Charity sufferereth long

[Fether]

Moroni 7:45 

“Charity sufferereth long”

 

what does this phrase mean?

 

secondary questions:

Is it correct to say that charity is an all encompassing view of the world? i.e. If I love my children, my wife, but gossip about those I disagree with, then can I say I have charity for my family? Or is it more accurate to say I do not have charity at all?

Edited September 6, 2021 by Fether

[NeuroTypical]

“suffereth”.  Means “suffers”, not “sufferers”.

 I’ve taken it to mean that pure Christlike love is not always easy.  Sometimes loving a particular individual can be very difficult, even painful.  And loving them entails a bit of suffering as you endure whatever crap they’re bringing to the table.

[Grunt]

46 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

“suffereth”.  Means “suffers”, not “sufferers”.

 I’ve taken it to mean that pure Christlike love is not always easy.  Sometimes loving a particular individual can be very difficult, even painful.  And loving them entails a bit of suffering as you endure whatever crap they’re bringing to the table.

My wife would probably agree.

[laronius]

The old version of suffer means to allow something and in this instance specifically I think it means that we will allow others to do whatever they want and we'll still have charity for them. Or in other words it's not based on reciprocity. Great patience could be a related quality.

Being that charity is a spiritual gift I don't think it can be selectively turned on or off. The love we naturally feel towards family may make it seem like we only have charity only for family but those aren't the same kinds of love.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

 

“suffereth”.  Means “suffers”, not “sufferers”.

 

That was auto correct’s doing

[mikbone]

Charity never wants you to be a doormat.

You sacrifice and suffer for a reason.  To learn, or help others.  

Charity is linked to love.  

If your action in the name of charity causes you regret, that it wasn't charity. 

Lucifer will suffer long.  He does not understand charity.  Satan also believes that he deserves honor for his actions.

Jesus infinite atonement defines charity.  Jesus didn’t save us for his personal glory.

Edited September 6, 2021 by mikbone

[Vort]

"To suffer" means "to allow" or "to tolerate" or "to endure", as in Christ's injunction to his disciples to "suffer the little children to come unto me." "I am suffering a toothache" originally meant "I am bearing (or putting up with) a toothache."

So "charity suffereth long" means only that charity is longsuffering; that is, charity is patient and puts up with a lot of nonsense and foolishness for a long time.

You know those people who say they don't suffer fools gladly? They are the opposite of charitable. Thank God that he suffers fools gladly, or we would all be lost forever.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Vort

[mikbone]

If a woman was raped and decided to keep the child.  That is charity.

Abortion on the other hand…

[Fether]

37 minutes ago, mikbone said:

If a woman was raped and decided to keep the child.  That is charity.

Abortion on the other hand…

Wow, that comment was completely uncalled for and came out of left field. The pure love of Christ is not interesting enough of a topic for you?  You need to derail the conversation toward a controversial topic bound to end in argument to satisfy your need for intellectual stimulation?

If you want to talk about the morality of abortion during different scenarios, open a different thread.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Fether

[mikbone]

6 hours ago, Fether said:

Wow, the pure love of Christ is not interesting enough of a topic for you?  You need to derail the conversation toward a controversial topic bound to end in argument to satisfy your need for intellectual stimulation?

I was thinking about the love of a mother to sacrifice her body and lifestyle to raise a child like my wife did many times.  But we get so much back from our children.  And we planned a family.  To us our large family was not a sacrifice but a blessing.

For a woman to be violated and still sacrifice her body and lifestyle for the benefit of the child  (as well as accepting the hand of God) is charity.

We need more charity in the world.

Edited September 6, 2021 by mikbone

[LDSGator]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Is it correct to say that charity is an all encompassing view of the world? i.e. If I love my children, my wife, but gossip about those I disagree with, then can I say I have charity for my family? Or is it more accurate to say I do not have charity at all?

I’m not sure it’s an all or nothing type thing. Gossiping about your family is rude and mean, but that doesn’t mean you are “uncharitable” in all your activities. Tithing is a form of charity too, remember. So if you gossip about your family yet pay tithing you obviously have some form of charity 

[mikbone]

If you want to keep Christ or current events out of the discussion…

Then remember watching George Bailey from It’s a wonderful life.   It’s easy to tell when he is acting or feeling selfish or charitable.  

[Fether]

45 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m not sure it’s an all or nothing type thing. Gossiping about your family is rude and mean, but that doesn’t mean you are “uncharitable” in all your activities. Tithing is a form of charity too, remember. So if you gossip about your family yet pay tithing you obviously have some form of charity 

I think there is a difference between charity, the pure love of Christ, and being charitable to those in need. One can be charitable and do good without having that pure love of Christ.

I imagine charity coming with this natural empathy, that no matter how someone acts, we can feel their pain. This can be seen in feeling love for a bully and recognizing the pain they may be experiencing, or when you see someone of a drastically different belief (say someone who is trans gender) and recognizing the pain they experience and doing what you can to help them through that. It’s the love Christ has for us. And until we experience that love and wish it upon others, and humbly ask for it, the best we can do is try to mimic it.

The mimicked version can be great and in many instances seem indistinguishable from the real thing but it lacks in being all encompassing.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

For a woman to be violated and still sacrifice her body and lifestyle for the benefit of the child  (ad well as accepting the hand of God) is charity.

I think it is more complex than this. There are other factors. The official church stance on this doesn’t even take it this far.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

I think there is a difference between charity, the pure love of Christ, and being charitable to those in need. One can be charitable and do good without having that pure love of Christ.

I imagine charity coming with this natural empathy, that no matter how someone acts, we can feel their pain. This can be seen in feeling love for a bully and recognizing the pain they may be experiencing, or when you see someone of a drastically different belief (say someone who is trans gender) and recognizing the pain they experience and doing what you can to help them through that. It’s the love Christ has for us. And until we experience that love and wish it upon others, and humbly ask for it, the best we can do is try to mimic it.

The mimicked version can be great and in many instances seem indistinguishable from the real thing but it lacks in being all encompassing.

I don’t disagree with you, but I do offer a word of caution. Charity towards the bully is often cruelty towards their victims. So while I admire you and support you 100% for showing compassion for a bully and their problems, we must first administer to their victims. 

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I don’t disagree with you, but I do offer a word of caution. Charity towards the bully is often cruelty towards their victims. So while I admire you and support you 100% for showing compassion for a bully and their problems, we must first administer to their victims. 

I would say Charity (the pure love of Christ) is never bullying toward the victim. Loving someone is never going to harm someone else.

It seems you have a specific example of this to justify your claim. I imagine the example is an expression of some impure and fallen form of love, not the pure love of a Christ. 

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

I would say Charity (the pure love of Christ) is never bullying toward the victim. Loving someone is never going to harm someone else.

It seems you have a specific example of this to justify your claim. I imagine the example is an expression of some impure and fallen form of love, not the pure love of a Christ. 

Not really. What I said, and what I stand by 100%, is that showing “charity” towards a murderer while ignoring her victims isn’t “charity” at all. It’s a form of cruelty. 
 

On a much smaller scale, hugging a cuddling a bully who just beat the snot out of another kid while ignoring the needs and concerns of the battered kid isn’t charity either. 

[NeuroTypical]

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

I would say Charity (the pure love of Christ) is never bullying toward the victim. Loving someone is never going to harm someone else.

Uncharitable response: "Yeah, tell that to Christ."

Better response: You should fall on your knees and thank your Father in Heaven for keeping you as innocent and untouched by the evils of the world as you are.  I would say that charity is usually never going to harm someone else, but not always.  Here's a personal example from folks very close to me:

A girl grows up in an abusive environment where more than one brother molests her, one for several years, and the parents are either unable or unwilling to help.  As the girl grows, she learns of other victims.  She learns her abusers were themselves victims.   As the siblings grow and marry, a new generation springs into existence.  At least two of the younger generation suffer at the hands of at least one of the brothers.  The parents, through decades of this, remain unable or unwilling to protect the innocents in their home.  In fact, the parents act to protect the perpetrators, to shelter them from any consequences, and to continue to fuel them with a fresh supply of future children.  The parents claim "forgiveness means forgetting", "you can't forgive if you don't trust", and "if people found out, it would ruin the chances for the brothers to go on missions". 

The girl, now a mother, has been making decisions on how to have charity towards all of the following:
- The parents who were unable or unwilling to stop (or even try to stop) decades of multigenerational sexual abuse in their family.
- The perpetrators who harmed her, and others.
- The other victims from the generation after her.
- Herself (Yep, must have charity to ones self as well.)
- Extended family/friends/church/peers/etc.

Examples of toughies:
- Earthly justice demands you take sides.  You cannot sit behind the accused, and testify in behalf of the alleged victim.  In practical terms, in order to do the best charity to the youngest, newest, 8 yr old girl victim, you can't be hanging out with the perps and the parents.  And when you show up to multiple parole hearings to speak on behalf of the victim, your list of people willing to say "you're not harming the jailbird, you're making sure he is receiving the blessings of enduring harsh consequences of his own actions" grows thin.

- When your own children aren't safe in your grandparent's house, or around your brothers, because of all the unchecked intergenerational incest flying around, you realize that the best way to charitably handle things, is to cut ties with your own parents.  This denies everyone future victims and protects you and yours.  While at the same time, both you and yours suffer at the lack of grandparents.  The grandparents suffer from losing a daughter and her family.  

 

I'd say the vast majority of opportunities to be charitable, harms no one.  But holy heck, when it comes to multigenerational unchecked child sex abuse, it's often downright impossible to do meaningful charity towards one party, without making other parties suffer.

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Uncharitable response: "Yeah, tell that to Christ."

Better response: You should fall on your knees and thank your Father in Heaven for keeping you as innocent and untouched by the evils of the world as you are.  I would say that charity is usually never going to harm someone else, but not always.  Here's a personal example from folks very close to me:

A girl grows up in an abusive environment where more than one brother molests her, one for several years, and the parents are either unable or unwilling to help.  As the girl grows, she learns of other victims.  She learns her abusers were themselves victims.   As the siblings grow and marry, a new generation springs into existence.  At least two of the younger generation suffer at the hands of at least one of the brothers.  The parents, through decades of this, remain unable or unwilling to protect the innocents in their home.  In fact, the parents act to protect the perpetrators, to shelter them from any consequences, and to continue to fuel them with a fresh supply of future children.  The parents claim "forgiveness means forgetting", "you can't forgive if you don't trust", and "if people found out, it would ruin the chances for the brothers to go on missions". 

The girl, now a mother, has been making decisions on how to have charity towards all of the following:
- The parents who were unable or unwilling to stop (or even try to stop) decades of multigenerational sexual abuse in their family.
- The perpetrators who harmed her, and others.
- The other victims from the generation after her.
- Herself (Yep, must have charity to ones self as well.)
- Extended family/friends/church/peers/etc.

Examples of toughies:
- Earthly justice demands you take sides.  You cannot sit behind the accused, and testify in behalf of the alleged victim.  In practical terms, in order to do the best charity to the youngest, newest, 8 yr old girl victim, you can't be hanging out with the perps and the parents.  And when you show up to multiple parole hearings to speak on behalf of the victim, your list of people willing to say "you're not harming the jailbird, you're making sure he is receiving the blessings of enduring harsh consequences of his own actions" grows thin.

- When your own children aren't safe in your grandparent's house, or around your brothers, because of all the unchecked intergenerational incest flying around, you realize that the best way to charitably handle things, is to cut ties with your own parents.  This denies everyone future victims and protects you and yours.  While at the same time, both you and yours suffer at the lack of grandparents.  The grandparents suffer from losing a daughter and her family.  

 

I'd say the vast majority of opportunities to be charitable, harms no one.  But holy heck, when it comes to multigenerational unchecked child sex abuse, it's often downright impossible to do meaningful charity towards one party, without making other parties suffer.

Sorry your loved ones went through this. That’s horrific. 

[Fether]

38 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Not really. What I said, and what I stand by 100%, is that showing “charity” towards a murderer while ignoring her victims isn’t “charity” at all. It’s a form of cruelty. 

Your adding variables to the scenario that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. Like saying “It’s good to donate money to the poor, but not if you go on a killing spree after”. The two acts don’t need to go together.

[LDSGator]

Just now, Fether said:

The two acts don’t need to go together.

So, just so that I’m clear, you see no issue with ignoring the family of a murder victim or a DUI manslaughter victim while instead focusing on the one who murdered them? Explain it nice and easy so someone as stupid as me can understand it please. 

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

So, just so that I’m clear, you see no issue with ignoring the family of a murder victim or a DUI manslaughter victim while instead focusing on the one who murdered them? Explain it nice and easy so someone as stupid as me can understand it please. 

Before I clarify this, where in my messages does it suggest that I “see no issue with ignoring the family of a murder victim or a DUI manslaughter victim while instead focusing on the one who murdered them”

Edited September 6, 2021 by Fether

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, Fether said:

Before I clarify this, where in my messages does it suggest that I “see no issue with ignoring the family of a murder victim or a DUI manslaughter victim while instead focusing on the one who murdered them”

Let’s clarify it first, so I can see where you are going. 

[Fether]

10 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Let’s clarify it first, so I can see where you are going. 

I’ll clarify it once you clarify why you think people guilty of man slaughter should be tied up, hung from the ceiling, and tortured.

[Fether]

@LDSGator 

Im being a pain because I am confused where you would get the idea of me being ok with ignoring the victims. Nothing in anything I said even remotely suggests it. It seems that you are creating a straw man and air cannot figure out why.