Has Our Church Made Mistakes?

[Bini]

For example, Catholics have acknowledged that in the past there has been a blind eye turned towards sexual abuse within the church, and it's now an issue that's being addressed head-on. Has our church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, made mistakes? I'm not referring to when a member or members violates church regulations, I'm wondering more along the lines of the LDS Church as a whole taking responsibility for a mistake made and having to do damage control. Has it ever happened in the history of our Church?

[NeuroTypical]

Regarding sexual abuse, the LDS church went through the same scandals and growing pains the Catholics did, just about a decade earlier.

We took responsibility by beefing up member records and making permanent annotations possible, so predators couldn't move around from ward to ward.

We've also done things like stick windows in classroom doors, mandate the 2 brethren rule for teaching sunday school/primary, created that toll-free number for leaders to call when they hear about abuse, increased training, and other things.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the Church (via President Eyring?) has issued a more-or-less apology for Mountain Meadows, and it has disavowed (via Elders Holland and Oaks?) some of the potential explanations for the priesthood ban that in the past have been floated by a number of influential Mormons (including some GA's).

But I'm not aware that it's ever apologized for an institutional action or universally-adopted teaching (as opposed to the actions of members or groups of members who happened to be LDS).

[Wingnut]

For example, Catholics have acknowledged that in the past there has been a blind eye turned towards sexual abuse within the church, and it's now an issue that's being addressed head-on. Has our church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, made mistakes? I'm not referring to when a member or members violates church regulations, I'm wondering more along the lines of the LDS Church as a whole taking responsibility for a mistake made and having to do damage control. Has it ever happened in the history of our Church?

See Official Declarations 1 and 2.

[prisonchaplain]

I think the Church (via President Eyring?) has issued a more-or-less apology for Mountain Meadows, and it has disavowed (via Elders Holland and Oaks?) some of the potential explanations for the priesthood ban that in the past have been floated by a number of influential Mormons (including some GA's).

But I'm not aware that it's ever apologized for an institutional action or universally-adopted teaching (as opposed to the actions of members or groups of members who happened to be LDS).

Critics would never be satisfied--even with a full-blown, tear-streaming apology for perceived wrongs. On the other hand, I find it healthy that there is room for correcting opinions-as-doctrine--especially those that were sensitive/difficult and proffered by high-level leaders.

[annewandering]

When the church is manned by people it will make mistakes. It was a mistake to not deal with Mountain Meadows Massacre years before. Dont know that it would have made a difference but it would have been the right thing to do. Sometimes mistakes are made, not by the church but by the members as a whole. It has been made clear that if we reject truth then it is taken from us. The United Order is an example. I dont know if polygamy is or not.

Anyway, I am sure we could dig up examples if we try hard enough. The point really is that until Christ returns publicly we are going to be making mistakes. Best to recognize them and move on.

[selek]

See Official Declarations 1 and 2.

Call For References: Where in either of these statements is there an admission that the Church acted wrongly or in error?

It was a mistake to not deal with Mountain Meadows Massacre years before.

Mountain Meadows is something important to me- enough to have researched it and to have made a pilgrimage there.

Out of morbid curiousity, what precisely do you feel we as a Church should have "done" to deal with it?

The Church does not handle law enforcement (and has no business doing so), and the territorial governor assured Church leadership (when the Church itself was pressing for an investigation) that the Massacre was covered under the General Amnesty which ended Buchanan's Folly.

So what, precisely, do you feel should have been done which was not already?

Edited June 8, 2013 by selek
fixed quote function

[annewandering]

I appreciate that you are defending the church. So am I. The church finally put all the facts together in a book about mountain meadows. It had been used by the antis for years but now they have no grounds for claiming a cover up. They can claim that but we know it is not true. That is what should have been done long ago. It is easier to see that now with hindsight of course.

Hindsight is what is useful to see where we should have done something different or better. There is nothing wrong with that if we learn from it.

God does not make mistakes. Jesus does not make mistakes. We, however, are neither of them and do make mistakes. We make up the church so the church makes mistakes as we make them.

Do you see what I mean, Selek? If not then lets just assume we do not understand what the other is trying to say and let it go at that. :)

[selek]

I appreciate that you are defending the church. So am I. The church finally put all the facts together in a book about mountain meadows. It had been used by the antis for years but now they have no grounds for claiming a cover up. They can claim that but we know it is not true. That is what should have been done long ago. It is easier to see that now with hindsight of course.

So your argument is not that the Church handles the Massacre itself or the immediate aftermath incorrectly, but that the leadership should have been more proactive in getting a scholarly and reasonably unbiased rendition of what actually happened "on the market", so to speak.

I can see the merits of that argument.

I may not agree with it for a number of reasons, but it's not an unreasonable argument.

[annewandering]

The church didnt do the massacre so its kinda hard to handle that part. :) but yes you have understood what I mean.

[Wingnut]

Call For References: Where in either of these statements is there an admission that the Church acted wrongly or in error?

My remark was geared more toward Bini's comments regarding damage control.

[rayhale]

Didn’t the Church apologize about how it handled the issue of homosexuality on mormonsandgays.org? Like apologizing for telling people to marry, even though they really don't love their spouse, as a husband, and wife should. They also did an ‘I’m sorry, but that was the conventional wisdom of the medical professionals,’ form of an apology, when talking about some of the techniques used, by medical professionals, to try to make someone not gay. Edited June 9, 2013 by rayhale

[selek]

Didn’t the Church apologize about how it handled the issue of homosexuality on mormonsandgays.org? Like apologizing for telling people to marry, even though they really don't love their spouse, as a husband, and wife should. They also did an ‘I’m sorry, but that was the conventional wisdom of the medical professionals,’ form of an apology, when talking about some of the techniques used, by medical professionals, to try to make someone not gay.

Got any citations and actual quotes for this?

Or is this just another example of the "The Mormons finally call a homosexual to a leadership position" phenomenon of wishful thinking and self-parody?

[LittleWyvern]

I think we're comparing apples to oranges here. We can't do this comparison directly to a church like the Catholic Church where the canon of what constitutes doctrine is essentially closed. It's a lot harder for them to admit to have done something or taught something wrong, because where else are they going to go? There is no concept of continuing revelation, so arguments against the practice or doctrine now considered wrong must somehow find a foothold in the past.

In the LDS Church, we have the concept of continuing revelation, which allows our knowledge of doctrines to grow and improve over time. Therefore, we don't say a past practice is wrong, but instead that it was incomplete an action that lacked the knowledge that has since been revealed. This is why President McConkie can say something like this:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

...and be completely consistent. Such a statement would make much less sense in a church with a closed canon.

[Just_A_Guy]

Got any citations and actual quotes for this?

Or is this just another example of the "The Mormons finally call a homosexual to a leadership position" phenomenon of wishful thinking and self-parody?

No, this rings a bell to me, too. It may have come from a semi-official channel like Elder Jensen or something, but I think there also were some expressions of regret for some of the more extreme tactics used in the prop 8 campaign (though, of course, not for the stance itself or the fact that the church got involved).

[prisonchaplain]

Got any citations and actual quotes for this?

Or is this just another example of the "The Mormons finally call a homosexual to a leadership position" phenomenon of wishful thinking and self-parody?

Several blogs and gay advocacy sites had mention of the "apology" by Elder Jensen. It took me awhile to find a source that would be appropriate to link here.

On Elder Marlin Jensen, Proposition 8 Apologies, and the Future of Mormonism - Flunking Sainthood

[selek]

Several blogs and gay advocacy sites had mention of the "apology" by Elder Jensen. It took me awhile to find a source that would be appropriate to link here.

On Elder Marlin Jensen, Proposition 8 Apologies, and the Future of Mormonism - Flunking Sainthood

Ayep- that was the incident to which I was referring- and the mad scramble of critics, apostates, and fools reading into his statement what they wanted to hear.

Elder Jensen and the Exploitation of the Sacred Moments

President Jensen was neither speaking on behalf of the Church nor authorized to do so, nor were his words accurately recorded in their entirety for all the world to hear.

Every person who promoted this particular bit of foolscap (from John Dehlin to Joanna Brooks to Carol Lynn Pearson) is an outspoken critic of the Church publicly agitating for a variety of concessions on their pet ideologies- and has been demonstrated to be willing to "fudge" things towards that end.

No credible witness believes or suggests that Jensen was making an official apology on behalf of the Church so much as sympathizing with those who are in pain.

There is also a vast world of difference between, "I am sorry that you are hurting" and "I am sorry we hurt you."

Every single hit on the first three pages (and nearly all of the fourth and fifth pages, as well) of Google for the phrase "Marlin K. Jensen apology" goes to an anti-Mormon propaganda site.

Every single one.

Keep in mind also, that this is exactly the same crowd that twisted another of the good Elder's statements to suggest that the Church is dying- despite all evidence to the contrary, and then painted his "emeritus" status as "punishment" for his "moral courage".

Reports of the Death of the Church are Greatly Exaggerated | FAIR Blog

Edited June 10, 2013 by selek

[rayhale]

I can’t find the video, but one of the General Authorities made a long interview talking about the gay issue, this was before mormonandgays.org. He did mention that the Church has, in the past, encouraged gays, to marry, and now, they don’t encourage it. Does anyone know what I’m talking about? I think it was ether Elder Bednar, or Oaks (?).

Edited June 10, 2013 by rayhale

[Dravin]

I can’t find the video, but one of the General Authorities made a long interview talking about the gay issue, this was before mormonandgays.org. He did mention that the Church has, in the past, encouraged gays, to marry, and now, they don’t encourage it. Does anyone know what I’m talking about? I think it was ether Elder Bednar, or Oaks (?).

Are you thinking of this? Interview With Elder Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Lance B. Wickman: Same-Gender Attraction

Snippet concerning therapy:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is therapy of any kind a legitimate course of action if we’re talking about controlling behavior? If a young man says, “Look, I really want these feelings to go away… I would do anything for these feelings to go away,” is it legitimate to look at clinical therapy of some sort that would address those issues?

ELDER WICKMAN: Well, it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’

Now, that’s not to say it’s not appropriate for somebody with that affliction to seek appropriate clinical help to examine whether in his or her case there’s something that can be done about it. This is an issue that those in psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not. From the Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters.

ELDER OAKS: Amen to that. Let me just add one more thought. The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.

The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used.

Snippet concerning marriage as a remedy:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?

ELDER OAKS: We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Dravin

[rayhale]

That looks like what I’m talking about, I wish the video was still available. Reading it, it does look more like, ‘I’m sorry your offended,’ type of an apology, if anything. This is why I love the internet, so I can read, or watch the original, than go on memory alone.

[selek]

That looks like what I’m talking about, I wish the video was still available. Reading it, it does look more like, ‘I’m sorry your offended,’ type of an apology, if anything. This is why I love the internet, so I can read, or watch the original, than go on memory alone.

Amen and amen.

One of the things I was looking for last night was the plethora of in-depth analysis (from a faithful perspective) of Elder Jensen's "apology".

Very frustrating to come up empty-handed when I participated in the conversations at the time they occured.

[Suzie]

I'm wondering more along the lines of the LDS Church as a whole taking responsibility for a mistake made and having to do damage control. Has it ever happened in the history of our Church?

Hmmmm...I don't think you will find a clear apology or recognition of a mistake but perhaps you might find a "sort of" apology in the form of damage control or a clear renunciation of previous teachings by Church leaders in some of the following:

1. Priesthood Ban

2. Baptism for the dead (Holocaust victims)

3. Sexual abuse

4. Mountain Meadows

5. Gay issues

[Just_A_Guy]

Hmmmm...I don't think you will find a clear apology or recognition of a mistake but perhaps you might find a "sort of" apology in the form of damage control or a clear renunciation of previous teachings by Church leaders in some of the following:

1. Priesthood Ban

2. Baptism for the dead (Holocaust victims)

3. Sexual abuse

4. Mountain Meadows

5. Gay issues

It's interesting how sometimes, the Church's "apology" for one problematic policy turns out--intentionally or otherwise--to reaffirm another policy that was deemed problematic in the past.

Example: What does the Church do about those offended by proxy temple ordinances for Holocaust victims? Why, it imposes a new "priesthood ban"--this time, directed at Jews who happen to be dead.

(The Mormon Left hasn't quite figured this one out yet, though. )

[Guest]

I would just to correct these 2 false statements about the Catholic Church.

For example, Catholics have acknowledged that in the past there has been a blind eye turned towards sexual abuse within the church, and it's now an issue that's being addressed head-on.

The Catholic Church NEVER turned a blind eye towards sexual abuse. Think about it - this is the Catholic Church - a church even more conservative than the LDS when it comes to sexual matters.

What the Catholic Church did is try to handle the criminal matter of sexual abuse within its Priesthood in their own Ecclesiastical process instead of handing it over to the responsible governments. The purpose was never to "hide" the crime but rather, the Catholic Church believed that they can put their faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning power to bring back a lost Priest to his vows through spiritual rehabilitation. Remember, it takes a very long road of intensive theological and spiritual training to ordain a Catholic Priest. They don't just make any upright 12-year-old hold the Priesthood. Therefore, the Catholic Church tried to deal with the issue using the special spiritual repentance process of Catholic Priests to rehabilitate the priest instead of "giving them to the wolves" of secular justice.

The Catholic Church apologized in their error in thinking that Catholic priests can be made exempt from their respective government's justice system.

I think we're comparing apples to oranges here. We can't do this comparison directly to a church like the Catholic Church where the canon of what constitutes doctrine is essentially closed. It's a lot harder for them to admit to have done something or taught something wrong, because where else are they going to go? There is no concept of continuing revelation, so arguments against the practice or doctrine now considered wrong must somehow find a foothold in the past.

A closed canon does not mean that the Catholic Church is absent revelation. This is a common misconception of the Catholic Church by LDS members. What a closed canon implies is that there will not be any new doctrine that will be revealed before the coming of Christ. Therefore, in Catholic belief, the LDS Church cannot possibly be true because it introduces doctrines that are not present in existing canon - such as Pre-mortal existence and baptism of the dead.

A closed canon does not prevent revelation through the Holy Spirit in the same manner that the presence of a living Prophet in the LDS Church does not prevent revelation through the Holy Spirit directly to its members. The Catholic faith stands on 3 legs - Sacred Scripture (Bible), Sacred Tradition (Catholic beliefs that were orally handed down from Jesus Christ through the Apostles and the faithful that are not present in the Bible such as the organization of the Church), and the Magesterium (teaching authority of the Bishops headed by the Pope). The pope, therefore, has the authority to correct mis-interpretations of mis-applications of canon (such as the belief that the earth is the center of the universe) or clarification of existing canon (such as the fate of babies who die before baptism), etc.

[MarginOfError]

It's interesting how sometimes, the Church's "apology" for one problematic policy turns out--intentionally or otherwise--to reaffirm another policy that was deemed problematic in the past.

Example: What does the Church do about those offended by proxy temple ordinances for Holocaust victims? Why, it imposes a new "priesthood ban"--this time, directed at Jews who happen to be dead.

(The Mormon Left hasn't quite figured this one out yet, though. )

That isn't quite true. Holocaust victims, as I understand, may still be baptized by proxy so long as their names are submitted by a direct descendant. In other words, if my grandfather had been a holocaust victim and I had converted, I would still be permitted to do his work.