- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was listening to conference via the internet today, so I don’t know which G-A was speaking, but I heard a quote mentioning something about how some these days would only think of Christ as a “champion for social justice” but disregard His other teachings in order to justify “sin.” Was it me, or did someone else take that as a backhanded show of support for Glenn Beck’s comments about the subject? I’d be curious to hear your thoughts. I am a very left-leaning Mormon who believes in a certain Mormon liberation theology, with Christ being at the center. Yes, I do believe there is more to Him than social justice, but I believe that was an under-handed zinger thrown at those who are left of center. Sorry I missed it, but I try not to take things like that personally. Everyone has their own mindset, I try to be a “duck” and let things slide off my back! Oh, that hurts. Please don’t remind me. I had to glance over to see who was the Glenn Beck fan. It was Brother Todd Christofferson. Sigh. I honestly don’t know what to do. My daughter was determined to at least have conference on. I guess I raised her right. Grr, Zealot Tom! I didn’t like that way to phrase it, but I didn’t hear support for Glenn Beck in the talk. I also heard LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of thoughts about how much we need to help the poor and struggling, so I chalked it up to one person who phrased something badly – and I then let go of it.
I did notice the phrase “social justice” and my ears perked up, but the kids were screaming so I didn’t really catch the larger context of what he was saying. I instantly thought of Glenn Beck, though, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the use of that specific phrase were intentional given the recent controversy over Beck’s comments about it. Old-Timer wrote:I chalked it up to one person who phrased something badly – and I then let go of it.
That’s one way to cope. Here’s another way: I chalked it up to another piece of the prevailing LDS attitude I want to keep out of my heart – and I let go of it.
Tom, I respect that – but I just didn’t get anything like “social justice is a bad thing” from the words themselves. Seriously, that message isn’t there. I did hear that quote, but I can’t recall who said it. [edit to add – TC apparently from the above] I think sometimes it’s the other way round too. How many times do we hear right wing preachers in other churches preaching salvation, but condemning measures that might actually help the poor?
Social justice is an important thing, no doubt about it. I just hope he meant that people were taking a despiritualized Jesus, rather than a Jesus who is only begotten, resurrected etc. Arguably, he was crucified partly because of his stance on social justice (amongst other things)
Charity was mentioned a number of times, which IS a form of social justice. However, my view of social justice includes access to decent healthcare, education and freedom of expression.
I too was irked by that political phrase being wormed into General Conference as general instruction for millions of people to hear. Every November the First Presidency encourages people to vote, but does not take any political stance or encourage anyone to vote according to any church-wide political endorsement. So when a church leader takes time in General Conference to use a political phrase like “social justice”, I think it muddies the waters a bit. Perhaps he doesn’t realize how much of a political term that is. Maybe it is something he heard about on the news one night and said to himself, “now there’s a phrase that sums up this idea under a concise and neat label.” Really, the term “social justice”, broken down, doesn’t mean anything more than what is right for all of society. It’s not a bad phrase, or idea, but it is a politicized phrase because it carries with it attached to a thick political chain images of socialism, universal healthcare, etc.
I would be just as irked if Elder Eyring were to use the Tea Party phrase “career politician”, or the left-wing phrase “migrant worker”. Politics and religion are gas and fire. I prefer not to mix the two. I choose to let my religion govern my morals and my politics to govern my ethics. And I don’t need to be told which way to vote.
So that’s why it bothers me, is because the church preaches so ardently against taking political stances, and then a general authority uses a strictly political term.
What does social justice even mean. Why are so many liberals upset over the phrase. I do not get it. Please take a moment and listen to a message from Peter Morales, Leader of the Unitarian Church, a church which advocates for social justice. Morales introduces his stance explaining that he stood in the mass graves of Guatemalan Mayans and read the names of some of those buried. The name “Morales” appeared several times. It seems that there was a deep-seated hatred of the Mayans and a desire to exterminate them, hence their mass slaughter.
The message is that no group of people should be marginalized and hated and that every person should count. Because of these views, they refuse to marginalize gay and lesbian persons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UubcWiTDSvg It never fails to amaze me that slaughtering thousands of Mayans is NOT considered deep sin worthy of standing up and fighting against, but homosexual marriage is. What have we become? We can’t even learn to tolerate those who ARE tolerant.
Here is the exact quote from Elder Christofferson’s address. I too took note when he used the term “social justice” I am very sensitive to issues of equality, and my ears perked up as to what context he was using such a phrase. After thinking about it, I think we may all be reading into things a bit much. I really don’t get what the big deal was. Then again, I know a lot of thought goes into to these talks. I was talking once with my neighbor who is the daughter of Pres. Faust. She said her dad would start working on his next conference address just one week following his last. He said it was because it was so important, and every word he said must be carefully thought out. “In a complete reversal from a century ago, many today would dispute with Alma about the seriousness of immorality. Others would argue that it’s all relative or that God’s love is permissive. If there is a God, they say, He excuses all sins and misdeeds because of His love for us—there is no need for repentance. Or at most, a simple confession will do.
They have imagined a Jesus who wants people to work for social justice but who makes no demands upon their personal life and behavior.But a God of love does not leave us to learn by sad experience that “wickedness never was happiness” Parsing the actual quote most literally leads me to believe he said Jesus expects us to work for “social justice” AND makes “demands upon our personal life and behavior”. I can’t find any fault with that, even if, as I said, I would have preferred a different wording. Old-Timer wrote:Parsing the actual quote most literally leads me to believe he said Jesus expects us to work for “social justice” AND makes “demands upon our personal life and behavior”. I can’t find any fault with that, even if, as I said, I would have preferred a different wording.
As one who has spent a fair amount of time with Elder Christofferson, and has spoken with him personally, and heard him speak multiple times, I can say it is my conviction that the man understands the Gospel so well that Ray’s parsing makes perfect sense.HiJolly
I’m sorry for so many posts, but this is one of my hardest issues with the Church. I wish so much that the LDS Church would just respect the rights of others to worship as they see fit. We have an article of faith to that effect. We have constitutional rights to freedom of religion. Why, please, kindly, explain to me why is it ok to criticize another person’s faith in our own General Conference, especially a faith this has literally been under fire in recent years?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.