Would the Savior apologize and ask forgiveness?

[Vort]

What do you think? Is it a Godly act to admit wrong when you know for a fact that you were not in the wrong? Is it good to apologize in order to try to make peace when the fault lies with other parties, perhaps the very people to whom you are apologizing? If so, can you find any scriptural examples of this or other teachings that explicitly counsel this path?

[Tzesaro]

My thoughts...

If we had the humility God has, we would be quick to apologize and make peace. I don't think this can be cut down to "I'm right, you're wrong", because there are so many different things that we could do wrong. Doing wrong is not the same as being wrong. If I know what I'm saying is true, but I say it in a bad spirit, then I should apologize. (See D&C 50:12-23).

But the Savior knows both how, what, and at what time things need to be said (And he knows any other factor that may play a role, that I am not aware of...). And He speaks truth. Considering that, I'd say that any apologizing of His wouldn't be based on being wrong, but for example rather on showing concern.

This is a cute little talk: Color Me Sorry - New Era Jan.–Feb. 1982 - new-era

I was thinking of a scripture, but I can't find it... "What I the Lord have spoken", or something along those lines? If it rings any bells for anyone I'd be interested.

[MarginOfError]

It's hard to make general comments on something like this.

Some quick notes

"I'm sorry" doesn't necessarily mean an apology. It is often used as an expression of sympathy and perhaps empathy. Going to someone with whom you've had a conflict and saying "I'm sorry" doesn't have to be an expression of fault, but can simply be an acknowledgment of their feelings. And that is important in rebuilding bonds after a disagreement.

For instance (and this isn't really an example where someone was in the wrong, but hopefully the principle still applies), I recently blogged about the reasons I am done having children. A woman in my ward responded that she found my statements hurtful because she wished she could have a lot more children, but couldn't because of health reasons. I wasn't about to apologize for saying what I said, because what I said was how I honestly felt. But I did tell her I was sorry for her situation and that I wished everyone could have as many or as few children as they wanted.

I think it was pretty well understood that I wasn't apologizing for what I said, but the acknowledgment of her feelings was well received.

So, like I said, I dont' believe in apologizing when you feel you have no reason to apologize. But expressing empathy is as powerful, and often more powerful, than an apology.

EDIT: I don't have any scriptural background for these comments. Just what I've learned through experience and study.

[Dravin]

What do you think? Is it a Godly act to admit wrong when you know for a fact that you were not in the wrong?

While not a direct answer to the question above my thought is that unless one is a perfect being it is going to be rather difficult to be completely and factually be not in the wrong concerning an exchange. After all if you ask me what 2 plus 2 equals and I respond with, "You idiotic worm, the answer is 4." I'm factually correct in that the answer is 4 but how I delivered the answer is rather obviously wrong. Now that is an end-member example and fairly straight forward, when it isn't quite so clear cut that is when it is going to be difficult to know one was objectively free of wrong, and even if the response is perfectly fine what if they were seeking help on their homework but phrased it poorly? One can easily respond with something like, "I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were seeking help with your homework. Let me help you..." and it can be perfectly legitimate and you aren't apologizing for giving them a wrong answer but because you honestly regret you didn't understand what they were seeking even if they went about communicating what they were seeking poorly.

Where am I getting with this? I think the condition of being completely and freely without flaw or mistake when interacting with other people is something that is going to be as rare as hens teeth.

Now why would you respond so kindly after someone asked you a vague question and snapped at you for not being perfectly perceptive? Nephi 3 12:25 and Matthew 5:25 ( Scriptures Search Results ) are the scriptures that come to mind. Note that the footnote for agree in Matthew 5:25 states:

Quickly have kind thoughts for, or be well disposed toward.

So it isn't telling you to cave when someone says the answer is 15.3 but it does explain an exchange like my hypothetical above. The motivator for seeking where you may have erred, or could have done better, or even wish you could have done better, is compassion. I think the scriptures above leave little room for using, "I was factually not in the wrong." as a bulwark against seeking out and genuinely apologizing for one's part in an exchange and if one does happen to be free of error from attempting to make peace (which can be done without saying, "I'm sorry.").

Edited November 19, 2013 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

The OP seems to be begging for something like: No, do not apologize. To do so is to lie.

Here's my view: No, do not apologize. To do so is to lie.

[Dravin]

I suppose my initial response was a practicality focused one rather than a principle focused one. Its kinda implied in the last paragraph of my post but to clarify, accepting the premise that one is objectively/factually correct I'm inclined to agree with PC. Do not apologize for giving the answer of 2 plus 2 as 4, but to go back to my initial post above that 2 +2 =4 doesn't mean there is nothing to apologize for or that one shouldn't attempt to make peace (which can be done without apologizing for giving 4 as the answer).

[Traveler]

What do you think? Is it a Godly act to admit wrong when you know for a fact that you were not in the wrong? Is it good to apologize in order to try to make peace when the fault lies with other parties, perhaps the very people to whom you are apologizing? If so, can you find any scriptural examples of this or other teachings that explicitly counsel this path?

The concept here is peace - I think you and I are reading some same material?

I would point to 1Samuel Chapter 25. I believe that Abigail is a type and shadow of Christ that will apologize and ask for forgiveness for the guilty that there may be peace.

Therefore I say yes - that it is "Christ like" to take blame for wrong doing for which Christ is (we are) innocent. This is the heart and core of the atonement for all Christians converted to Christ and his sacrifice - not as a lie but a divine offering and sacrifice for the sin of others that peace may be established.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

It's hard to make general comments on something like this.

Some quick notes

"I'm sorry" doesn't necessarily mean an apology. It is often used as an expression of sympathy and perhaps empathy.

A think another good example of this use of, "I'm sorry." is when someone dies. You'll get a lot of people saying they are sorry for your loss, but unless they had something to do with the passing of the deceased it isn't an admission of culpability and wrongdoing. Some people grate at this use of sorry, but if one wants to the same sentiment can usually be expressed in different terms.

[Irishcolleen]

What do you think? Is it a Godly act to admit wrong when you know for a fact that you were not in the wrong? Is it good to apologize in order to try to make peace when the fault lies with other parties, perhaps the very people to whom you are apologizing? If so, can you find any scriptural examples of this or other teachings that explicitly counsel this path?

If you admit to being wrong and apologize when you were not wrong you are sinning by lying. So no, IMO, that is not a godly thing to do. Should making peace be a higher goal than righteousness? Matthew 18 gives instructions on how to deal with people who have sinned against you.

[Magen_Avot]

What do you think? Is it a Godly act to admit wrong when you know for a fact that you were not in the wrong? Is it good to apologize in order to try to make peace when the fault lies with other parties, perhaps the very people to whom you are apologizing? If so, can you find any scriptural examples of this or other teachings that explicitly counsel this path?

Not knowing the finer details I would ask, in this case:

What does it mean to be a peacemaker? In what way can one walk twain? or give their coat and cloak? To turn their cheek the other way? Or forgive 70x70?

Can we use the knowledge of our innocence to bring unrest? Or should we suffer wrongs for His sake?

Can the better thing (in Christ) be done without lying?

Anyway, if it doesn't work out well, I promise I'll write you in prison.

...and I'm sure PC will visit

Edited November 19, 2013 by Magen_Avot

[Traveler]

If you admit to being wrong and apologize when you were not wrong you are sinning by lying. So no, IMO, that is not a godly thing to do. Should making peace be a higher goal than righteousness? Matthew 18 gives instructions on how to deal with people who have sinned against you.

Not meant as criticism - but it is my understanding that this is exactly the point where Lucifer turned from G-d and became Satan. Because justice and righteousness was more important to him than mercy and compassion. I would point out that the only way to have compassion for someone that has sinned or transgressed against you it to take that sin and transgression upon your self so that no more payment is required in you heart. I do not believe that thinking G-d will judge them is forgiveness or compassion. I honestly submit that until you can do that (take the sin upon yourself through believe in the atonement of Christ) - there will never be peace in your heart - regardless of what church you join or Messiah you claim to follow.

The Traveler

[Irishcolleen]

Not meant as criticism - but it is my understanding that this is exactly the point where Lucifer turned from G-d and became Satan. Because justice and righteousness was more important to him than mercy and compassion. I would point out that the only way to have compassion for someone that has sinned or transgressed against you it to take that sin and transgression upon your self so that no more payment is required in you heart. I do not believe that thinking G-d will judge them is forgiveness or compassion. I honestly submit that until you can do that (take the sin upon yourself through believe in the atonement of Christ) - there will never be peace in your heart - regardless of what church you join or Messiah you claim to follow.

The Traveler

When you forgive someone you are taking their sin upon you. But that is different than lying and saying it was your sin. And, God gave us directions for dealing with people who sin against us for a reason. Christ paid for our sin, but He never said He was the one who was at fault for our sin. There is a difference between paying someones debt and claiming you accrued the debt on your own.

[Guest]

This is something that is different between Filipino and American cultures.

Filipinos don't say I'm sorry or I love you too often. Instead, you just know they're sorry or they love you because of their attitudes/actions towards you. So, it doesn't really matter if you say I'm sorry if you're still being mean-spirited, then there was no apology. Same as I love you...

In the US, I noticed it is different. It seems like it doesn't matter if you've made 180 degree turn around if you don't specifically say I'm sorry or I apologize or verbally acknowledge the fault, then the hurt person remains hurt.

So, the way I see this - if you're merely saying I'm sorry to make the other person feel better, then it's not really an apology but a compassionate act. A real apology is when you realize you did something wrong and you redress. Saying I'm sorry is optional because it is evident in the redress.

Now, since God is not capable of doing something wrong, then there is no need for God to apologize. But, because He is merciful and compassionate, then he may do an act of kindness for any hurt you are going through.

[jbeggs]

Life isn't always about being right or wrong.

I can't think of any scriptures off the top of my head.

[Traveler]

When you forgive someone you are taking their sin upon you. But that is different than lying and saying it was your sin. And, God gave us directions for dealing with people who sin against us for a reason. Christ paid for our sin, but He never said He was the one who was at fault for our sin. There is a difference between paying someones debt and claiming you accrued the debt on your own.

Since you are not LDS this is even more interesting to me (perhaps I may learn things I yet do not understand) - in your view how could Christ pay for sin and not assume any fault or guilt? I am wondering how it is sin can be paid for without fault or guilt? We are not exactly talking about paying off someone's student loans here - we are talking about the debt and payment of sin. I realize there is some similarities but redemption for sin - without responsibility??? Seems like only a partial payment to me. I also admit I still marvel how it is that Jesus made such a payment and how it is that someone can take upon themself someone else's sins. How is it that you believe that blame and guilt was redeemed (taken away) from our sins?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Life isn't always about being right or wrong.

I can't think of any scriptures off the top of my head.

Did you not see the scripture I offered in post #7?

The Traveler

[Vort]

Thanks to all for your responses, which I hope to continue to read.

For clarification, I did not mean "saying you're sorry", which as several of you have pointed out does not necessarily imply culpability. I meant "apologizing", as in expressing remorse for fault which you freely admit and accept.

[Guest]

Thanks to all for your responses, which I hope to continue to read.

For clarification, I did not mean "saying you're sorry", which as several of you have pointed out does not necessarily imply culpability. I meant "apologizing", as in expressing remorse for fault which you freely admit and accept.

Admitting and accepting fault for which you honestly believe is not yours is lying. Lying, per se, in not sinful - like lying to protect somebody. So, I don't think we can see the entire picture unless we consider intent of the admission. Does apologizing include redress?

[Traveler]

Admitting and accepting fault for which you honestly believe is not yours is lying. Lying, per se, in not sinful - like lying to protect somebody. So, I don't think we can see the entire picture unless we consider intent of the admission. Does apologizing include redress?

I would say you just got it backwards - that accepting fault is the honest way to end the power sin has over someone because of their sins - it is the core power of the atonement and the means that Christ's atonement becomes infinite.

The Traveler

[Latter Days Guy]

Since you are not LDS this is even more interesting to me (perhaps I may learn things I yet do not understand) - in your view how could Christ pay for sin and not assume any fault or guilt? I am wondering how it is sin can be paid for without fault or guilt? We are not exactly talking about paying off someone's student loans here - we are talking about the debt and payment of sin. I realize there is some similarities but redemption for sin - without responsibility??? Seems like only a partial payment to me. I also admit I still marvel how it is that Jesus made such a payment and how it is that someone can take upon themself someone else's sins. How is it that you believe that blame and guilt was redeemed (taken away) from our sins?

The Traveler

Will go into this more later as I'm at work at the moment!

Isn't it linked to the OT and how the sins of Isreal were placed upon the scapegoat which was then released into the wilderness, that Jesus in the sacrifice of his life on the cross was the enbodiment of this principle of a sinless sacrifice to take away sin?

[Quin]

Very little can be more painful than the truth.

Similarly, just because a thing is true, doesn't mean it's the right thing to say.

Cases in point:

Just because the obese man was born out of wedlock, doesn't mean that it's okey dokey to call him a fat b*****d.

Nor, while it may be true, that the SAHP is uneducated and unable to get a job that pays as well as their educated spouse... Is it a kindness for their spouse to gloat over how much more THEY are able to contribute financially to the family, since THEY went to college and didn't stay home with the kids.

Both of the above rate an apology at the very least.

Just because something is "true" doesn't mean it isn't myopic, hurtful, ignorant, biased, and incomplete.

I think there's a scripture about casting stones that might also apply?

As well as about a zillion and one about compassion, righteous judgement -instead of self righteous judgement-, etc.

All depends on the truths spoken.

My .02

Q

[prisonchaplain]

Since you are not LDS this is even more interesting to me (perhaps I may learn things I yet do not understand) - in your view how could Christ pay for sin and not assume any fault or guilt? I am wondering how it is sin can be paid for without fault or guilt? We are not exactly talking about paying off someone's student loans here - we are talking about the debt and payment of sin. I realize there is some similarities but redemption for sin - without responsibility??? Seems like only a partial payment to me. I also admit I still marvel how it is that Jesus made such a payment and how it is that someone can take upon themself someone else's sins. How is it that you believe that blame and guilt was redeemed (taken away) from our sins?

The Traveler

Since Irish and I have similar beliefs, I'll take a stab at this. Jesus took the penalty of our sin upon him. I know of no religious leaders who suggest that he admitted any personal guilt for our sins. In fact, that's the gospel--the Good News--that Jesus paid the penalty for OUR sins. He did not lie before his Father and say, "I did it." He said, "I'll pay for it."

Recall that the Old Testament sacrifices--especially those of lambs--was a type and foretelling of what Jesus would do. The lamb had to be without fault or blemish. Jesus was without fault or blemish.

That's why my first reaction remains my reaction to this OP...no, God will not accept blame to make peace. He does not lie.

[Guest]

I would say you just got it backwards - that accepting fault is the honest way to end the power sin has over someone because of their sins - it is the core power of the atonement and the means that Christ's atonement becomes infinite.

The Traveler

No. Accepting fault is robbing the evil-doer of his chance at redeeming himself.

The core power of the atonement is in Christ's willingness to take upon the ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES (read: Punishment) for our sins. The sin remains ours for which we still need to redress of it by conversion to Jesus Christ.

[Irishcolleen]

Since Irish and I have similar beliefs, I'll take a stab at this. Jesus took the penalty of our sin upon him. I know of no religious leaders who suggest that he admitted any personal guilt for our sins. In fact, that's the gospel--the Good News--that Jesus paid the penalty for OUR sins. He did not lie before his Father and say, "I did it." He said, "I'll pay for it."

Recall that the Old Testament sacrifices--especially those of lambs--was a type and foretelling of what Jesus would do. The lamb had to be without fault or blemish. Jesus was without fault or blemish.

That's why my first reaction remains my reaction to this OP...no, God will not accept blame to make peace. He does not lie.

Yes, PC, that explains my beliefs.

[drham3rd]

I have to agree with PC and Irish on this. Jesus is called the "lamb of God" for a reason; he represents the lamb that was sacrificed in OT times to atone for sin! Jesus sacrifice was the ultimate payment for sin and once we acknowledge his sacrifice, we get to share in that atonement! In OT times, one had to repent of the sin and then offer the lamb as a sacrifice, I think I remember the explanation was that the lamb "took on" the repented sin. The lamb was not a fault, the person who sinned was still at fault, but the lamb represented the repentance of that person just like our acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus is a representative of our repentance! If that make any sense.