Not offering an apology when the right occasion arose seems like monumentally bad PR. I am wondering if this decision was forced by a particular hardline Apostle?
However, John Paul believed that repentance would transform the church and enable it to lead the world into a "new springtime of Christianity.
I think this reasoning behind Pope John Paul II's apology would have sufficed in winning the approval of the Mormon Church membership, as well as putting this issue to rest.
moksha wrote:Not offering an apology when the right occasion arose seems like monumentally bad PR. I am wondering if this decision was forced by a particular hardline Apostle?
The LDS Church continues to affirm my decision to quit attending a year ago. Just when you think you might have been too hard on the old CoJCoLDS, they pull a boner like this. It is one thing to refrain from a straightforward apology, but it takes a special kind of bonehead, or collection of them, to do something this deficient in class.
Thanks again, LDS Church, for keeping me the hell away from you.
*I have edited this once for spelling, and once to remove strong language that I think it best to refrain from using in a public forum.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Trevor wrote:It is one thing to refrain from a straightforward apology, but is takes a special kind of dickhead, or collection of them, to do something this deficient in class.
I think this situation is a result of the people in charge, not in the church itself. As a general rule, our general authority leaders are in a class by themselves, isolated from the rest of the world, with an exaggerated opinion of their own importance in the eyes of God. For many of them, their egos far outweigh their true worth. I truly think that some of them are savvy enough and compassionate enough to be heavy-hearted at the antics of the rest of them. Surely there are some who are ashamed of their brethren. Unfortunately for us all, we are judged by the lowest common denominator. And equally unfortunately for us, our lowest common denominator is pretty danged low.
Trevor wrote:The LDS Church continues to affirm my decision to quit attending a year ago. Just when you think you might have been too hard on the old CoJCoLDS, they pull a boner like this. It is one thing to refrain from a straightforward apology, but is takes a special kind of dickhead, or collection of them, to do something this deficient in class.
Thanks again, LDS Church, for keeping me the hell away from you.
I'm sitting here reading this aloud to my dh (he participates in message boards vicariously through me), and he wanted me to ad a great big
DITTO from him.
Trevor wrote:The LDS Church continues to affirm my decision to quit attending a year ago. Just when you think you might have been too hard on the old CoJCoLDS, they pull a boner like this. It is one thing to refrain from a straightforward apology, but is takes a special kind of dickhead, or collection of them, to do something this deficient in class.
Thanks again, LDS Church, for keeping me the hell away from you.
I'm sitting here reading this aloud to my dh (he participates in message boards vicariously through me), and he wanted me to ad a great big DITTOfrom him.
I am a bit puzzled by this kind of self-righteousness. I would think that if one were of a mind to resort to snubbery in this way, it would be for something more immediate (rather than something that occured 150 years in the past), it would be for something the snubbed party is demonstrably responsible for (rather than something based on mere rumors and conjectures regarding members who have long been dead that are indirectly tied to those being snubbed), and for something of significance like rank bigotry (rather than for an expression of deep regret in lieu of an apology for something the snubbed parties never did). But, that may just be me.
Trevor wrote:The LDS Church continues to affirm my decision to quit attending a year ago. Just when you think you might have been too hard on the old CoJCoLDS, they pull a boner like this. It is one thing to refrain from a straightforward apology, but is takes a special kind of dickhead, or collection of them, to do something this deficient in class.
Thanks again, LDS Church, for keeping me the hell away from you.
I'm sitting here reading this aloud to my dh (he participates in message boards vicariously through me), and he wanted me to ad a great big DITTOfrom him.
I am a bit puzzled by this kind of self-righteousness. I would think that if one were of a mind to resort to snubbery in this way, it would be for something more immediate (rather than something that occured 150 years in the past), it would be for something the snubbed party is demonstrably responsible for (rather than something based on mere rumors and conjectures regarding members who have long been dead that are indirectly tied to those being snubbed), and for something of significance like rank bigotry (rather than for an expression of deep regret in lieu of an apology for something the snubbed parties never did). But, that may just be me.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I just think the situation was handled poorly. I don't understand why the Church PR felt the need to come back and make a big point about the statement not being an apology. If they had left well enough alone, and just gone with the first statement, I think everyone, or at least the majority, would have been happy with that.
It just seems that the second statement was a slap in the face.
What are your thoughts on the necessity of the second statement, Wade?
wenglund wrote:I am a bit puzzled by this kind of self-righteousness. I would think that if one were of a mind to resort to snubbery in this way, it would be for something more immediate (rather than something that occured 150 years in the past), it would be for something the snubbed party is demonstrably responsible for (rather than something based on mere rumors and conjectures regarding members who have long been dead that are indirectly tied to those being snubbed), and for something of significance like rank bigotry (rather than for an expression of deep regret in lieu of an apology for something the snubbed parties never did). But, that may just be me.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Well, Wade, the decision not to apologize, and then to put an exclamation mark on that decision by saying, "in case you misinterpreted what we did say as an apology, it wasn't," happened today, not 150 years ago. I would not snub the Church for the MMM. People and groups make mistakes. I snub them for how they behave in the present. Whether you agree with me or not, please do not pretend as though I am talking about 150 years ago, when I am clearly referring to present events.
harmony wrote:I think this situation is a result of the people in charge, not in the church itself. As a general rule, our general authority leaders are in a class by themselves, isolated from the rest of the world, with an exaggerated opinion of their own importance in the eyes of God. For many of them, their egos far outweigh their true worth. I truly think that some of them are savvy enough and compassionate enough to be heavy-hearted at the antics of the rest of them. Surely there are some who are ashamed of their brethren. Unfortunately for us all, we are judged by the lowest common denominator. And equally unfortunately for us, our lowest common denominator is pretty danged low.
I hope you understand that by referring to a singular individual, and then expanding it, I was basically talking about either one, or a group of, Church leaders. If a few hardliners are going to paint the rest of the Church in this way, it is time for more reasonable people in the leadership to take action. Lack of action against wrongdoing is also grounds for culpability. You can't just say, "Boyd made me," or, "I just can't rein Boyd in," and expect not to be considered responsible. The Church should not be run on a "lowest common denominator" basis. I should think a religious organization would exist to lift people above that low mark, not facilitate their groveling there.
harmony wrote:I think this situation is a result of the people in charge, not in the church itself. As a general rule, our general authority leaders are in a class by themselves, isolated from the rest of the world, with an exaggerated opinion of their own importance in the eyes of God. For many of them, their egos far outweigh their true worth. I truly think that some of them are savvy enough and compassionate enough to be heavy-hearted at the antics of the rest of them. Surely there are some who are ashamed of their brethren. Unfortunately for us all, we are judged by the lowest common denominator. And equally unfortunately for us, our lowest common denominator is pretty danged low.
I hope you understand that by referring to a singular individual, and then expanding it, I was basically talking about either one, or a group of, Church leaders. If a few hardliners are going to paint the rest of the Church in this way, it is time for more reasonable people in the leadership to take action. Lack of action against wrongdoing is also grounds for culpability. You can't just say, "Boyd made me," or, "I just can't rein Boyd in," and expect not to be considered responsible. The Church should not be run on a "lowest common denominator" basis. I should think a religious organization would exist to lift people above that low mark, not facilitate their groveling there.
I see uncommon humanity in members who, every day, serve others and each other at the local level. The higher up the food chain I look, the more I see individual egos playing larger and larger parts, less and less service, less and less personal responsibility. The church is not a democracy; it's not even a theocracy. It's a tightly run organization headed by a few families of Mormon royalty with little if any direct communication with the nominal head. Lay the blame for this miserable debacle where it belongs, not where it doesn't.
The church is not God. The church is not the leaders. The church is the body of members, none of which have any power to make changes.