So instead of working on the midterms I need to be writing, I've got some other things on my mind. This afternoon instead of holding one of my classes, my professor suggest we attend a rough-cut screening of Helen Whitney's new film on forgiveness. It was just the first of two parts of the film. The second part of the film is actually being screened at the University of Utah on Sunday. Because I haven't seen the second part of the film, I can't judge it positively or negatively because I haven't seen the conclusion. The portion I saw was, as she described, meant to create more questions than answers. One main question asked seemed to be, is forgiveness necessary, and is it always good?
Throughout the film, I saw example after example of people who either used forgiveness to cope with a situation or denied forgiveness and sought healing elsewhere for a wrong done to them. It was all very interesting, and it was interesting to see what she decided to portray. Religion was mentioned, and the ubiquity of forgiveness in the modern age--whether sincere or not--was an interesting concept addressed as well.
The whole time, I was thinking how interesting it is to listen to intellectuals grapple with philosophical ideas in a secular context that are often seen primarily in religion. These concepts, such as forgiveness, often become so complex and abstruse. I think it's also interesting that many think if you look at a complex problem through the eyes of religion, you are just being naive. I think that's evidence of the secularism in today's society, but that's another discussion for another day. Helen Whitney had some interesting insights, and I'm not trying to diminish that. However, the whole time I just kept thinking about what Alma said: "What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice?" We know the answer to that question is no, because then God would cease to be God.
That then brings up one of the great paradox of scripture: mercy vs. justice. I think philosophy exists solely to explore the complexities in the many paradoxes of the world. While the scriptures contain many, we don't value them for their complexity, but for their simplicity (such as the concept of losing oneself in order to finding oneself). For example, the paradox of justice and mercy is easily simplified by understanding that the Atonement of Jesus Christ fulfills the law of justice while still handing mercy to the sinner and sinned against. While many quotes explain this well, I particularly like this one from Elder Scott:
"The demands of justice for broken law can be satisfied through mercy, earned by your continual repentance and obedience to the laws of God. His mercy pays our debt to justice when we repent and obey Him."
It sounds to me like, you can't have mercy without justice, and you can't really have justice without mercy. It just doesn't work that way. So, where does that leave forgiveness? It seems the only real ubiquity about forgiveness is that it's necessary. Always. Perhaps the concept isn't as abstruse as those philosophers think.
1 comment:
Secularism is probably the biggest threat to organized religion today, especially in regard to churches speaking out on moral issues vs. those who would sue the churches claiming that their equal rights are violated. I always remember that Book of Mormon teaching that says this land of promise will be blessed as long as the majority voice of the people chooses righteousness; but when the majority chooses wickedness, we don't have that promise. It's hard to think of secular mercy/justice/forgiveness issues without an underlying religious foundation.
Post a Comment