- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This just feels so off to me.
I’m not sure why… But this feels like a political move…
Am I the only one?
Hm. Interesting. What I like:
– They are doing more than just giving lip service to a cause that is hard to take serious when we’ve had racist history problems…they are actually using sacred church funds. That is a positive, to me.
My skepticism is they try to pull a story out of the past with Emma and a black woman to try to show …”See…we’re not racist after all!”
If that is all it is…then perhaps i worry too that this is off just a bit, and confusing.
But…working with the NAACP in Utah is a show of earnest effort. Perhaps we are not comfortable with our past, but our actions today can hopefully shape a better future? Perhaps?
Here is what they said back in July:
Quote:Church President Russell M. Nelson stated in May that the two groups [Church and NAACP] would “explore ways — such as education and humanitarian service — in which our respective members and others can serve and move forward together, lifting our brothers and sisters who need our help, just as the Savior, Jesus Christ, would do.”
“I was definitely one of those folks wondering why are we going to Utah,” said Karen Boykins-Towns, vice-chair of the NAACP board of directors. “Our visit and our meeting [were] surprisingly impactful and groundbreaking. And despite our reservations, we left that historic meeting with a better understanding of each other’s history and the desire to acknowledge the past and move forward to work together for the common good.”
…
Leon W. Russell, chairman of the NAACP board of directors, spoke at Sunday’s mass meeting and introduced Elder Gerard.
Russell said the NAACP’s relationship with the Church is still developing as they share common ground with the Church on the issues of equality, human rights and civility. “It’s not about theology; it’s not about philosophy. It’s about helping people. I’m very happy that we are going to work on those elements.”
I guess some of that background to this effort to support a film is worth noting.
What do you think, QA? Are they sincerely trying? Or playing defense still? Or is it politically charged?
Good question. Is the church trying to increase ticket sales? People may feel like they are treating the family to a movie and donating to charity at the same time. Why would the church care about ticket sales?
I wonder if members of the church in those areas are being pressured to go buy tickets and support it (I don’t like when they do that)
I like almost anything that supports a good cause, and I have heard wonderful things from friends I trust about this movie. I think the Church sincerely is trying to create better race relationships. I am okay with this.
The Church really seems like it’s trying to kill off it’s spotty past; partly through reimaging it, partly through rebranding. It feels dishonest… but I wonder if in the long run it isn’t a good thing? Either way, just about everyone has done it. America is nothing like it back in Joseph Smith’s time. Neither is England. Germany went itself from one of the worst countries of all time less than 70 years ago, and now it’s a pretty awesome place. Most all history books lie, and I think people would rather belong to a country they can feel proud, rather than ashamed of. On the one hand, it isn’t truthful. It can lead people to have greater trust in an organization than they probably should. But it is a better organization than it once was, and gives people a sense of belonging and inspiration. It’s not a system I am happy with or fully agree with. But I can accept it, I think.
Repentance is repentance, and in this case I believe the Church truly is trying to change. I am not going to knock anybody for trying to change positively from their past. Old Timer wrote:
Repentance is repentance, and in this case I believe the Church truly is trying to change. I am not going to knock anybody for trying to change positively from their past.
I’m with you on this one Curt. Repentance (change) is a process, not an event. I do think the church is truly making an effort at changing (repenting of) several things – but it’s a process in all cases. This is just another small step in the process.
I have been ruminating on this over night. It might be a smart marketing strategy. 1) the church makes a charitable donation that produces good works.
2) the church encourages people to see a movie that helps support (at least tangentially) church goals.
3) Rather than just do a one time donation, the church has created an event of sorts with the potential to generate positive publicity at the beginning, middle, and end.
4) Each time this is reported on it will draw attention to the movie. The movie, like most limited release movies, must fight for awareness of the movie going public that it exists.
5) As I mentioned earlier, people that go to the movie get to feel good and charitable since the church is “matching” the ticket price as a donation.
This is pure speculation on my part (since I do not have any inside connections), but it certainly has the potential to be a WIN-WIN-WIN scenario
It might be “repentance”, but it’s a different brand of repentance than they teach over the pulpit. It’s like when a man becomes afraid his wife is going to find out about an affair from a few years prior. He brings her flowers, does the dishes, and steps up his “husband” game, so she won’t believe it. Yes, he’s resolving to be a better husband. Yes, he’s doing good. Yes, he’s looking forward, leaving the past behind, and the incident probably won’t happen again. And maybe he doesn’t want his wife to believe it, partly out of concern for her emotional well-being. But he still did a scummy thing, and shouldn’t blame his wife when she doesn’t trust him.
dande48 wrote:
It might be “repentance”, but it’s a different brand of repentance than they teach over the pulpit. It’s like when a man becomes afraid his wife is going to find out about an affair from a few years prior. He brings her flowers, does the dishes, and steps up his “husband” game, so she won’t believe it. Yes, he’s resolving to be a better husband. Yes, he’s doing good. Yes, he’s looking forward, leaving the past behind, and the incident probably won’t happen again. And maybe he doesn’t want his wife to believe it, partly out of concern for her emotional well-being.But he still did a scummy thing, and doesn’t deserve to be trusted.
None of us can pay the price no matter what we do. None of us even deserve to be forgiven. Fortunately our loving Heavenly Parents foresaw this would be the case and provided a way for the price to be paid, no matter how we incur the debt or how big the debt is. Every single recorded instance we have in the NT where someone asked Jesus for forgiveness, he immediately and freely forgave. Not only that, he forgave those who didn’t ask (think of the woman caught in adultery). Repentance isn’t necessarily about actual change, but is about trying to change and being willing to change. And you’re absolutely right, that is not always the message we hear from the pulpit – but we do hear it from those who really understand what grace is.
Some thoughts: – The Church donated all proceeds from the film “Meet the Mormons” to the American Red Cross.
– I don’t believe the Church or its populace were a racist lot during the time of JS. All evidence I can find points toward this as a later development. In fact, a large part of the conflict in Missouri was over the Church integrating with free black people and being viewed as abolitionists. For example, after the Mormons were expelled by threat from Jackson County, the citizens of Clay county let them come there to stay temporarily, recognizing that they were refugees. But a couple years later, they were starting to get tired of the continued presence and officially requested Mormons to move on. Their rationale listed three grievances: Mormons were Northerners, they were opposed to slavery, and they taught that Native Americans were a chosen people. Those Jerks! How dare they!
– Most people who will see this film are members of the Church. They need to be taught that Mormonism is opposed to racism, and if that hasn’t already gotten through, then no doubt this film will help spread the word.
– The Church has made terrible mistakes in the past. It is trying to do right now and has been for awhile. If we can’t separate out past failures from present successes, then we’ll never be at peace with the Church.
On Own Now wrote:
In fact, a large part of the conflict in Missouri was over the Church integrating with free black people and being viewed as abolitionists.We
saythat. We put it into our movies. But I don’t think that’s really the case. Joseph Smith ran on a platform which included gradually abolishing slavery over a 50 year period, and compensating slave owners, but that was about it. But Joseph Smith was pretty racist, and was definitely not an abolitionist, and made it very clear dark skin is a curse. Joseph Smith wrote:[Slavery] remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude.
Joseph Smith wrote:‘Are the Mormons abolitionists?’ No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free.
I think the whole conflict in Missouri had more to do with polygamy.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/10/12/holly-richardson-go-see/ Wow! This article makes great points about the movie being very pro-women.
DarkJedi wrote:
dande48 wrote:
It might be “repentance”, but it’s a different brand of repentance than they teach over the pulpit. It’s like when a man becomes afraid his wife is going to find out about an affair from a few years prior. He brings her flowers, does the dishes, and steps up his “husband” game, so she won’t believe it. Yes, he’s resolving to be a better husband. Yes, he’s doing good. Yes, he’s looking forward, leaving the past behind, and the incident probably won’t happen again. And maybe he doesn’t want his wife to believe it, partly out of concern for her emotional well-being.But he still did a scummy thing, and doesn’t deserve to be trusted.
None of us can pay the price no matter what we do. None of us even deserve to be forgiven. Fortunately our loving Heavenly Parents foresaw this would be the case and provided a way for the price to be paid, no matter how we incur the debt or how big the debt is. Every single recorded instance we have in the NT where someone asked Jesus for forgiveness, he immediately and freely forgave. Not only that, he forgave those who didn’t ask (think of the woman caught in adultery). Repentance isn’t necessarily about actual change, but is about trying to change and being willing to change. And you’re absolutely right, that is not always the message we hear from the pulpit – but we do hear it from those who really understand what grace is.
Forgiveness is great. I’m sure the church and its leaders will obtain it.
But dande is talking about the part of repentance where the offending party works to reconcile with the injured party. That part is about restoring trust. That’s the part the church never does.
As a result, trust is rarely restored. Instead, the church changes for the better without trying to reconcile on any reasonable terms. (“Trust us because the prophet can’t lead the church astray” and “if you don’t trust us you’re deceived by Satan” don’t count.) At best, it doesn’t injure anyone in the same way again, and achieves reconciliation by default when the injured party and the leaders responsible die. But before then, because there’s no admission of wrongdoing and a general belief in the church’s effective infallibility, the injured party shoulders the burden of other members’ blame for daring to want to be treated with basic dignity. Or worse, they come to believe that they were wrong to do so, and “repent” of it.
It seems to take the church over 40 years to fully repent, in the sense that there are very few people left to reconcile with. I have to admit, if I knew I would live for centuries and I thought so much of myself that admitting wrongdoing felt like the icy hand of death or the jaws of hell, I would probably repent the same way.
It’s been 40 years now since the priesthood and temple ban was lifted. We’re seeing the church repent. Praise is in order, but it’s really hard to praise a narcissist who has hurt you, doesn’t intend to reconcile with you, and has your family and friends wrapped around his little finger.
FWIW, I think the matching thing is great, and might even be brilliant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.