- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
NAACP is the safe, middle class face of black activism. Maybe we need to get a Spike Lee film about Eldridge Cleaver, ex-Black Panther and call it “Black Mormon”. 😆 Actually a doc about him, including the LDS content would be good… along the lines of New York Doll which was sweet.
FWIW, the church made a pretty solid statement in the aftermath of Charlottesville. Quote:“Doesn’t intend to reconcile with you.”
We are talking about race – specifically black people. What is your evidence that the Church does not intend to reconcile with black people?
Reuben wrote:
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.
There is a difference between repentance and forgiveness. Repentance (changing) is something we do. Forgiveness from God is something the repentant hopes to get. Forgiveness from others is much more elusive because humans are going to be human. Going back to using the NT as reference on the topic. There is no evidence that any of the people who asked (or didn’t ask) and were forgiven by Jesus made any efforts at reconciliation with their fellow humans – it’s a separate thing. I’m not going to preach a sermon about forgiving being necessary to be forgiven, although Jesus did state that. It’s something I’m attempting to repent of (change in myself).
We have had the conversation here about the perceived need for the church to apologize, and I am actually in the camp that thinks the church should apologize. I also recognize that it will probably never happen. The church can change in fundamental ways without apologizing. If forgiven by God (and I’m not sure God forgives organizations, I do believe God forgives individuals), there is no need for an apology.
Former thread about the church and apology:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7941 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7941 The church has changed, but it won’t face its past. That’s the short version. DarkJedi wrote:
If forgiven by God (and I’m not sure God forgives organizations, I do believe God forgives individuals), there is no need for an apology.
I’ve heard this repeatedly, but I’m not sure I like the sentiment. It’s too often used as a doctrinal way to place the blame on the victim. “God has forgiven me, and if you don’t forgive me, you hold the greater sin.” It absolves without the need for recompense, and leaves the victim in their hurt, believing God will make it right. Yet they still hurt. I think it’s kind of silly that we focus on obtaining forgiveness from God (who has everything, knows everything, and is all powerful), rather than our fellowman. I believe repentance should be more about restoring good relations and making things up the best we can to those we have wronged, over trying to gain absolution from a third party (God).
But that’s not doctrine. Blessed are the meek, for I don’t have to worry about them.
So, I think that for me – it seems so commercial. I get that the Church has commercial enterprises, but for the most part, they are not discussed publicly.
Entering the world of entertainment – or the world of Mommy blogs…is weird.
It wasn’t long ago that the Church fb page was linking to and encouraging members to purchase products made by Mommy bloggers on their revenue-generating blogs.
I am totally fine with moms who run these blogs to tout their own products – capitalism and all.
But when The Church starts directing people to these blogs, I wonder.
It feels the same “weird” when the Church is offering to match box office sales. What makes that movie so special? What made the Mom Blogs so special. I don’t have a blog and I don’t own an entertainment company, so it’s not like I’m jealous. I just wonder – why doesn’t the Church offer to match sales to see the World Cup? Or the premiere of Star Wars?
We aren’t even allowed to mention products by name in church meetings. But now the Church is endorsing certain products?
Maybe it feels weird b/c it leaves the door open for other things and maybe b/c it can lead to confusion.
Anyway, if you’ve read any of my posts, you know that I have difficulty articulating my thoughts and this comment here is no different.
Sorry if I am not coming across the right way.
🙄 dande48 wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
If forgiven by God (and I’m not sure God forgives organizations, I do believe God forgives individuals), there is no need for an apology.
I’ve heard this repeatedly, but I’m not sure I like the sentiment. It’s too often used as a doctrinal way to place the blame on the victim. “God has forgiven me, and if you don’t forgive me, you hold the greater sin.” It absolves without the need for recompense, and leaves the victim in their hurt, believing God will make it right. Yet they still hurt. I think it’s kind of silly that we focus on obtaining forgiveness from God (who has everything, knows everything, and is all powerful), rather than our fellowman. I believe repentance should be more about restoring good relations and making things up the best we can to those we have wronged, over trying to gain absolution from a third party (God).
But that’s not doctrine. Blessed are the meek, for I don’t have to worry about them.
Just to point out, I purposely avoided saying that the greater sin is upon those who don’t forgive. I honestly don’t believe that. You’ll not hear any victim blaming from me. Other than that, we’re talking about two different things. I’m talking about repentance (changing, turning toward God), you’re talking about restitution. I recognize there are those that believe restitution is a necessary part of repentance and having been a missionary in the old flipbook days, I recall repentance being taught that way. I disagree that gaining forgiveness from God requires restitution or any other kind of penance. I do agree that if we desire to heal relationships with others restitution is probably necessary, but I also recognize we can’t force others or require it of others that they make restitution to gain our forgiveness. If they want our forgiveness they might do so, but if they don’t or don’t care it probably ain’t gonna happen and we have no choice but to accept that because it is what it is.
Our views obviously differ on the subject. I do understand your hurt, I’m hurting too. How we’re dealing with it is different, so we’re left with agreeing to disagree.
On a related side note, I did like the gist of Elder Holland’s talk last week. But at the same time it bugged me. Elder Holland put all the onus on the aggrieved individual, when it took two to tango – that bishop was also wrong and there was a lot he could have done, too (including apologizing and making restitution).
I don’t have a problem with this at all. It’s a highly visible way of helping others, while also furthering the interests of the church at the same time. My only concern is whether the story portrayed in the movie is faithful to what actually happened, as we all have heard the term “whitewashing”. SilentDawning wrote:
My only concern is whether the story portrayed in the movie is faithful to what actually happened…
I’ve been reading up on Jane Manning James. She has a pretty fascinating story, and I think shines a positive light on the Smith family; she was a very close friend of the family, and even reportedly was shown the urim and thumim. Juding by the name of the movie, I’m certain that’s what they’ll focus on. She was a close friend of the Smiths. I doubt they’ll bring up anything about her time in Utah, which had more than it’s fair share of hardships. She was the only black person in that time to have temple work done while living. While she waited outside, another woman went into the temple as proxy, and had her sealed to Joseph Smith Jr as a servant for time and all eternity.
SilentDawning wrote:
I don’t have a problem with this at all. It’s a highly visible way of helping others, while also furthering the interests of the church at the same time. My only concern is whether the story portrayed in the movie is faithful to what actually happened, as we all have heard the term “whitewashing”.
* Blackwashing
Some historian friends have said it is excellent – and that it emphasizes both Emma and Jane as strong women. Also, to be crystal clear:
The movie was NOT created by the Church. That is important to note, just in case some people are not aware of it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.