't support the ban. Just one simple example that shows how convoluted this becomes.
"The church does not seek for apologies, nor do we give them"
- President Oaks
If the Church should never apologize, this means that the Church is infallible.
Bad policy.
@@maskofscience to clarify, I dont like oaks statement at all. In fact, the only good thing about it is it hopefully can show some people how far off the mark he is and they'll see he's a false prophet. I think the church has a lot to apologize for.
To NOT apologize causes a greater loss of credibility than anything. It destroys Trust too.
An apology suggests that a blatant mistake was made while regret merely suggests that someone was hurt by an action. Apologies do open you up to further ridicule and risk of litigation. Correcting behavior is better than an apology. Put all the pros and cons of apologizing on a balance scale and you'll see that the Church is probably right by not apologizing.
There is a difference between abuse committed by leaders, abuse that the Church would never condone, and acts by Church leaders taken on behalf of the Church, actions that the Church accepts and ratifies. The Church should not apologize for things done by its leaders because of personal agency, such as abuse -- nor should it even settle such matters out of court -- in fact, it should fight them as a matter of principle. However, for matters that cause harm in which the leader was acting as the Church's agent, the principle of repentance requires apologizing and making restitution.
I find President Oaks's assertion that the word "apology" is not found in the Book of Mormon so disingenuous that it borders on dishonesty. Even prophets, seers and revelators are human! The principle of repentance behind apologizing is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ and he knows it! (Does he need to apologize for this statement?) I suspect that the Church neither seeks nor gives apologies more because of expediency than morality.
It's vital to distinguish between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ, between the Church of Jesus Christ and the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ, between the Church of Jesus Christ and the culture that has grown up within and around it -- which might be called "Mormonism" if a term is needed for it. These are all distinct. If a person has a testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith and his successors at the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a person can weather the storms of adversity, including the insidious gales of the faults and follies of its leaders.
I have long called this "The pride of the church"
Failure to repent or apologize as an organization. Sets the standard of self protection and appearance above truth and change for all members. My children are less fearful of admission of mistakes because they know I will apologize to them when I mess up. Even if the mistake is small. This lets them know I value them and I want us to have the best relationship we can. How is a church diffrent?
I don't see how an organization could possibly be exempt from repentance or apologies. How many times has a group of people been called to collective repentance? What about the first and second great awakening? What about Lincoln's second inaugural address?
I hope one day the church becomes humble enough to do this.
Amen
If we warn of the government breaking the commandments should we not do the same for the Church.
There are opportunities for the Church to apologize about its mishandling of child abuse cases. There are many more cases that have not seen the light of day because of current processes.
I can’t help but notice how many of the Church’s controversial positions are disproportionately championed by Pres Oaks.
As for the SEC scandal, yes, it was a scandal. As a CPA who does federal reporting for a Fortune 500 wealth manager, I can attest to this matter being a clear instance of wrongdoing. I am willing to explain the issue to anyone who is looking to understand it better. I am an active, faithful member.
Taking accountability is an important part of moving on from mistakes.
Oaks is only controversial to those who don’t like the truth. He isn’t afraid of cry-bully leftists and speaks frankly and clearly on difficult issues, which is a rare attribute. I stand with him and sustain him completely.
I like Oaks old school is the good stuff
@@danjohnson8556 you mean the kind of truth that is “wrong” if it relates to a Church leader? Pres Oaks’ odds, not mine.
I teach nursery at church. One of the lessons is titled, “I can say I’m sorry“. Perhaps some leaders need to go back to the basics.
The church's stated position on never apologizing and only looking forward, not back, reminds me of this verse, Mosiah 27: 35, which is shortly after Alma and the sons of Mosiah learned of the error of their ways:
"And they [Alma and the sons of Mosiah] traveled throughout all the land of Zarahemla, and among all the people who were under the reign of king Mosiah, zealously striving to look forward, not back, denying all their sins, and publishing all the things which they would later see, and explaining the prophecies and the scriptures to all who desired to hear them."
Oh, wait...
As a Reorganized Latter Day Saint, I really appreciate your content and remarks.
Do you mean Community of Christ member? Do you believe the Book of mormon is historical?
@jonny6man Yes, in our church we believe in agency and faithful disagreement. There are a wide variety of views held by differing individuals and congregations. The Book of Mormon is an important part of the lives of many members.
@@jondxxxiiiokay. I'm wondering if you believe the Book of Mormon is historical though. Or was it inspired but not historical in your view?
@jonny6man I would say yes. However, personally, I am more interested in the enduring message of a scripture than historical proof. I feel the same way with the bible.
I don't t think you can apologize for something someone else or a past leader may have done. If they didn't feel the need to do it it's between them and Heavenly Father. Also meaningful apologies are between individuals the church apologizing dosen't seem like it would acomplish anything except asigning blame to the church as a whole. We belive in individual salvation the church appologizing feels like accepting collective guilt. If current leader changes policies or has an opinion on a previous issues I don't think it gives them the authority to apologize for the past.
I do think it is productive to look at issues and see what can be learned from them. The Helmuth Hubner story is one of my favorites for standing up for truth.
Don’t apologize to your wife bc she might lose her testimony in you.
😂😂
In the UK the BLM are seeking for an apology from our king, for the slavery of Black people. It was recognised that the reason being, if he did they would be able to seek financial reparations that would bankrupt the country. Now the UK did not start slavery, but they were the first to abolish slavery. The BLM are not concerned about slavery, just the money they would get from people who living today have nothing to do with slavery. Why should the whole nation pay for their livelihood because of actions of people in the past, if the King apologises for something he never participated in? If BLM was concerned about African slavery they should go to Africa and Asia and Middle East. There is more slavery still going on there.
Isn’t saying “I’m sorry” an apology? Isn’t that part of the repentance process? Isn’t that part of the gospel? Ho’oponopono Apologizing has power like words have power.
The Church should apologize for past mistakes and current mistakes with finances or those temporal polices... I think it would be the only way to soft many hearts of people so they come back or accept the Gospel.
DHO also has said “I also said something else that has excited people: that it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord. One can work to correct them by some other means, but don’t go about saying that they misbehaved when they were a youngster or whatever.”
The Untouchables!!
Yes! For many thing! Safe and effective! Hiding truth etc. It is called repentance!
This is more applicable than what brother Brigham may have said.
The Church doesn't give "apologies" because an apology, by its very nature, is an inherent admission of guilt. You can't pay for someone else's sins (AoF 2), nor should you be held accountable for them. Connon, I'm afraid you are giving into the woke requirement of systemic guilt. The Church will never buy into that. In cases where the Church has issued "statements of regret", in the case of Mountain Meadows, etc., it has been to address the feelings of the inquirer at the time in as Christ-like a manner as possible, showing forth sympathy, empathy, and "love unfeigned". But to think that the Brethren of today are responsible for the actions of the past is fallacious if you are truly the libertarian you profess to be. Each of the examples you give in your monologue is of the actions of an individual, an adulterer, embezzler, etc. You can't equate individual actions and choices with institutional ones. In the case of Ensign Investments, the firm was following the law as it was then understood. The SEC came out and said, "We are going to interpret the statute differently now, so here's your fine." The Church said, "ok, here's your penalty, we will comply moving forward, and we consider the matter closed." The SEC has a history of acting like this, even going so far as to reject previously issued No-Action Letters, etc. Your example of Elder Holland's story is case-in-point: He personally made a mistake, or more accurately, recounted a story, that to him at the time, was presumably shared with him and contained erroneous points. He withdrew the story, but did he apologize for sharing it? Not really. He acknowledged that it contained factual errors and inconsistencies as purported by those who would know (the family) and also acknowledged that the story, in its corrected state of factuality, wouldn't support the reasons he shared it to begin with, and asked that it not be shared further, which acknowledges its irrelevance to his talk. Remember Paul Dunn and the controversy he created? Dunn was asked by the Brethren to apologize because he himself had erroneously used inflated stories to teach doctrine. The Church didn't "apologize", but did issue a statement of regret that such actions by an individual had detracted from the work. If Dunn's inflationary stories had come to light after his death, there would have been no one to apologize, since there would have been no one around who was culpable. But the Church would have still issued a "statement of regret" and then behind the scenes given all the General Authorities specific instructions on stories, quotations, etc. The content should never detract from the message, something the Trib loves to revolve around.
The Church will never apologize for or "regret" doctrine. Anything else "regretted" is the result of either the implementation of doctrine or the day-to-day decisions of fallible leaders, which, in expressing "regret" for, the Church does not accept accountability for. Accountability is an individual thing. To expect the Church to apologize means you don't understand the nature of Church leadership. This doesn't mean the Brethren, as individuals are infallible. But the governing councils of the Church are. Otherwise, there is no substance to the profession of faith that they, when acting together, are "prophets, seers and revelators".
I would disagree. When Brigham Young was President and blood atonement was taught it very much believed in paying for someone else's sins.
@@laynekoyle9272 Blood Atonement is disputable as to whether or not it was ever taught, not to mention that it was most certainly never practiced, but you can't say that Blood Atonement is paying for someone else's sins. Blood Atonement is the belief that there are some sins so egregious that the Atonement of Christ doesn't expiate for them - murder, e.g. It is not the belief that the person whose blood is being shed is paying for someone else's sins, but the belief that anyone who commits such heinous acts must pay for them personally through the shedding of their own blood. (See Alma 34 - 11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. 12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. 13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.) But I don't see how your statement about blood atonement is irrelevant to the topic, which is Church apologies.
Thank you Connor 🙏
I don't think the church should apologize for past dealings with homosexuality. In fact, we've become far too soft on the issue. It is and still should be classified as a state of Apostacy and nothing less. If not then it spreads and becomes rampant, which is exactly what it's doing. Members think it's okay and it is not.
An apology is more of an expression of individual mistakes than an institutional thing. The Gospel is perfect but the people implementing it are not. I think that is why the Church should not be offering apologies especially for doctrine that comes from God. Individuals making mistakes implementing the Gospel should apologize.
Because of the "second anointing" they can not sin and therefore do not need to apologize or repent.... or so they think!
One of the questions each member in good standing is expected to answer: Is there anything in your past that’s hasn’t been resolved…etc. I think there are definitely things in the church’s past that haven’t been resolved. When it comes to controversial things Brigham Young said, those were not all just his opinion. They were taught, established and practiced as the doctrine of the church, and generations of individuals and families reaped bitter fruits because of what was sown then. Maybe apologies for what was done are not necessary, but for the pain and trauma that was caused, and the perpetuation of falsehood. Acknowledgment is huge. If there’s no acknowledgement it’s an additional misdeed.
From Miriam Webster site:
The first meaning of 'apology' was “something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others to be wrong. Or “something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others to be wrong or of what may be liable to disapprobation.” This to me isn’t really the sorrow one feels at hurting others or making a mistake.
On the other hand the word sorry is "distressed, grieved, full of sorrow.” So the word sorry is truly what is part of repentance.
Well said. The white in the background gives a better visual, less gloomy, more uplifting vibe. Thanks for sharing your thoughts as always.
Persons responsible for wrong should apologize. The institution of the Church should not be expected to apologize for acts that church members as a whole may not have been responsible for. The person in authority who is responsible for an error should personally apologize. The institution of the Church should apologize only for those things the institution of the Church has done in error.
Perhaps it's useful to consider when a parent does something they regret reading children, but an apology would not be warranted or helpful.
Often times, actions might be justified, and thus require no apology, but are not up to the standard with which one holds oneself, thus causing feelings of regret. Just a thought.
This is my personal opinion....Its not wither they should or shouldn't give apology for mistakes. Any apology will be exploited against the church. It seems to be strategy at this point to keep the church operating until the judgements come upon us.
Only 10 minutes in so maybe you'll get to this but I think it's possible, from a legal perspective, that an apology could be equated with an admission of fault or wrongdoing. Possible legal ramifications.
Yes law over doing what is right?
@@franciegwin Sadly Satan(gadiantons) has pushed the world in this direction. Bring on the tribulation and then the fixes shortly thereafter. It's not always so cut and dried in a failing/falling society. The Lord will hopefully break it all soon. Then we can fix it. We're in the worst part of the pride cycle. IMHO
Correct. Rather than apologizing for some phantom error, simply ask the offended person, "Why are you offended?" And in response say "hmmmmmm".
that isn't an excuse
It’s quite safe and easy for the church to express regret , as they think that “should” be taken as an apology even though we all know it’s not!
*safe and effective
You clearly misunderstood the church’s investments and the issue with the SEC. The church never admitted that they were hiding funds from anyone
Connor, I couldn't agree more. I'm surprised by some of the comments here--calling you woke etc. So strange! If you were suggesting that the Church should SEEK apologies, that would seem woke to me. But the principles that would guide the Church to ISSUE apologies are simply the principles of Christian discipleship. Of all organizations, the Church should be best at modeling apologies. And President Oaks' justification for not doing so ("the word apology isn't in the scriptures") is just silly. How many times do we read in the scriptures about confessing and forsaking sins, repenting, etc.? That excuse is like saying that the Church shouldn't worry about producing wholesome media because the word "media" isn't in the scriptures. Makes no sense. Clearly, if the leaders of the Church hope to inspire the people to repent, they need to model repentance. It's no wonder so many Church members struggle with the idea of confessing and forsaking their sins because they see so much resistance to the idea at the very top of the organization.
In my opinion, the Church doesn't issue apologies because (1) like you suggested, avoiding costly litigation and bad press seems more important to the Church than modeling repentance and (2) issuing apologies would call into question the Church's greatest heresy--that the president of the Church could never lead us astray. That heresy is too fundamental to our identity, and we'd seemingly rather maintain our idolatrous prophet-worship than model confessing and forsaking our sins. I agree with you -- do what is right and let the consequence follow.
I have always appreciated the example of the sons of Mosiah, whose conversion led them to travel throughout the church confessing and forsaking their sins--and their willingness to do so brought "much consolation" to the church. Certain leaders of the latter-day Church have engaged in egregious sins on behalf of the Church that have (1) led the Church astray, (2) alienated millions of people not of our faith, and (3) crippled the growth of the Church. From the priesthood ban and blood atonement and polygamy in the early years to jabs and shell companies and concealing abuse in the modern era--the Church has done a lot of bad stuff because the Church and its leaders and its members are all fallible. I guarantee, like you said, that issuing sincere apologies and forsaking institutional sins would increase trust, create healing, and lead to dramatic growth.
I don’t think that our church needs to apologize for their stance in regards to any of the rainbow brigade‘s point’s of view or anything. We have basic fundamentals of our church because they are passed down from God. Apologizing for that is it like saying God has made a mistake. God does not make mistakes; it is man who makes mistakes or intentionally does things. If you’re angry with the way that the church does things go straight to the source “God”. We’re also going under the assumption that because the rainbow brigade is upset about something that they must be correct. The only “correct” they have is being politically correct, which blows where ever the wind takes it.
Seek to take counsel from the Lord, not give it.
After the church corporation was fined by the SEC for creating shell companies to hide their assests and deceive the government and members of the church, how could anyone involved have a temple recommend? How does a person answer question #9, "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?" I quess when the Bishop asks me this question I can say, "mistakes were made, and I consider the matter closed."
If yuou have been through any formal repentance possible, you would know the weakness of your statement. There is no requirement to apologize, but to recognize your error. confess, and make restitution and sin no more. Did Christ tell the people accusing the woman of adultery - or the woman herself - to apologize? He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." and told her to "Go and sin no more."
The First Presidency and the Presiding Bishopric members all directed Ensign peak so they are the ones who misled.
Hinckley’s defensive answer about flicks of history was disappointing. The priesthood/temple ban came with 130 years of horrific statements justifying the ban and caused so much pain to so many people. The gospel topic essay on race denounced the reasons given for the ban but could have gone one step further to admit that the ban was a mistake of man and not from God, and apologize for the pain it has caused. Blaming God is taking his name in vain.
Never apologize in this online age. It's like admitting defeat.
Right cuz that’s what Christ taught.🤣🤦🏼♀️ Just save your own hide. Ridiculous.
A 10 year old girl told her little brother that he is stupid. The mom insisted that the girl apologize. So, the girl said to the little brother, "I'm sorry that you are stupid".
People who require apologies, for intentional or unintentional verbal "insults", need to learn how Not To Be Insulted. "An offender for a word" is how Jesus phrased it. Some people are so testy, so prickly, so uptight, so emotionally fragile that anything could be construed as offensive, insulting, hostile ... such as referring to a male as 'he', or to a 200 pound woman as 'large', or to a homosexual as ... hmmmm ... queer.
Oh, skip that last example; nowadays homosexuals call themselves queer ... and 200 pound woman call themselves large or 'plus sized'. I can't keep up with the current woke Offense Olympics.
Hey dummy your comment is out of context!🧐
Lol..me either
This isn't about apologizing when there's no real offense. This is about apologizing when something was done that was legitimately wrong - Black's and the Priesthood, banning children of same-sex couples' from being baptized, Mountain Meadows massacre, etc.
The Church should be "quick to apologize" but I think this is more about liability than anything else. If the Church "apologizes" it opens up possibility for litigation, right? If that is true, they should at least state that so that it gives the message "We regret this but cannot formally apologize for legal reason".
The victims of the mountain meadows massacre didn't choose to be insulted by bullets and blades. They lost their lives because of them.
@duncansh81 Black Polynesians, black Mid-Easterners, black Indonesians and black Indians never were Priesthood Prohibited. Only Sub Saharan Africans were prohibitted, due to a phenomenon referred as Jeffersonianism. Thomas Jefferson's biographers are at a loss to rectify his "all men are created equal" to his "Africans are a smelly, uneducated people".
This Jeffersonianism pervaded 1) the southern democrats' mentality (coupled with their greed to steal labor from their slaves) and 2) the US Air Force and 3) John Kennedy who told his Inaguration Gala Coordinator, Frank Sinatra, to dis-invite Sammy Davis Jr and 4) the LDS Apostles of the early 20th century. Gradually, this Jeffersonianism wore off and Spencer Kimball de-institutionalized this pervasive false notion. IF the LDS Church were to "apologize", what would that apology be? The official Church "apology" was to reverse the policy and ordain and endow people of Sub Saharan African decent, which began to occur immediately, world wide the day following the reversal.
Per Mountain Meadows, read my earlier comment regarding Pre-emptive Defensive Strikes.
As for not baptizing minor children of gay couples, research the legal issue of Familial Disenfranchisement. The Church is sensitive to teaching minor kids that their parents are overtly breaking God's commandments.
I think apologies are hard, admitting guilt is hard, shifting blame is easy. I think that refusing to apologize makes repentence hard. I think there are personal things in my life the church should apologize for. Beyond that we should never trust our spiritual safety and that of pur children to anyone blindly.
When honesty, integrity and reputation are the casualties, only unflinching recognition of past errors and bold assertions of truth can affect adequate enough course corrections.
We regret that some among our party acted foolishly. This is not the Church apologizing. President Oaks is right we don't apologize for the true Church of Jesus Christ that would be saying that Jesus Christ himself is sorry.. we do Express regret for some decisions that "some" make OR what transpires from what some do. Jesus Christ does not owe anyone an apology.. but the church or people that speak for the church can express regret for what some have believed or said or done.. But now I just see you going around dissecting what more than one leader of the church has said that you disagree with so now it's starting to feel like you are just being disagreeable. Gordon b Hinckley said. That that's what some leaders believed. He didn't focus on how they were wrong, nor did he apologize for them. So Connor Boyack knows better than many men who have been called of God? Isn't this kind of what pride is? Do you believe in the mantle? Do you think that you have some hidden knowledge that Gordon B Hinckley President Oaks and many others in the church we're clueless about? 15 men get together and make decisions without you brother.. 15 men get together and fervently pray ponder with issues with the Lord and also they have the mantle and authority to make decisions so I wouldn't doubt that some of the things that you have brought up have also crossed their minds plenty of times... pardon for the speech to text I was driving.
Connor, you argue that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should apologize for past mistakes or actions. You provide four reasons why you believe this is important: (1) repentance requires apology, (2) apologizing shows that the church fears God rather than man, (3) progress requires acknowledging and correcting past mistakes, and (4) apologizing builds trust and credibility.
You reference statements from Church leaders, including President Oaks, who said that the history of the Church is not to seek apologies or to give them. However, you also point out that there have been instances where the Church has apologized or expressed regret, such as in the case of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims.
You also discusses the importance of looking backward to learn from past mistakes and to make progress. You argue that the Church's stance on not apologizing may be based on fear of how others will respond, rather than a desire to do what is right.
So you in essense believe that apologizing is an important part of the repentance process and that the Church should model this behavior for its members. That apologizing builds trust and credibility and is necessary for progress. The 15 men who gather often prayfully with more education and lifes wisdom and revelation, inspiration would agree. However, it is important to note that even in the instances that you mentioned , it was NEVER the Church apologizing. Instead, they are only sources saying "we did" or authors from columns or pieces saying "we did". This distinction is crucial, as it highlights that THE LORD HIMSELF has not apologized, but rather individuals or sources have expressed regret or acknowledged mistakes. The TRUE CHURCH is infallible! JESUS CHRIST doesn't owe ANYONE an apology! That is why we only express regret for others decisions and/or mistakes. In Doctrine and Covenants 1:38, it says, 'What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself.' The Lord doesn't apologize for His actions or decisions. A single leader can apologize. But The leaders will not DARE APOLOGIZE for GOD!
Though they should be in sync, most of the time, The Gospel and the Church are quite different, otherwise it would not be under condemnation by Jesus. Jesus is not the Church, that is simply not true. Troy, I like your channel a lot, but I have noticed a change lately. Offer your own perspective. I think criticizing Connor will hurt you. I don't always agree with Connor either, but I appreciate his contribution like I do yours.
@@csmusix I'm not allowed to disagree with Connor? I am glad you like the channel . . You say "BUT" I have noticed a change lately, meaning the change isn't good in your eyes? I think the changes are spiritually safer.
@@TheLastDispensation you are most definitely allowed to disagree, I am suggesting that it will not help you. Here is my #1 concern about your channel and a few others like it. Priestcraft is preaching for money. When you call us brothers and sisters and then do more lecture format than your opinion format it feels preachy to me. Then you ask for money, what am I to think? Now if you are selling t-shirts, a book you wrote, etc. I am ok with that. I like Ward Radio as well but I don't like them necessarily asking for money. I do like it when you give your opinions and ideas, those are interesting and helpful.
@@csmusix That isn't the definition of priestcraft. “Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion" (2 Nephi 26:29) . . I seek the WELFARE OF ZION! . . And I set Christ up for a light to the world, not myself. Anymore than this gentelman here. I also am nit "CHURCH" I am an independant content creator that talks about many things.
@@TheLastDispensation, Troy I couldn't ask for money and feel ok about it. Perhaps that is just me. I do feel you are a very faithful and good person and I feel the same about Connor. I do have a concern about Deseret Book as well something about it seems off and eerily familiar to the money changers that I have to navigate before I can get my temple clothing. I hope Connor does a musing on Deseret Book in the near future.
You mentioned that the church is under condemnation. Have you done an episode on this to explain the reasons you feel this to be true? I feel this as well but haven’t been able to fully square my thoughts on it.
So you think the Lord has condemnation for his church. I do not see the fruits of that.
Yes. Institutional repentance cannot take place until then.
You mentioned that you had to apologise for your own mistakes, that's fine, but you mother and father didn't have to apologise for you. Elder Holland apologised for personal comments he made. He did not apologise for someone else or the church. Why should the current members of the church suffer because you want an apology. The ones who did these things will have to answer for them. The people living today should not be paying for it, the church needs to improve by actions, that is more effective. People need help today, that should be our focus, not to bankrupt the church and its people today.
It won’t matter. The church has apologized before. They have admitted mistakes. All that contrition meant nothing but more lawsuits and “told you so’s”. Did it change anything? No. The reality is people who don’t like the church just won’t like it. We slice and dice the words to death - apology vs regret - and build all kinds of false moral requirements like saying the ACTUAL word apologize or it doesn’t mean anything. 🙄. In the end, it doesn’t matter.
This is a really immature view of repentance. Apologizing never promises an easier life afterword. But it’s the right thing to do when you’ve done something wrong.
@@noespensos is it immature? No reason to call me that, but I’ll play along. Can you tell me in scripture where it says saying “I apologize” is part of repentance?. Is saying “deeply regret” better or worse? Quibbling about the words used seems rather immature. Furthermore, let’s be honest about what is driving this. Is it true repentance? Or is it some public contrition? Yes, the demands are more for a public humiliation of some kind, or an “I told you so”. In the context of repentance, is pres hinckley supposed to apologize for something another man (BY) did over a hundred years ago? That’s not even doctrinal! The church corrected course and fixed a bad policy. Should every generation and every leader constantly apologize forevermore? That’s not scriptural either. Once something is made right, it is done. It is over. We move on. It is history. That’s section 58, again scriptural. So, is what I said really that immature? No, it’s not. However, there is a good argument that demanding the church keep apologizing very every mistake leaders from Joseph forward ever make is not just immature, it is unrealistic, absurd, and not even remotely doctrinal.
when has the church apologized for anything?
and there we have it!! Even when they do and express deep regret, it is never enough. Didn’t you listen to the podcast? Oh, well they didn’t say the exact words you wanted! When does it end? How can one man apologize for another’s mistakes? How can a church, which is only an entity apologize and repent for a man’s mistakes? Which offenses shall be brought forth in sackcloth and ashes before the world? Which ones shall be ignored? Nope…it never ends. Demands for apologies are impossible, so the church corrects and moves on. You may not like it, but there is no other relevant way.
@@jeremybelinski7713 the limit to your ethics is if it’s in the scriptures? (Trump voice) sad. If an institution does something wrong, the institution can make a statement apologizing. Not a hard concept to understand unless your worldview relies on believing the church is perfect and can do no wrong.
Apologies or saying sorry implies guilt. The church won’t apologize because it’s not guilty as a whole.
AMEN to point #3!!!! (Around minute 27)
What you said at ~32:00, 100%. And I think the church would do a lot of healing and unifying if an apology took place.
This is all really well done and said. Appreciate these principles openly discussed.
An apology not only builds trust and respect, but it also reaffirms that we are all people who make mistakes and we are reminded to turn to the Lord and rely on Him, not flesh. To think that any person or organization would never need to make an apology because they are above making mistakes is actually sourced in pride.
If we truly believe that man is accountable for their own sins and not Adam's transgressions, and the church is made up of individuals, is it the church that apologizes on behalf of the individuals, or are they accountable for their own sins or transgressions?
An apology is an excuse. To express regret for something seems more appropriate to me. Especially if we are talking about the church dealing with things imperfect people of the church do or say. This seems to be a non issue to me. Just something more for those who choose to be offended to demand of others.
Apology, as a word, seems to mean "I acknowledge that I did wrong". But, that acknowledgement must be accompanied by Mosaic Restitution. Eye For An Eye means to repair the damage that you have caused. Simply saying "Ooops, my bad. Sorry" ain't good enough. Apology , as an act, means to make whole.
I have never had any misunderstanding of church leaders thinking or saying they are perfect or never makeing errors. I believe thry are guiding us with light most of the time which is why they typically or alway preface statements as words from the church leaders versus these guys speaking as men. Not sure how some have such a hard time with this subject.
The top priority of the church is reputation. It is all about maintaining the good name of the church, or doing what is best for the church. Doing what Jesus would do, or doing what is right, is irrelevant to them. They won't think twice about excommunicating an innocent member simply in the interest of preserving or improving their reputation or financial interests. Their moral code is very corporate.
Can you imagine what Jesus would have done if he had had a team of lawyers to advise him and if he had heeded them. That's the difference. The LDS church is absolutely not the church of Christ. It's the church of lawyers and corporate interests. It's the church of following the prophet and temple attendance. The Doctrine of Christ is merely a talking point.
I think you answered your question, individuals should apologies, but the Church should not apologize for individual actions. If the Profit or any of us makes a mistake he/we can apologise for it. But the Church cannot sin because it is not a soul, so it has no need to apologize. Regretting is enough for me along with making amends when we can. As we look backward we do learn and correct and move forward.
Interests video (again). We look backward when we remember Jesus Christ, when we study the Old Testament, when we liken any scripture to ourselves, and when the Church honored the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s First Vision.
They talked about following Jesus Christ, repentances, and being good examples in General conferences and magazines, but the repentances don't apply to them in action. The apostles of old who walked with Christ side by sides and seeing the miracles that Jesus performed. Yet they still made mistakes and they repented and willing to humble themselves. I guess the leaders these days who never walk with Christ and see Christ face to face must be "Perfect er" than the prophets of old!
Most of the “they” that you judge have spent decades of selfless service to the Lord. Can you say that?
@user-tz3zl1kr7r most of "they" spend spend decades to become the businessmen, CEOs, doctors, lawer and doctors, or politicians serving themselves first, then they got notice by the top, become noticed by the top. The seventies are great paid, a quarter millions as seventies. I personally know one seventy and one of the 12th. They are rich. They didn't spend decades to serve full time volunteers. They people that who really spent decades to sever or work for the church were president Hinckley and Monson or some leaders before them without much wealth profiles. I am looking forward to see they actually called a farmer to be in the leadership position.
@user-tz3zl1kr7r you mean decades to become millionaires as lawyers, doctors, CEOs, politicians? Then, called into the seventies to live million dollars apartments, and getting quarter millions salaries? No many people like president Hinckley and Monson who actually serve decades in the church
With the Lord's kingdom on the earth, as members, apologizing is key and also part of the repentance process. Just because you're an institution, that does not eliminate the need for the institution to do the same. Hypocritical to teach that members need to apologize repent and change and yet the organization itself does not. Another note, covenant path is not in the scriptures either and yet we use it over and over again. Maybe I'm old school, I always liked endure to the end.
Accountability shows up in scriptures
Connor, what exactly is your agenda?!
They should acknowledge mistakes and trust the Lord to fight their battles. The bandage must be large enough to cover the wound. What is necessary to acknowledge/ correct past wrongs is the question. But ignoring faults is not the way to move forward.
Where do you find that ignoring your faults is the way to move forward . I’ve never heard that from leaders, or mentioned in the Scriptures.
@@user-tz3zl1kr7r reread what I said…
As a world wide institution, the church’s credibility is in question. I agree, why should I apologize for my transgressions, if the church just “looks forward and not backward”? It looks hypocritical, looses respect. They are men, not Gods. They err. When did God ever choose his prophets by consensus? Not until Brigham Young was this a practice. So yes the church is under condemnation.
The Church is under your condemnation?
You’re missing the very important distinction between apologizing (first person) and regret (which can be personal, but also regret for 3rd party actions).
We regret that some among our party acted foolishly. This is not the Church apologizing.
Connor, you bring up a lot of really good points in your Sunday Musings. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. It's okay, I don't have to agree with everything you say. Don't stop bringing what you feel is important to light.
If I follow the “Leaders’ example I never need to be responsible of my past offenses whether they were years ago or my offense 5 minutes ago.
Where does repentance in this guide fit in?
If we avoid the steps of repentance, there is no forgiveness!
I’ve never heard the leaders say avoid the steps of repentance. I don’t think following the leaders examples, will lead to what you are suggesting.
Agree whole-heartedly!!!
Yes. The Church has A LOT to apologize for. It probably won’t happen, but it should.
Institutions are different than individuals imo. I don't think the church as an institution should apologize for a few reasons:
1. Apologies are admissions of guilt and lead to litigation as you mentioned. Sacred tithing funds going to the world seems ridiculous to me. Seems like giving the Lord's money to worldly groups is backwards. I saw too many impoverished saints in Argentina on my mission sacrificing their precious funds why should these humble saints pay and especially for events they are so far removed (which leads to my next point).
2. We should be punished for our own sins. I'm a black member of the church which obviously brings up the question of the priesthood ban. Should I be apologizing the the temple/priesthood ban against black people? Should our general authorities who played a role in extending the blessings to the entire world apologize? Even before 1978 before the official declaration some faithful members of the church actively fought against the ban.
3. History and groups. Most of the examples of events to apologize for are in the past and/or done by small groups or individuals. Mountain meadows massacre was a small group of individuals and doesn't reflect the actions or beliefs of the entire church. Past beliefs like the priesthood ban or past comments don't reflect our current beliefs. We shouldn't be judged by the mistakes of our parents and forefathers.
Really the only argument I see is for current churchwide policy, but I don't see any examples of that. Maybe in the future we will look back and see areas of error, but as far as world wide offical church policy I can't think of anything. EVen in this case, church leaders are imperfect and will make mistakes, but that doesn't reflect God's church. Additionally, I think we church members need to apologize to God not God's church apologizing to the world.
However, I am imperfect myself. I could be wrong and I enjoy this discussion. I'm open to arguments against these points!
👍
They should apologize to current members, ex members AND repent.
Connor, the dismissing of the Church’s responsibility to apologize for its past in its entirety speaks to a lack of understanding of generational sin and iniquity. The nature of generational sin is it must be repented of just as current sin requires it. Until both generational sin and current sin is repented of, both at the individual level as well as at the organizational level, the suffering of the people will not be alleviated by covenantal deliverance. To say we look do not backward and we don’t apologize destroys the hope of future deliverance because God won’t deliver the unrepentant both individually and collectively within an organization until the covenant is kept. It is kept via complete and full repentance as individuals and as people.
No such thing as generational sin. Period.
@@JakobPGrauAmen. We are responsible for our own sins, not Adam’s transgressions
Seems like just semantics if I say I regret something that’s like an apology to me
The Difference between Sorry and Apology - Meanings
You might have seen people saying ‘sorry’ or asking for an ‘apology’, and you might think that both are the same. But there’s a subtle difference between these two terms. The word ‘sorry’ is used to express remorse or sympathy. The word ‘sorry’ has a personal essence in it. Whereas the word ‘apology’ is used in a formal tone and used to represent the feeling of regret one has after doing something wrong. While being apologetic, one might or might not be sorry for what they did wrong, for example, ‘Sheldon faked an apology for his rude behaviour though he didn’t regret his actions for a moment.’ Another example is ‘Raj was sorry for not being able to attend his mother’s birthday.’ Once students understand this basic point of difference, it will be easier for them to use these words accurately.
Regret implies repentance while apology is asking for forgiveness.
The most common definition of apologize is to express regret. The church does this. But there are also other baked in meanings (like your legal council example and mentioned by Oaks).
An apology should come from the perpetrator to the victims. Why should the Church apologize to me or the general public for what Brigham said? The public isn't a victim and the Church didn't do it. But we do regret it (repent).
Also, more importantly, an apology implies that the victim or public has the power to hold the church accountable or under condemnation. It's not appropriate for God's Church to treat itself as accountable to anybody other than God. The Church seeks forgiveness from God, not the general public.
The church is a big complicated organization. It would be so much easier to run a local community church instead of something with so many parts running all over the world with so many volunteers. I think it’s important to look at the big picture instead of focusing on the inevitable problems that pop up. People like train wrecks and drama. Those always attract attention.