All opinions are always 100% honest and my own. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. I also participate in: CJ Affiliate; eBay Partner Network; Rakuten Affiliate Network; ShareASale; Walmart Affiliate Program; independent affiliate networks.
Mercy is not defined in the Bible Dictionary, but Mercy Seat is and the definition provides some interesting points of consideration. The definition says:
The golden covering of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. It was the place of the manifestation of God's glory and his meeting place with his people (Exodus 25: 22; Leviticus 16: 2; Numbers 7: 89); and was regarded as the Throne of God (cf. Exodus 30: 6). Here the blood of the sin offering was sprinkled on the day of Atonement (Leviticus 16: 14–15).
About The Ark of the Covenant, the description includes the following:
It was the oldest and most sacred of the religious symbols of the Israelites, and the Mercy Seat which formed its covering was regarded as the earthly dwelling place of Jehovah.
The usual resting place of the Ark was in the Holy of Holies. (“Also called Most Holy Place. The most sacred room in the tabernacle and, later, in the temple as contrasted with the Holy Place.”)
So, the Mercy Seat was seen as the place where Israel's God lived while he visited His people, housed within the “Most Holy” room in the temple, and sprinkled with the blood that symbolized the Atonement.
This means that “mercy” is connected intimately with the Atonement, is associated with how God manifests his glory and represents how He “meets” us. Frankly, my mind was spinning a bit when I first realized all of this, as I had not considered this type of definition previously.
From dictionary.com, the definitions of “mercy” that best fit the scriptural foundation of the Mercy Seat are:
- Leniency and compassion shown toward offenders by a person or agency charged with administering justice;
- Forbearance to inflict harm under circumstances of provocation, when one has the power to inflict it.
The opposite of “mercy” is “justice” which is “the administering of deserved punishment or reward.”
From these definitions, it appears to me that the Mercy Seat was so named to make it obvious to the House of Israel that their interaction with God was conditioned on His willingness to not treat them as they deserved to be treated to share His glory with them, even though it was not theirs to have naturally to “forgive them their trespasses” and dwell with them even in their fallen and undeserving state.
As a foundation, therefore, if I am to be more merciful (“acting with mercy”), at the most fundamental level I must bridle my natural reactions to punish or administer justice when people do not measure up to what I believe they “should” do and treat them better than I believe they “deserve” to be treated. It is important to note, just as with the other characteristics I have been striving to develop, that this might be grounded in feeling and understanding, but in order to be truly internalized it must extend to action to becoming more merciful by acting more mercifully.
I want to dig deeper into the interplay of mercy and grace, but this foundation is enough for me to consider for now especially, for example, how it relates to my interaction in the world of blogging. That is what I hope can be discussed in the comments here how this understanding of mercy relates to blogging and other forms of inter-personal communication.
Alison Moore Smith is a 61-year-old entrepreneur who graduated from BYU in 1987. She has been (very happily) married to Samuel M. Smith for 40 years. They are parents of six incredible children and grandparents to two astounding grandsons. She is the author of The 7 Success Habits of Homeschoolers.
I have always connected mercy with the atonement, but “how God manifests his glory” and “represents how he ‘meets’ us” are new insights for me. I really like the imagery of God meeting us this way.
As far as mercy and blogging, I believe it’s a continuation of the Golden Rule. One should treat others the way they would like to be treated – whether it is in face-to-face interactions or within the bloggernacle. I believe this becomes more important over the Internet, as we cannot see facial expressions or immediately resolve misunderstandings that might occur.
Another interesting post, Ray. Bravo.
While I think the Golden Rule is a generally very helpful principle, it’s not without it flaws.
You might remember this from another thread. Using this rule can basically justify anything you want as long as you say it’s what you would want as well. So if I’m a masochist, then imposing pain on others is the “right” thing to do.
For that reason I think the “What would Jesus do?” question works a little better.
As for the question posed, don’t think I don’t know that this isn’t pointed at me. I do. No, I don’t think Ray will admit it, but I still think it is. And that’s OK. (And don’t try to convince me otherwise. It won’t work. La la la la la la la.)
I’m not nearly as blog-active as Ray, but for the most part I don’t really see anyone doling out punishment or justice on others. I just see people who have strong, varied opinions discussing issues. I have no problem with that at all and simply don’t see it as somehow lacking in mercy. (Maybe I’m just misunderstanding your position?) I created this blog to provide a place for such discussions. I can nod my head vigorously in Relief Society. I can’t (without significant repercussions) throw my hands up in Sacrament Meeting and say, “What the heck? Women can’t invite the Spirit into a meeting???” Here I can. 😎
One of the reasons I require all my bloggers (meaning those who write articles) to use their real names is because I think that accountability makes a huge difference. If I can’t hide behind a pseudonym, I am, I think, much more likely to take care in how I present my thoughts and responses.
I am, however, considering opening up the comments to anonymous posters. Most of you post anonymously anyway–although under consistent usernames. But I get complaints about that all the time. Wonder how that will affect the “mercy” on the blog?
As for mercy and justice:
It has been my understanding for many years now that one may not exist without the other. Brother Featherstone and I talked about this subject extensively one night down in West Texas over 35 years ago. They are so to speak a form of yin and yang.
In the schooling of martial arts the yin and yang are taught as well and I find an important eternal message delivered here also. “Soft turns away hard.” It is not necessary for equal or greater force to be used to stop an offending blow. Just enough force to deflect the blow. And sometimes the best defence is to simply move with the force of the opposing blow absorbing it and thus rendering it harmless.
As with Christ in the temple with the money changers there are times when harsh measures are called for. However these as a general rule are few and far between. Usually when we ( he says looking into the mirror and blushing… eyes falling to the floor. ) turn to harsh measures it is unjustified. An arrogant, self-indulgent, ignorant reaction on our part. One that when we stop to ponder we will regret.
As for pseudonyms and unanimity:
If Allison wanted to know who I am I believe she could, as the administrator of the site simply look me up . So to me that is really not an issue.
However in a forum like this where we deal with written not spoken words things can get a wee confused. You can not hear the tone of my voice, nay see the expression on my face, see the tear or twinkle in my eye. Something said in guest can end up a wildfire.
Also something said innocently and in a spirit of fellowship, teaching, learning and sharing could be taken as boasting. But if you know not who I am how can I be boasting? Just a wee thought that.
You are a great bunch here. I am thankful I stumbled in.
Thank you for sharing. Thank you for letting me share.
Wally 🙂
Mercy must be a hard subject to write about. To really express what mercy is has got to be a very hard task. As I think about mercy it is just as hard as the subject as the atonement. Very hard for me to even contemplete on for very long. It hurts my soul to meditate on!!! I hope you get my drift. However, when I think of mercy in just about every case that presents itself, ie..blogging relationships, family, sinning, etc. I always look back to the example of the Savior when the adulteress was brought to him. He didn’t have to yell, emphasize his point, he just very calmly and kindly said, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” To me that is Mercy in it’s truest form.
I have to say that I have a very naive way of thinking. I have always wanted the world around me to be kind. I wonder why it can’t. Why can’t we talk calmly and nicely to each other without getting headed up about certain things. That is one of the things I dearly love about my son in law. We have the best discussions. They don’t get heated even though we speak about religion, polititcs, his wife, my husband. We stay calm and level headed. Even though we disagree at times we can still be friends without taking things personally. I know we all have many different personalitites and that is suppose to make the world go round, but do you think we get mad in heaven? What will life be like then? I guess I want a little heaven on earth. So now that I have articulated some of my thoughts on this subject, I have just realized what I must do from now on. I can start practicing on earth how I want it in heaven!!!!!!! I can let the pettiness of life try to roll off my back and take what a person says with a grain of salt if I know what they are saying will upset me.
Why can’t we talk kindly and discuss things on this site without getting upset. Why can’t we be allowed to express our views wtihout another taking offence by saying–that is their opinion and I will allow that person to have it!!!! I can’t be accepting of another views without adopting them as my own. We all here have taught me that. I love the discussion that go on as it has really made me do some deep thinking and establish my own view without it being anothers. I am learning to express my views better(I hope)! But in all of this learning I have learned I don’t need to attack another. I just need to state myself and be kind to others!!!
Alison, I won’t tell you that this was written almost a year ago and tweaked mostly as a result of my participation on a couple of other blogs – since I will respect your request to not try to convince you it’s not about you. Perhaps it’s timely; perhaps not. :bigsmile: All I know is that it’s the next post I was working on in the “Becoming” series as I laid out the plan long ago, so take the timing as a sign. 😉
La la la la la la I can’t hear you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😉
:angry::bigsmile::confused::cool::cry::devil::neutral::sad::shamed::shocked::smile::surprised::tongue::wink:
Pick whichever one you like. I offer them all as possibilities. :peace:
:pirate: Ray, I hope you’ll tell me more about what you’re hoping for in the blogosphere.
Yes, *I* could, but could the rest of you? All you have to do is look at a newspaper’s Letters to the Editor column compared with, say, the comments left on articles at ksl.com.
So, what is required of US? God has specifically justified and even commanded wars. If we are told, in some cases, to blow the brains out of other people can it really be said that no one can ever speak firmly against someone else without sinning or at least without, I don’t know, being a bad Mormon?
I agree with Alison completely in this point. There is a BIG difference between mercy, spinelessness and/or unconditional tolerance.
I agree with the “what would Jesus do?” lifestyle. Many times in my dating and now marriage things affect me and not my hubs, and when I would say how would you feel, he honeslty felt different than how I reacted. So it made it unstable grounds to tread using the “do unto others rule.”
Ray, I think that’s where the struggle comes in. If we speak against an idea, many–even within the LDS community–claim it isn’t ” Christlike” because it isn’t what they perceive as being “kind.” That is exactly the issue I was addressing in the Mr. Nice Guy article last fall.
Personally, I don’t put kindness at the center of my moral universe. And I guess I don’t put mercy there either.
Do you really think that Nehpi raged at Laban when he cut his head off? No he was being obediant at the time. Maybe mercy would have been to knock him out, tie him up.But I don’t think that would have been mercy either. We can emphasize a point by not yelling and saying ugly hurtful things. That is not being spineless. Ray, are you saying that the Savior was spineless when he spoke to the people and told them to cast the first stone. No, he did it with no righteous indignation or hurtful words if we are to believe the Bible. Why doesn’t kindness count-Alison. Why do we have to be mean to prove a point. Why do we have to say things in a nasty way to make a point. I wonder if we do it to get the POWW factor for our selves. Is it unconditional tolerance if we ask a child to quit doing something that is harmful or is a spanking better. Maybe we should not discipline either.
No matter what we talk about there will always be controversy. It is how we handle the matter is where mercy comes into play.
nana – that’s not at all what Alison was saying. I believe her point was that DISAGREEING and or calling evil, evil is not UNkind. It’s okay to have different opinions or to question things and it’s okay to call a spade a spade – – that, in and of itself, is not unkind.
I wrote a post two weeks after I first wrote this one titled, “The Difference Between Mercy and Kindness“. This probably is a good time to excerpt from it. 🙂 If you want to read the whole thing, click on the link above.
“There are times, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, that we may act with neither meekness nor mercy – when we may “reprove betimes (immediately, in the moment) with sharpness (precision)” – since these instances explicitly are directed by a member of the Godhead. All other times, when we are not acting through direct communication from deity, we must strive to be either merely meek or truly merciful – by inflicting as little harm as possible through gentleness and kindness or no harm at all through mercy. That is a fine line that must be drawn, I believe, in each and every instance – which is one reason why the Gift of the Holy Ghost is so critical to our progression and growth.”
The point is that we can confront wrongness and evil without losing meekness and mercy – by making the confrontation as painless as it is possible for it to be, even if pain still must be a part of the confrontation. Mercy comes into play when inflicting pain is not necessary – and I believe those cases occur FAR more often than we naturally believe.
Thanks, jennycherie. Spot on.
nanacarol, I didn’t say anything of the kind. Of course kindness can be a good thing, but it’s not (in Covey-speak) the Divine Center.
Sorry, but I don’t care how you cut or blow a guy’s head off, I’m not going to call it “kind.” And if God sometimes commands things so opposed to being “nice,” then it’s not HIS divine center, either.
My point is that to many in the LDS community, speaking out IS considered, ipso facto, UNKIND. It’s not about tone or truth, it’s about the idea that speaking out is simply a mean, awful thing to do. And I believe that is why, for example, Utah is the scam capital of the US. Mormons, collectively, just can’t stomach the idea of questioning someone’s statements or motives or of actually calling them out on anything at all. Because they think it’s “mean.” I think that’s not only wrong, but dangerous.
Ray, I’m unsure of your explanation. The article is said to distinguish mercy from kindness, yet in your quote, you do equate them to an extent. Being merciful IS, in your definition, gentleness and kindness. I’m also confused by the idea that reproving with sharpness is, necessarily, lacking in mercy. I don’t think it is. Could you clarify?
Sure, Alison. I’ll try.
There are two attributes in the Beatitudes that get mixed up often: meekness (being gentle, forgiving, benevolent [kindly generous]) and mercy (not inflicting deserved harm or punishment). Not speaking up is what tends to be mistakenly labeled as meekness, but being kind also too often is seen as an absolute: Either someone is kind or they are unkind, with no gradations of degree. That is incorrect.
What I’m saying at the core is that someone can be “kind” and still point out error, just as they can be merciful in how they determine what should be done about it. Pointing out error might not be “kind” in a touchy-feely, never hurt anyone sort of way, but, in another way, it can be very “kind” – especially when pointing out the error can cause someone to change their actions and avoid great pain. They also can be meek throughout the process.
If I see someone doing something where I know there is a high probability that he will cause harm to himself or others if he continues to do so, I have a responsibility to point out the error of the action. At that point, I have a choice in HOW I do so. Much of my choice will be based on the severity and immediacy of the danger I perceive. Much of the conflict with others will be in the difference in the severity and immediacy of the danger they perceive. Iow, they might not see it how I see it. Therefore, I have a second level of choice to make in HOW I point out what I perceive to be the error of their action.
I can do so meekly, by being gentle, forgiving (if their action has caused harm to me in the past) and kindly generous (by giving them the benefit of the doubt, for example); I can do so kindly (by inflicting as little harm as possible, no matter how directly I feel compelled to address my concern); I can do so mercifully (by inflicting no harm or less harm when I have the right to inflict great harm); etc. In some ways, mercy and kindness are very similar, and in some cases they probably are synonymous, but there are other times when being merciful goes beyond being merely kind. (e.g., Insisting that a man who kills someone I love serve the maximum sentence still could be kind; asking that he serve the minimum or even less would be both kind AND merciful. Either of those choices might be “right”; both of them could be kind; only the latter would be merciful. Since either could be “right”, I am left to decide personally whether or not mercy is desirable in each and every case.)
One more case:
I can disagree strongly with someone and choose one of two options: to be kind but still condemn them for their beliefs or actions or to be merciful in speaking out in opposition to their beliefs or actions (hopefully in a meek manner) without condemning them. I can suspend lasting judgment that appears legitimately mine to make and, instead, focus strictly on providing a counter voice of warning. Iow, I can “warn” in a meek manner, being “kind” as I do so, and not be merciless in my conclusions about them.
My contention is that there are FAR more instances where mercy would be the best option than we often realize – that many times we should go beyond kindness and truly be merciful.
There is a term “cruel to be Kind”. Though I do not always subscribe to this school of thought is a viable lesson to be learned. When I was just a wee one I was in the corner neighborhood store ( long before 7-11 was about ) and for some reason I do not know or understand to this day I pinched a box of candy cigarettes. Later that day my mother found them and quickly got to the bottom of things. She and my father had a wee chat about it and then my father took me back to the store and we talk to the owner Mr. Knovack, a long time family friend and not a member of the church. He put me to work in his store room and I worked off the debt and I was grounded for quite sometime afterwards. In the entire situation there was never a cross word spoken. I was never belittled or scolded. I was punished, I was talked to by my parents and Mr. Knovack and taught about what I did wrong. How it made them feel and the impression it gave others about me. Knowing I had been dishonest. Somewhere in there I experience Justice, Mercy and Kindness. A lesson that I have carried with me many years and have used in teaching others. There was nothing spineless about my parents or Mr. Knovacks method of instruction.
Years later as a young soldier I leaned harsh lessons of survival from hardened war veterans. They were tough on me and my mates. They were not bashful about teaching us what we needed to do to win and survive. I see their harsh methods as merciful. Maybe not at the time, but in hind sight I see it clearly.
And as for Laban? Well if I remember my BoM History correctly he was inebriated at the time of his beheading. He most likely did not know what was coming. Sounds a lot like mercy to me.
As a county sheriff out in Nye County Nevada, I was called upon to deal with some pretty rough characters. I am not prone to profanity but there were times when the people I had to deal with just could not understand how serious I was when telling them to do something without a vocabulary they could understand in a tone of voice they could recognize. When I did resort to this method of command my partner would always laugh quietly to himself because is was so out of character to hear me talk that way.
I think as in all things the particular situation you are facing is most reverent. And this is where, as they say, “The Rubber Meets The Road”. Are we listening to the wee smell voice inside of us? Are we turning on the Light of Christ? Humble does not mean eating bread crumbs off the floor. Meek does not mean letting letting someone take advantage of someone else. Mercy does not mean “No Accountability”. Justice does not mean an eminent public beheading. Every situation is as unique as the individuals involved. And that is, I believe, the beauty and challenge of it.
Wally
nicely said!
Yup, Wally, your last paragraph is a gem.
Exactly, Wally. Much of the problem in discussing terms like meekness, mercy, humility, justice, etc. is in the oversimplified, generalized, sometimes blatantly incorrect definitions that are assumed by many – including sometimes us.