"Sorry's"

Years ago when one of our grandsons was about two years old, he said something unkind to our youngest daughter. Overhearing this remark, his mother said, "That wasn't a very nice thing to say. I think you ought to tell your aunt that you're sorry." The two-year-old's response caught her off guard. "I can't," he said. "Why not?" she asked.  "Because I don't have any sorry's left in my mouth," he said.

Retelling this story among family members always generates laughter as we try to visualize a two-year-old saying such a thing. But it's clearly no laughing matter when we encounter more mature individuals who seem to have never learned to say the words I'm sorry.

What separates the noble from the selfish is how we react when we learn we've made a mistake. Some of the people I work with display the inability -- or unwillingness -- to ever acknowledge their errors. It's an amazing thing to observe. When someone points out that one of these individuals has made a mistake they react with a blank stare, never offering an apology. Another individual I know acts as if their good intentions should nullify any hurtful effects of their actions. Instead of apologizing for hurtful behavior, all they say is, "I didn't mean for that to happen." They leave you with the feeling that what they really meant to say is "Get over it!"

To see adults treating each other this way is bad enough, but how do you explain the actions of a parent who is unwilling to apologize after physically or emotionally hurting a child? Do they feel their position as parents grants them immunity from offering apologies? One of the remarkable attributes of little children is how quickly they forgive when we drop our defenses, stop hiding behind our parental authority, and bend down to their level with a heartfelt, sincere "I'm sorry."

I like what Joseph F. Smith said about dealing with children: "Speak to them kindly; get them down and weep with them if necessary, and get them to shed tears with you if possible. Soften their hearts; get them to feel tenderly toward you. Use no lash and no violence . . . approach them with reason, persuasion, and love unfeigned . . . You can't do it any other way. You can't do it by unkindness" (Gospel Doctrine, p. 316).

There is no shame in apologizing when we've fallen short, or when our words or actions, no matter how well-intended, inadvertently hurt another. The world will not end if we have to admit we're less than perfect. In fact, others will always think better of us when we're willing to show that we have some sorry's left in our mouth.

When "Close Enough" Isn't

When I make my favorite cocoa, the instructions call for two scoops of cocoa powder to be mixed into eight ounces of water that have been microwaved for two minutes. While this stretches my cooking skills to the limit, I know that even if the water level in the measuring cup isn't precisely on the 8-oz. line, that's ok -- it's close enough. And even if, in my impatience, I remove the water from the microwave five seconds early, that's ok too -- it's close enough. And even if I don't pay that much attention to whether the scoops of cocoa powder are level or heaping, there's no harm done. The end result is close enough.

But that's just cocoa. Clearly there are situations of much greater importance in our lives when "close enough" isn't. Imagine a dentist drilling away only 90% of the decay in your tooth before putting in the filling. Or a mechanic who, after repairing your flat tire, tightens only 4 of the 5 lug nuts. Or if the maker of the helmets used by our astronauts guarantees they'll be airtight -- 98% of the time. In these and so many other situations, close enough is not sufficient. What's required is exactness. 

Much could be written about how this "close enough" vs. "exactness" scenario relates to our Church membership and the sacred covenants we've made with the Lord. The adversary would argue that only fanatics would obey with exactness -- that "close enough" is all it takes [Can you picture a stake president remarking as he signs a temple recommend, "Well, brother, you may not be totally worthy, but your answers were close enough"?] It is clear that the Lord's standard for worthiness is exactness. If you have any doubt, note the context in which that word is used the next time you're in the temple.

I will leave for another day a discussion of how a philosophy of  "close enough" when keeping of our covenants puts us at risk. For now I would like to focus on another facet of our Church membership which, in my opinion, ought to be pursued with exactness throughout our lives. I refer to our personal knowledge of gospel doctrines.

To illustrate what I mean, consider a story told by Elder LeGrand Richards during a speech to BYU students many years ago. It was about a young LDS woman from Utah who moved back east. She hadn't been there very long before she found herself among non-members who began asking her what Mormons believe. Feeling totally unprepared to answer their questions, she wrote a pleading letter to the General Young Women Presidency in Salt Lake City. "Please help," she said, followed by a statement  that pretty much revealed the extent of her gospel knowledge: "I know that the first two principles are no tea or coffee and no playing cards."

At this point in his narrative Elder Richards paused and said, "Now can you imagine anybody getting much of a thrill out of membership in the Church if that's all he knows about it?" The point he was making is that we have an obligation to know what it is we're involved in -- and to know the doctrines.

I am often very surprised -- and somewhat disappointed -- when I hear those who've been active members of the Church for years -- even decades -- revealing a surprisingly shallow understanding of even the most basic gospel principles. It has troubled me as an instructor when, in response to my invitation to explain a basic gospel doctrine, a member with a long history in the Church -- instead of referring to a scripture or the teachings of a latter-day prophet -- says something like this: "Well, I can't tell you where I heard this, but I've always believed . . .", and they proceed to give an answer that is off the mark. 

One Sunday I asked the members of my gospel doctrine class, "What constitutes a proper fast on Fast Sunday?" Several hands went up, and I called on another long-time member for the answer. Instead of responding with what the Church's official position is -- that proper observance calls for abstaining from food and drink for two consecutive meals, attending fast and testimony meeting, and giving a generous fast offering to help those in need -- all this member said was, "Well in our house we've always done it this way . . .," and he went on to describe a rather different approach to fasting  that wasn't exactly in line with what the Lord's prophets have taught.

Two years ago I was visiting the Relief Society meeting in the singles ward. The lesson was about the three degrees of glory. After separating into groups to read verses about the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms found in the 76th section of the Doctrine & Covenants, each group selected a spokesperson to give a brief report. In the group that had studied about the terrestrial kingdom was the mother of one of the young ladies. Most of us sat a bit dumbstruck as she described how those who have earned a terrestrial glory will eventually be able to work their way up the celestial kingdom. She certainly didn't find that doctrine in the verses her group had just read.

When I ask myself, "How is it that so many of us who ought to know better don't know the doctrines better than we do?" I return again and again to the following declaration by President Harold B. Lee: "I say that we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren't able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken of are false--it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think that therein is one of our biggest dangers today" ("Finding the Answers in the Scriptures," Ensign, December 1972, 2).

I encourage you to pursue a regular study of the doctrines that form the foundation of our belief as found in the scriptures and the teachings of our latter-day prophets. You owe it to yourselves, your children, and those you serve within the Church to become knowledgable about those important doctrines -- that you "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15) -- with exactness.