Thanks, I should have specified decisions & actions of a personal nature-impact; Directly impacting 1 individual or a family. Perhaps not widely known - publicized.
I have seen it happen twice although the limitations on the corrections are as enlightening as the corrections themselves. Both episodes involve close relatives.
First episode. A man was involved in a divorce. He was busy and had not built as strong a political network in the ward and stake as the wife had. She spread rumors about him, the bishop took away his callings and his temple recommend and made some slanderous public statements that did real damage. The man's father, who had risen quite high in the church--right below the level that would mean people know his name--approached one of the top 20 or so officials in SLC--someone whose name everyone here would know. The church launched a review, found that the local bishop had erred and returned the temple recommend. The man's father then asked that the bishop or the stake president publicly exculpate the man but the people in SLC refused. They were willing to correct the mistake as long as it was done confidentially but they would not do anything that would garner public attention.
Second episode. Another male relative ran into a renegade bishop who took his temple recommend and put him on unofficial probation for things that are not against church rules. The man went to the stake president and got the probation reversed. He did not, however, get his recommend back because the stake president thought he was insufficiently deferential to church leaders like the bishop.
So what do I make of these events? First, the church won't correct a public error lest it harm its own reputation. Second, if you have a connected relative you really can exercise the right of appeal to which everyone is in theory entitled. Of course, the vast majority of members will never in fact be able to call in an apostle or a seventy. Third, even seeking redress implies a challenge to authority that can lead to suspicion and even punishment.
But yes, in a narrow and confidential sense the church does sometimes correct its mistakes.
Hold on! It wasn't Tanner, it was Spencer W. Kimball. I'll never forget the whole oral sex scandal because my husband and I had fellowshipped a couple who were thinking of joining....
until old Spencey decided to crawl under the sheets of married members and tell them what went where.
Our friends were appalled, and rightly so. My husband and I said to ignore it, but they had that new idealistic thrill that hearing there's a modern prophet sometimes prompts people to join the Mormon. Kinda like infatuation.
It didn't last a month before the GA's rescinded it and issued a "clarification."
J Smith started polygamy. It took years but they did reverse that one! Now the idiots are trying to pretend they are the keepers of "traditional" family values. Mormon "traditional" family values are one man, many wives.
A couple was excommunicated in the 1980s for no good reason (is there ever). They appealed to the FP and "won". The SP (for him) and bishop (for her, because wimins can be exed by lower-level management than men) were then ordered to reverse the whole thing.
Which they refused.
That must have pissed off someone at HQ because they sent a 70 to release both SP and bishop. The next Sunday, a letter was read from the pulpit in the ward to set the record straight.
The bishop and his family were sent off to "strengthen" an ailing branch and only returned some 20 years later.
I'm surprised. I've never seen them do something like announce a reversal from the pulpit.
Was that recently? Was it in the States or some distant mission field? Was there some mitigating factor like a close relationship with someone in the First Presidency?
I ask because in my relative's case, the one who got divorced, the appeal went right to a top guy and through him to the prophet, who my relative's father knew personally, and the decision was still not to admit the mistake publicly. Your story has me wondering who has the clout to get the First Presidency to authorize a public apology.
Lot's Wife Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Was that recently?
1980s
> Was it in the States or some distant mission field?
Western Europe (not UK)
> Was there some mitigating factor like a close relationship with someone in the First Presidency?
Sort of. Remember back then, people outside Utah were still watching GC on VHS two months after the event (because of translation). One of their acquaintances had obtained the most recent CHI that wasn't translated in any other language yet. He helped the couple write the appeal quoting from that CHI. Got everybody shitting their pants because no one knew who was behind it, but every one thought it must be someone high up...
> I ask because in my relative's case, the one who got divorced, the appeal went right to a top guy and through him to the prophet, who my relative's father knew personally, and the decision was still not to admit the mistake publicly. Your story has me wondering who has the clout to get the First Presidency to authorize a public apology.
It wasn't an apology, just a statement that the excommunications were wrongful and the members were reinstated to full fellowship. Sending the bishop away was about saving his face, not protecting his targets. Church leaders never apologize.
I think the church's policy has changed since the 1980s in a few ways. First, I think Hinckley decided he wanted to insulate the leadership and made it much more difficult to get the top leaders' attention. I seriously doubt that a normal couple would get a review by the Q3 nowadays.
Second, I think that a statement that an excommunication was wrong would not be issued today. I frankly suspect they were rare even in the 1980s; perhaps a bit more common then, and in the mission field, than today both because Hinckley subsequently prioritized the church's reputation and because an admission of error today would be spread instantaneously across the internet.
TBM married couple, he gets busted in an online child-meeting-for-sex sting. He had sexy kid panties and other disgusting stuff in the trunk of his car. She wants a divorce, but bishop tells her no way, DH sorry, it was his mistake, a moment of weakness, stand by him, forgive, blah, blah, blah. She goes up the chain, same response. She's distraught, thinks about leaving the church. They stand their ground.
Fast forward nearly a year, he pleads guilty and gets - I can't recall exactly - 10-15 Federal years, there will be no parole. Boom. Okay to divorce, she can remarry, all's well in moville.
I cannot believe her shelf remained intact, and is as strong as ever. It's my guess that if he had gotten less than 5 years (or however long they could see going without his high-earner tithes), she would have been told to stick it out, stay with the pedo, whom they would have welcomed back among their young.
Disgusting TSCC behavior, in so many ways. I wonder if he just strolled back into a ward full of kids, how many would stay, how many would flee.
Oh wow...I only thought it might be the same people because it's a nearly identical story. It was on the local news...their temple wedding pics with her face blurred out. She found another morgbot to marry and started pumping out more kids. She seriously acts like a person under a trance. Kinda creepy. Sad that the story has happened more than once.
Like big D said...we don't apologize...reversals would seem like apologies if done publicly...rather it's just a slow methodical move away..such as not talking about stuff anymore...take Mckonkie...please...from the beginning it has been one change after another...in the old days the endowment couldn't be changed one jot or tittle...oops...Pygmy was the only way to the highest degree yadda...oops just kidding...Adam was gawd...oops just kidding..the list is long but illustrious...like boiling the frog it happens ever so slowly...the BofM the most correct book ever written by a hillbilly conman has been corrected over 3000 times and the drift away from its historicity continues today...oh where to stop listings the changes...usually motivated by money
They don't admit they are wrong. They just spin it and wait for it to down the memory hole.
Admitting they were wrong means they were not inspired about something, so they have to "reframe" it. As a fail-safe, they just say so-and-so was "speaking as a man" or that was just the view at the time.
It's so lame. They have no accountability but presume to tell everyone what God wants them to think and do all the time. It is a mystery how any conscious person can take them seriously (in this day and age!).
was a small branch in upstate NY. A married woman was exed for an affair with a man, two elders testified against her. Husband and son continued to come every week. fast forward to 20 someyears latter one of the two elders confesses he lied and confirmed the other did too in a confession to a bishop 1500 mils away.
in SM the present bishop bot up and read a letter from SLC reversing the church court. you can fill in the banks as to what ost thought and how they felt when they realized the wrong that had been done
I have seen many doctrinal changes in my life. All of them were denied by apologists who simply say, "that wasn't doctrinal." I have yet to meet a more infuriating people.
doctrine is simply another word for teaching. When a speaker or (Sunday school) teacher makes a statement in church, it can be disclaimed by those in charge; to Not disclaim it is to let it stand as " God's Word To The Saints"
I always come back to what the church asks of new members. The church leaders and regular members should be held to the same standards that they expect of their perspective members. Most of the time, they're not.
There are six steps to repentance. Everyone who went on a mission and taught non-members the discussions should remember these six steps to repentance. The church itself and the church leaders never practice these steps. That's one reason it's easy to recognize the church as a cult. They don't practice what they teach. They think they are clever by dodging responsibility for their wrong-doing. But actually, they are morally bankrupt.
Recognize your own wrong doing, feel genuine sarrow for the wrong-doing, confess to the person who was wronged, ask for forgiveness, make restitution, forsake the sin.
If you're a GA or just a narcissistic church member, these steps are below you. They're just for the little people and the heathen non-members. After all, the GAs and the few elect church members (as all 15 million of them claim to be) are nearly gods themselves, and god don't need to repent or apologize, so why should they?