35 years ago here in the United States, the State of Massachusetts passed an Apology Law, and today about 39 states have them. These are laws that say a physician can’t have his/her admission of sorrow used in a malpractice case as an admission of guilt. These laws came about after years of doctors being told by their lawyers to never apologize for a mistake, as it will be used against them in any future lawsuit. The idea behind enacting these laws is that, with an apology and explanation of what caused the unanticipated outcome, a patient would be less likely to seek answers through a medical malpractice claim. Saying “I’m sorry” may cut costs and increase efficiency.
So what would happen if our church was run by a lawyer? Oh, wait, it is! Elder Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice is 1st counselor in the First Presidency. Due to the other two members age, health and personalities, I believe that Pres Oaks probably has an overly significant influence on decisions by the FP than what a normal counselor would have.
Thus we have Elder Oaks in a 2015 interview say the church doesn’t “seek apologies, and we don’t give them.” If you serach church history, you’ll find this is correct. The church has NEVER issued an apology. They came close in 2007 when Elder Erying said this about the Mountain Meadows Massacre:
“We express profound regret for the massacre carried out in this valley 150 years ago today, and for the undue and untold suffering experienced by the victims then and by their relatives to the present time”
Elder Eyring, 2007
The head of the Mountain Meadows Massacre Descendants group was happy and said “This is as close as we’ve ever gotten to an apology, so for the time being, we’ll take it.” But the church could not let that happiness last. Church leaders were adamant that the statement should not be construed as an apology. “We don’t use the word ‘apology.’ We used ‘profound regret,'” church spokesman Mark Tuttle told The Associated Press.
The Church likes when other institutions apologize. In 2008 the Mormon Newsroom (small victory for Satan) ran an article with the headline “Mormon Grandmother Helps Australian Prime Minister Say “Sorry”” The articles talk about a Latter-day Saint woman, Lorna Fejo, who helped Prime Minister Kevin Rudd prepare “a historic apology to indigenous Australians.”
Maybe we need to pass an I’m Sorry law for churches. It could say that when a church issues an apology for past wrongs, that said apology should not be construed as limiting the authority or righteousness of current leaders. Could this lead to better outcomes like the I’m Sorry laws do for the medical profession?
In the words of Elton John:
It’s sad, (so sad) so sad
It’s a sad, sad situation
And it’s getting more and more absurd
It’s sad, (so sad) so sad
Why can’t we talk it over?
Oh, it seems to me
That sorry seems to be the hardest word
Wheat & Tares 
This is a thoughtful post and what you are proposing could be a nice solution for some churches.
From my point of view, the reason for the non-apology policy is not only about legal liability. The idea that their institution has responsibilities to its members and not fulfilling them would require some sort of reconciliation with the members is a foreign concept in LDS scriptures, where the model is that God speaks to the prophets, and if they prophets mess up they are accountable to God only. There is no case that I can think of where the responsibility of the prophets goes tot he people instead of to God.
I am actually glad that Dallin Oaks says the church does not apologize. That is accurate and makes an unstated policy into a public policy so we know what kind of organization we are dealing with and to disabuse us of the belief that the church has any responsibilities to us.
Of course the statement that the Church does not ask for apologies is only lawyer-speak as most disciplined members seeking reinstatement or rebaptism are asked to apologize for the harm they caused to the good name of the Church when they committed their sins. But since the apology is made to the Stake President who sends the paperwork to Church headquarters instead of the member apologizing directly to Church headquarters, technically Dallin Oaks was not lying.
“A man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong—acting the part of a good man or of a bad.” Plato.
Matthew 5:23-24
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there
rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first
be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Jesus understood the healing power of true humble apology. Until the church understands this they will continue to bleed membership.
I am sorry, as a institution, they can not put the past behind with a true valid apology; hence it is a reoccurring theme.
However, I feel that “I am sorry” also has less meaning than similar words of: I was deplorable, I was wretched, I was lame….. in my actions.
“Sorry” for me lost its’ meaning with its’ vain repetition and used from opposing qualifiers from accidentally bumping into someone on the street to the extreme of murder. I think using the term profound regret or other less used verbiage would be better, but these terms still take no ownership. Its’ like we are lamenting it happened, but we had no action in the matter. In Spanish the term for sorry “lo siento”, means I feel what you are feeling. But if added “y es mi error”, that would complete the full repentance cycle. I feel your suffering and I was wrong and this is how I am going to make amends.
As will be mentioned, the church created their own issues: from the church is perfect and has no need to ‘apologize” , to the legal ramifications and the need to protect the funds.
At the core of the problem is poor communication. The church only communicates in one direction, from top to bottom. We talk, you listen. Until it is a equal two way dialogue the painful offenses will continue from the top.
Too often apologies are of the “I’m sorry you were offended” variety rather than “I’m sorry I made a dreadful mistake, which created this horrible mess.” It’s about ownership, which both religious institutions and their leaders are reluctant to admit (not that they’re a unique case, of course). You’d think admitting you’re wrong was some kind of sin.
I hope JRHolland is preparing an apology to be read at Conference.
There is no practical way for the Church to apologize for any single issue because there are so many issues. Once the Church opens that box it wouldn’t ever end. The W&T community knows as well as any that the Church has to be firm on this or it all blows up. I’m as critical of the Church as anyone here but I’d never advise them to start apologizing.
In corporate and policy-making cultures, I’m sorry is seen as a weakness that can be used against you. You should always imagine yourself to be acting in good faith even when you’re not. You should always shift blame and never accept it. At worst, just pretend that the mistake never occurred and ignore those who bring up the mistake, or even vilify them as crazy people. That has got to change. There has to be legitimate avenues to apologizing.
I agree with @plvtime that the reason the Church won’t apologize isn’t so much for legal liability as it is to maintain its claims to prophetic infallibility (yes yes I know the Church gives lip service to the idea that a leader can make a mistake, but it would never actually identify a concrete mistake). In one of the more recent disasters – the POX – rather than admit to having made a mistake the Church claimed God was the one who made the mistake and our leaders petitioned to have it fixed. I don’t think any legal liability would have attached for this policy so there is no reason not to admit to wrongdoing except not wanting to look like leaders made a mistake.
Ditto the racist temple and priesthood ban – I don’t really see how there would be any legal liability for that policy. Just a desire not to admit that Brigham Young and his successors were wrong. And I get that institutional apologies are difficult because in some ways who are we to know exactly what was in Brigham Young’s head at the time (but there are clues …), but surely we could find a way to focus on the policy and the institution and less on a long-dead human leader.
There may be a bit more of a legal argument when it comes to sex abuse cases of course so a law may help there. For MMM I would think any legal liability is long gone.
One example of a non-apology that really bothers me and a lot of people I know was how when the Church changed (or rather, pretended to change but actually just better hid) some sexist aspects of the temple ceremony, instead of apologizing for how the previous versions had harmed women(they have!!!), instead they said “don’t anyone talk about this.” That’s cowardly and gaslighting. When you hurt someone, you don’t get to just suddenly be nice to them and expect that everything is fine now when your past actions have deeply wounded them. You especially don’t get to tell them to just shut up about it and move on and pretend that nothing happened. Part of real change and healing for both parties involved includes acknowledging the harm.
I recently read a version of an “apology” that a feminist theologian would like her church (not LDS) to give. It was simultaneously beautiful and healing to imagine that happening, and crushing because I know it never will. And because I don’t think it ever will, I have serious doubts about our ability to really ever overcome sexism as an institution and collective group.
I think there was a podcast (probably MormonStories)last year where someone did impressions of general authorities. Most were really funny, but there was one in Gordon B Hinckley’s (I think? May have been another leader) voice apologizing and it was actually quite touching to hear. But sad and depressing because it was a joke.
I agree with plvtime. To issue an apology shows that the church has a responsibility to look out for the well being of its members. The church rejects any responsibility to members. That is just as one way as the communication. The church see the members as having a responsibility to the institution, above responsibility to family or even their own conscience. This responsibility shows up in the fact that you pay tithing before feeding your children. Your responsibility to church overrides even your responsibility to your children. And that your responsibility to church is greater than your responsibility to your own conscience shows up when Oaks talks about if you ever find that the answers to your prayers go against church leaders, then you need to pray again because obviously you are wrong, after all he admitted that he felt that restricting blacks from priesthood and temple was wrong, but always supported the policy because his loyalty to church was greater than his loyalty to his own conscience. Unlike people like me who got chewed out by church leaders for coming out and saying we felt it was dead wrong and not of any kind of God I could worship.
When people point out that the church hurts people, like Sam Young did, they get excommunicated, because the church feels that any harm it does is God sanctioned, I guess because it confuses itself with God. And after all, God owes us church members nothing, but we owe God everything.
How utterly unChristlike of the church that claims to represent Him. Yeah, can’t you just imagine if someone had pointed out to Jesus that he was harming children, like Sam Young did to the church, that Jesus would cut off the person who tried to tell him. Kill the messenger. They church is very unwilling to do as Christ did and sacrifice Himself for the well being of His people. And if the Mormon church was Christ’s church they would be willing to sacrifice the good name of the church for the well being of its people. But the church is unwilling to admit that it has a Christlike duty to see to the well being of its people. So not the church of Jesus Christ who sacrificed himself for the well-being of his people. This church only cares about itself and doesn’t give a s**t about its people.
Oh, sure, there are bishops and stake presidents who care about the flock that Christ has entrusted them with, but the guys at the top, they take no responsibility for the flock, as if the sheep are supposed to care for them instead of the other way around. They got it jack*ss backwards.
@Anna I was thinking about Sam Young too. Of course, the Church actually made a lot of changes he suggested. But they exed him for publicly suggesting them.
Apologies can be helpful in some situations.
But even without an apology, forgiving the other party (whether an individual or an organization) for real or perceived infractions is healthy. Life goes on.
I am generally not a fan of apologies by institutions — they simply don’t work. Apologies by individuals seem much better.
If I ever became a bishop or other church officer, I hope I will apologize for any real or perceived infraction of mine — I really wouldn’t want the institutional church to apologize for me. And I don’t want to have to apologize for the real or perceived infractions of the predecessor bishop. Similarly, I don’t see any value in having the current President of the Church apologize for the real or perceived infractions of any predecessor president. And what if there was an institutional apology? Imagine a statement written in third person without attribution and posted in the newsroom — would anyone really be satisfied?
I think the current practice of looking forward, making changes when needed, being diligent in one’s stewardship, and so forth is a good practice.
But as an individual, I am sorry when I hear stories of real or perceived infractions among church members — on behalf of church members everywhere, I apologize.
Elisa, I know the church made some changes because of Sam Young pointing out that the interview process hurts people. But it also punished him for demanding their attention. It also changed some of the things in the temple ceremony, that if you read Exponent, we’re exactly the things that the women were pointing out as hurtful. But then I got told I was “going to hell” by a temple president because I tried to understand how the endowment was something approved of by a God who loved his daughters. So, really, does the church care about the people it hurts, or does it just care that people stop paying tithing.
I get the feeling that the changes it makes are to slow the loss of members rather than any genuine caring about hurting people. It is a very practical thing to do when you lose your paying customers. You don’t have to care that tobacco is killing people to put filters on your cigarettes, if the filtered cigarettes sell better. I see the changes the church makes the same way, as just an attempt to keep members loyal and paying tithing because when the members/customers die/leave/change brands because of what your product does to them, then you no longer have your $$$$$$.
I know, I am pretty cynical but then I was treated with total indifference by the First Presidency when I wrote telling them that my sexually abusive father had not repented and was not ready to be baptized back into the church. That he must be not telling his bishop the truth about how he *still* treated his family. So, I have experienced first hand that they care less about children who were sexually abused and more about tithe paying male priesthood holders.
The church has not stopped interviewing children as young as 7.9 years old about sexual sin, as if a child that young is capable of sexual sin. They made some changes to the endowment to make women closer to equal and then turned around and added the word “preside” to the sealing ceremony. Before that they changed the word “obey” to “harken” and then defined “harken” as “listen and obey”. They carefully do not change that women are below priesthood holders in an eternal hierarchy. So, do they care that being second class hurts women because they feel God loves them less?
Back when the church changed the doctrine (and it was a doctrine back then) that blacks could not have priesthood and temple blessings, I still gave the church the benefit of the doubt that they were trying to do what was right, not just avoiding BYU being kicked out of the basketball club. I just can’t anymore.
The church didn’t change polygamy because seeing their father one day a month was a lousy way to raise children. Now the church insists that children need two full time parents, but under polygamy, children had a mother and one fraction of their father, which is anything but two full time parents. The church changed polygamy because the US government threatened them. The church didn’t change its racial doctrine until the other university basketball teams refused to play them. The church only makes changes when it is forced, not when it realizes it is hurting people.
@ji, why can’t an institution say something like:
“We are sorry that we advanced policies and practices that harmed (women / LGBTQ folks / blacks / children / whatever). We believe in continuing revelation and restoration and as part of that resolve to root out these prejudices embedded in our institutional practices and ask our members to do the same in their own hearts and actions.”
I don’t think that we can just move on as an institution without any kind of acknowledgement of previous problems. That is insulting to victims who suffered real harm that had gone unacknowledged and unaccounted for and is not real healing. We don’t have to demonize individual leaders but we can certainly identify policies and practices that were harmful, own that harm, and do better. There’s actual no way that an individual could do that w/r/t policies and institutional practices. So if we are only holding individuals accountable there are going to be real limits to progress and healing.
@Anna, I agree with you. I was pointing out the irony / hypocrisy that the Church punished Sam Young while making some of the changes he suggested. And I made a similar comment about the fake changes to the temple above. We are on the same page here.
What does it mean when you get more or better inspiration from a rock lyric?
The Brethren likely believe, if I may be so bold, that losing the “war” is enough, no further action required. They have lost the Polygamy War, the Negro War, and the Mormon History War. They are also heading into the jaws of defeat with the Sisters (Women War) and Homosexuals (Gay War). At some pt there must needs be a reckoning w/ Mormon Republicanism & Right Wing Extremism (Idiot War), the seeds for which were planted by one ETB, who also happened to be Pres. By all rights that last should be one King-Hell apology, but don’t wait around for it. It’s the kind of mess Homo sapiens typically makes. Reference to our family tree is pertinent:
Kingdom:
Animalia
Phylum:
Chordata
Class:
Mammalia
Order:
Primates
Suborder:
Haplorhini
Infraorder:
Simiiformes
Family:
Hominidae
Subfamily:
Homininae
Tribe:
Hominini
Genus:
Homo
Species:
H. sapiens
We are usually on the same page, Elisa. I was more backing up what you said as one of those times when I feel something so strongly, that I just have to say it, even if somebody else just said it.
Ji, I notice you are willing to say on behalf of your church that you are sorry people got hurt. So, why are you against R. Nelson saying the same thing. All he would have to say, is, “on behalf of my church and my predecessors, I that I am sorry that people got hurt by the church policy. We are doing our best to eliminate such harm.” Instead, they shoot the messenger. Over and over they punish people for pointing out problems. If they were half sincere about ending the harm that church policies cause, they would thank the messenger. But they only care about the church looking bad, not the church *being* bad. So, when Sam Young makes the church look bad, they excommunicate him, and then make changes so the church doesn’t look bad.
Yes to everyone explaining why we need apologies.
Apologies are a necessary part of a strong community (or a relationship). If the Church hurts a person or a group of people, then there is a two-step process to healing the pain. The offending party apologizes; the injured party forgives. If only one of those things happen (the forgiveness), then the trust is still broken. The injury can happen again. An apology is a way of admitting wrongdoing and allowing the injured person to hold you accountable for future actions. Apologies are about restoring trust, and that’s separate from the injured party’s forgiveness.
When Elder Bednar gave his “Choose Not to Be Offended” talk all those years ago, I waited for several years, sure that in the next Gen Conf he would give the companion talk: “Choose Not to Be Offensive” in which he would talk about how we are responsible for how our behavior affects others, and we should admit that responsibility and apologize when we cause pain. That talk never came.
This whole “non-apology” policy damages community because it closes the door on healing broken trust. The entire burden is placed on the injured party to forgive and forget, but without any promise that the offense/pain won’t be inflicted again. After a while, it isn’t about forgiveness – it’s about safety. You just don’t feel safe in a community where the person in authority doesn’t apologize. Without the accountability that comes with apologizing, authority can (and will) be abused again.
It isn’t about being more forgiving or choosing not to be offended. It’s about realizing you’ll never feel safe and respected in the Church community.
Bishop Bill, I’m surprised that in the context of Apology Laws that you didn’t make reference to Pres. Nelson, a surgeon who was trained in the generation that very likely was opposed to apologizing to patients, or to the families of the patients who died on his table. With Oaks at his right hand now, his unwillingness to issue sincere apologies on behalf of the Church is probably more immoveable than ever. It’s frustrating because we try to teach our children to take responsibility for their mistakes, to say “sorry”, make restitution and ask for forgiveness. There are primary lessons about this very thing. But the senior leaders refuse to model this behavior, instead promoting a myth of tacit infallibility and the need to “follow the prophet”.
There is a generational component here. My late father (baby boomer) never apologized for any of his mistakes (and he had plenty to apologize for) at least not until he was suffering on his deathbed and barely coherent. He grew up in the John Wayne tradition of masculinity, where apologizing or admitting error is a sign of weakness and tantamount to surrender. In retrospect I feel sorry for my dad and men like him, who never got to feel the full catharsis of contrition and forgiveness, and probably stunted their own spiritual and emotional development.
Anna, I regret that I have but one thumbs up to give to your first comment. I think you’ve put your finger on *such* an excellent point that shapes members’ whole relationship with the Church. In the New Testament, Jesus said that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The Church has it entirely flipped. Rather than believing that the Church was made for the members (and people in general, to make the world better), they obviously believe that the members were made for the Church. The demands of loyalty, obedience, information, accountability, and money flow in just one direction, as you point out. This is a hugely depressing framing. I think it’s spot on, though.
Also, on ji’s point of whether institutional apologies can work, or only individual ones can. I agree that this can be a thorny issue. I feel like insistence, though, that only individuals can apologize because only individuals do wrongs sidesteps the fact that we participate in systems that do wrong to people. Racism, sexism, patriarchy, that type of thing. So while it might be hard to get it right when we call for institutions to apologize, I think it’s better than pretending that all the wrongs are wrongs of individual bad actors. The wrongs are done by individuals, but they’re often done at the behest of, and with the training of, institutions.
If we just call on individuals to apologize–for example, if we excommunicate and execute John D. Lee for the Mountain Meadows Massacre and say “done and done”–we totally fail to acknowledge or address or start fixing the big cultural problems created by Brigham Young and his fellows.
The discrepancy between how the church deals with it’s own mistakes and the message of the necessity of daily repentance it preaches every week is one of the things which drove me from active participation.
I am with Chet. Elder Holland’s punching down on Matt Easton was the most egregious evil I’ve seen from a church leader in recent years. Surely this warrants a public apology
@melinda, it’s a very good point about safety. I couldn’t quite articulate what it’s like to be in an institution that is hurting you and that you know will *never* apologize – even if it stops doing some of the hurtful things it will never ever acknowledge the issues – and you nailed it with safety.
@ziff, your formulation about the members being made for the Church is also painfully spot-on.
JonCod : “The discrepancy between how the church deals with its own mistakes and the message of the necessity of daily repentance it preaches every week…”
And we’re told that the good we do can’t compensate for the sins we commit. They must be named and repented for. But I feel the church thinks that the good it does should wipe away the harm.
Excellent post from Bishop Bill – thx.
One quibble: although Mr. John sang the words to “sorry seems to be the hardest word”, they were composed by lyricist Bernie Taupin. The two work together on their songs.
The institution “apologizes” every time a legal judgment or out-of-court settlement threatens the treasured treasury.
It seems those steering the ship know that “I’m Sorry,” is reconciled quietly in the dark with about thirty pieces of silver.
Some background to the apology mentioned in the post by Kevin Rudd, the PM of Australia.
Between 1910 and 1970 the Governments of Australia forcibly removed aboriginal children (aproximately one third) from their families at young ages 3 or 4, so they could be assimilated into white society. Those people removed are referred to as the stolen generation. They lost the connection to country, language, culture, and family. Some were fostered, most were raised in institutions, some run by religious bodies, to become usefull members of white society.
Aboriginals have been asking for an apology ever since the programme ended if not before.
Conservative leaders have been explaining why that was not possible. They did not impliment the programme so they shouldn’t be required to apologise, and an apology was admitting they were guilty and would open them up to legal responsibility.
It took Kevin Rudd (a labor PM progressive) to understand that the apology was for the people affected, and ask leaders of the aboriginal community what they wanted said. I had not heard of Lorna Fejo, as one of those consulted or mentioned in the apology.
The refusal of the church to apologise for any of its mistakes/sins, is to me partly a result of its conservative mindset, which comes ahead of being christlike. Like the conservative Australian politicians they look for reasons not to be Christlike, which was glaring enough in politicians, but in church leaders is particularly offensive. I also see their ongoing discrimination against women and gays as a result of their republicanism. No wonder most members throughout the world think part of being a member is being a republican. And look how that has worked out. Trump doesn’t apologise either, and persecutes those who question him. It seems to be a republican/conservative formulae.
Is there hope that there is a Kevin Rudd like figure still in church leadership, perhaps Uchtdorf?
A church that…
A. exercises total control over the lives of its members and
B. bases that control on infallible revelation (sure the prophets make mistakes but “there is no error in the revelations”)
…of course will never admit to wrongdoing. Because if they were wrong about something in the past, they could be wrong about any number of things now, and they don’t want the membership entertaining that possibility. Not for a second. Otherwise how could they possibly hope to maintain control?
It’s the loose thread that threatens to unravel the whole mantle. And, ironically, it’s the thread they must pull on to win back any moral authority they’ve squandered. The key to a happier, healthier, more spiritual membership is to stop holding people’s salvation hostage to obedience and to let them follow their own conscience.
Thanks Geoff-Aus for the background on that apology!