posted
kmboots, I think you may be reading a bit too much into the Mormon position on the subject of judgment.
The balance we try to strike is between two extremes — judging and criticizing others as a sin that indicates a severe lack of perspective and humility on one side, and hyper-tolerance that threatens the very concept of sin on the other.
When a Mormon swaps the phrase "judge not" with "judge righteously", he isn't negating Christ's position AT ALL. Rather, he is making the additional point that, while you should not harshly judge individuals, you should still maintain within your consciousness the willingness to discern good from evil. You don't have to say, "That guy is a bad person and I hate him!" to still recognize "What that guy is doing is wrong. I should avoid that action myself, and work to ameliorate its impact when he does it."
What we're trying to avoid is the classic situation where a religious person says, "X is a sin," and a committer of that proposed sin responds, "Don't be judging me! Jesus said not to judge!" If we take that person's position seriously every time, we become incapable of recognizing and preventing sin, because pretty much ANY statement against a sinful action could be protested as "judgmental".
So we teach a more thorough understanding of that doctrine. We should not judge people — that's the Lord's job, not ours. But we SHOULD evaluate actions, and we ARE allowed to say "X is a sin". We have to, if we expect to maintain our way of life and teach our children, and each other, to follow Christ and His commandments.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "It is surprising to me just how different. I have experienced several different denominations and yours is the first I've heard that advocated judging our neighbors."
I think "advocating" is going too far in LDS beliefs. More like, we must make judgements because we must decide how best to interact with a sinful world.
I really enjoy being able to not have to look at the world as sinful. In fact, I consider it pretty awesome, not at all fallen and not generally to be judged and feared.
*edit to add quote for clarity
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the inclination to "lay down the law" regarding sexual morality when it comes to consenting adults, crosses that line. Even when one is not inclined to go to the same violent extremes as some do in the Middle East.
MC: It is possible to be religious and still have that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really enjoy being able to not have to look at the world as sinful. In fact, I consider it pretty awesome, not at all fallen and not generally to be judged and feared.
For the record, I don't look at it that way, either. There is a lot about the world that is broken and scary, but I think God appreciates it, and us, for our glorious potential, and I prefer to see the world in those terms.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of the saddest things I was taught in Sunday school was the concept of living in the "age of lead." I really don't like the idea that everything is just going downhill or that things were so much better way back whenever.
quote:I think that the inclination to "lay down the law" regarding sexual morality when it comes to consenting adults, crosses that line.
I haven't been able to keep up with this thread religiously, so I may be missing the core of the argument you're having. I personally can't justify most laws that would tell consenting adults what to do or not do in the bedroom, and the LDS Church doesn't promote such laws, either. That sort of thing is in the jurisdiction of religion and culture, not government.
But once you get within the bounds of religion, there is more room to set standards. The LDS Church is still very careful to steer clear of telling married couples what to do. But the requirement of marriage, and of absolute commitment to marriage, is a perfectly justifiable thing for a religion to preach. If people want to reject the preaching, they're free to, and they won't go to jail. But if a religion can't teach and promote a social pattern that values commitment, healthy relationships, and family stability, for fear of accidentally seeming judgmental of people who choose not to live by that religion's rules, then what's the point? Might as well just have a social club if your religion doesn't get to make statements about right and wrong ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, that is pretty darn sad. Also something I had never heard before. I was always taught that we are working toward the kingdom of God.
Puppy, My diversion was in response (in general) to this:
quote: I don't agree with the extremes they go to. However, I do agree with some of the religious reasoning for what leads them to those extremes. That would include a love of God, rejection of sexual provocation in dress and behavior, laying down the law, respect for the traditonal roles of men and women (more or less traditional families), and etc.
I have always had a respect for Muslim's sense of religion and morality, even if strongy disagree with the more violent factions. It saddens me that for the most part Islam has been "taken over" by a cruel bloodthirsty element. They have so much going for them that Western society has snubbed and thrown away.
posted
Didn't it have to do with the statue Nebuchanezzar saw in the dream that Daniel interpreted? I remember that we were in the "feet of clay" part of history and that seemed lame to me at the time too.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are taught something totally different about that dream. (Well, not totally, but different.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
for those of you who wish to look at the world as merely a wonderful place and not see it as "fallen":
I'm sorry, I'm about as optimistic and starry eyed an idealist as has ever come down the pike.
Even with respect to today's world, Hobbes was right about the vast majority of life-- nasty, brutish, and short. I suspect we'd be much less Pollyanna-ish if we lived in third world countries where *real* poverty (not just people stuck in low-paying jobs), rampant disease, and scarce resources (I mean resources for things like house building material-- not gas for your SUV) are the order of the day. And the VAST majority of all life on Earth is that way.
We like to look at nature as this tranquil, peaceful, beautiful thing, but even the plant world is a fearsome battle for world domination competing against other species for resources and space. The environment of the planet must be survived as well-- storms and temperature extremes as well as the more extreme things like seismic events and other cataclysms. We speak of "Mother" Nature, and with reason, for she was the womb that produced us all... but like many mothers, she eats her young.
Even in places where prosperity reigns, horrific things can and do happen for no good reason. Just recently a 13 year old girl lost her legs at the ankles when an amusement park ride failed. Here locally a 3 year old boy drowned when his life vest got caught on a sinking boat and his father was unable to free him. And that's without even getting into the obvious active evil people commit every day.... much less the Chris Benoits, Andrea Yateses, and Susan Smiths of the world (in case you can't tell, I can think of little more evil than a parent who kills their own child)
People like to say (when arguing about abortion, especially) that "one mistake shouldn't ruin your life."
Bullshit.
One mistake can kill you-- and it doesn't have to be yours. I am one drunk driver or one run red light from losing my whole family... or maybe just me and leaving my kids stuck with their mother, which is a very bad thing. I'd elaborate, but the point of this is not to bag on my ex-wife, but to show, very graphically, that one mistake can end or ruin a huge set of lives very easily. All the hard work, the fragile, fledgling life I am building for my family, can be gone in the blink of an eye, through no fault of mine. That's not remotely good-- it's not even fair or just. But it absolutely is.
Of course there is an immense amount of beauty and wonder and grace in the world and in humanity, but to ignore the colossal and towering evil which surrounds and swallows all of that is to ignore the greater part of life. I can totally understand denying God because the world is so obviously full of evil that a good and omnipotent being would never permit these things to happen... but to deny God so you can claim the world is a fundamentally good place demands the question "what world are you living in?"
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that, throughout the gospels, Jesus saved his sternest criticism for those who thought themselves more righteous than their neighbor. For those who paid great attention to the letter of the law, but ignored the spirit of it. Those who lacked compassion. Those who piled up burdens or who made a great show of their own righteousness. Jesus showed compassion to those who the Law called unclean and sinful.
I believe that Matthew 7 tells us that none of us are righteous enough to be making judgements on the righteousness of others. Jesus called hypocrite those who were concerned about the sins of others rather than facing their own.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me, you don't sound so optimistic and starry eyed. You sound downright pessimistic and angry to me.
Some of what you see as evil, I would just consider to be the natural state of things. Poverty exists, people die, people suffer. It isn't fun, but I don't think that there is some overwhelming force of wrongness that pervades the world. We want to survive, to thrive, to enjoy every moment of life. Sometimes we don't get to do that, and it's upsetting to us, but I don't think it's Evil.
Life is absolutely hard, and dangerous, and often too short, but that doesn't mean it's not also awesome and wonderful and beautiful. A lot good happens among the bad. A lot of great things can fill a short life.
One of the things I find odd is that some of the people who I've met who consider the world a fallen, sinful place, focus an awful lot of their time and mental effort on the sin and evil, and in doing so, they miss out on or overlook so much that is good. This is particularly sad to me, when they're trying so hard to fight relatively inconsequential "sin", and messing up their own life and the lives of others in the process.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Jim-Me, you don't sound so optimistic and starry eyed. You sound downright pessimistic and angry to me.
The long-time unofficial motto of another forum I enjoy was "the cynical ones are the ones who care". One of the reasons I am so vicious in my description of evil is that it's all a shocking horror to me and it pains me greatly when I, personally can't do anything about it (yes, I realize that's a personality issue, and one I am working on).
We're actually not that far apart, I think. More on that in a minute.
quote:Some of what you see as evil, I would just consider to be the natural state of things. Poverty exists, people die, people suffer. It isn't fun
But this is precisely what Christians mean (or, perhaps, "should mean") when they speak of a fallen world-- that bad things happen, and often do to good people. And that that IS the natural state of things.
quote:Life is absolutely hard, and dangerous, and often too short, but that doesn't mean it's not also awesome and wonderful and beautiful. A lot good happens among the bad. A lot of great things can fill a short life.
Completely agreed, and why I still consider myself quite the optimist-- that despite the rampant badness in both the natural world and particularly man's actions, I can't help but think, on both the natural random level and the specific point of man's freewill, that it's worth it.
quote:One of the things I find odd is that some of the people who I've met who consider the world a fallen, sinful place, focus an awful lot of their time and mental effort on the sin and evil, and in doing so, they miss out on or overlook so much that is good. This is particularly sad to me, when they're trying so hard to fight relatively inconsequential "sin", and messing up their own life and the lives of others in the process.
I, too, agree, that it's a terrible tragedy, and why I think it's very important to worry about the plank in your own eye and much less about the speck in your brother's.
Of course, I haven't done an especially good job of that here as I'm preaching at everyone... but that gets back to being a fallen creature-- "I see the better way. I approve. I follow the worse."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QB] I think that, throughout the gospels, Jesus saved his sternest criticism for those who thought themselves more righteous than their neighbor.
...but who were not actually righteous at all.
quote: For those who paid great attention to the letter of the law, but ignored the spirit of it. Those who lacked compassion. Those who piled up burdens or who made a great show of their own righteousness. Jesus showed compassion to those who the Law called unclean and sinful.
Not only the law, but He Himself called them sinful. (Called everyone sinful) He did not merely embrace them-- but gave them Himself so that their repentance could be effected.
Yes, he showed compassion-- but he never excused the sinner that continued in breaking God's commandments.
We are to do similarly, when we've gotten ourselves right with God. We are instructed to remove from our hearts our own sinful desires-- to better help our brothers and sisters who suffer the same afflictions.
In short, Jesus commands us not only to judge our brother, but to actively pursue their good.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Jim is right to a certain extent. I think, though, that things are better than they were (taking a long view). Life is less brutish for more people than it was a century ago and considerably more than it was a millenia ago. And I think the world is supposed to be better than this. It is created to be better than it is. And it is our job is to keep making it better. To work together toward the kingdom. We just aren't there yet. I think that teaching that we are stuck in a fallen world or a lead age tends to make us feel helpless. We tend then to focus on the bad or on the second coming (when Christ will come and fix it for us) or on death rather than directing our energies to doing good.
And by doing good, I don't mean "correcting" other people's sexual morality. I mean working for social justice and peace. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked*, comforting the afflicted healing the sick.
*Unless they, you know, want to be naked...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very interesting. I agree that we are in the same ballpark
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Some of what you see as evil, I would just consider to be the natural state of things. Poverty exists, people die, people suffer. It isn't fun
But this is precisely what Christians mean (or, perhaps, "should mean") when they speak of a fallen world-- that bad things happen, and often do to good people. And that that IS the natural state of things.
Perhaps my difficulty with the idea of a fallen world is that it supposes that the world used to be perfect, and that if not for the sin of humans, all would be a wonderful utopia.
I think this idea causes all sorts of problems. It lays the blame on people, when first off, I don't think there is general blame to be laid, and secondly I certainly don't think people are responsible for a lion eating a zebra.
It also puts undue focus on the idea of sin in general. Certainly some actions are bad, and certainly people should strive to be better. In my experiences, many times it seems that focusing on "sinning" prevents people from seeing the forest for the trees. It's too narrow a view. It sometimes dehumanizes the target, turning them into a "sinner" instead of embracing them as a fellow human.
I know that the goal is "love the sinner, hate the sin", but I think that the focus on sin is counter productive in this regard. When the sin carries such a stigma, when the colossal blame of the entire fall of nature rests on the idea of a single misdeed, or the destruction of cities and nations is blamed on their sin, it becomes more and more difficult to see past the sin, or to forgive the person who has sinned.
If an entire city is destroyed because its people sin, how are they anything more than sinners? If no part of them is worthy of salvation because the presence of sin so taints their entire being, what lessons are we taught about how God really views sin? How easy for weak, fallible humans to fall into the mindset that the world might need another flood? Better, I say, to forget the notion of sin and judge an action by its results, and a person by her actions.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
I know that the goal is "love the sinner, hate the sin", but I think that the focus on sin is counter productive in this regard.
Again, I entirely agree. I think the single biggest damage that occurs is that it makes us all less honest about our own faults and less able to deal with others'... thus turning us all into hypocrites.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, not at all related to the current conversation, but on the women Taliban comment... A major and important difference between LDS and Taliban is their approach to women in the secular world. The push for every woman to be an educated woman is HUGE (atleast in my experience). Women are expected to vote and voice their opinions on subects. They are supposed to play an active role in society. Our stake president's (used to be our bishop) wife is a practicing doctor. As I work to get my phd, I have received nothing but support (and free babysitting). One woman went back to school and had tons of offers for tutoring and another was talking about finishing her college degree so she could get a job and not a single woman said anything discouraging (not even anything like, well if you could do it and still take care of your kids). In high school, it was expected that the LDS girls would be earning As and going to college. Also, as pointed out, book clubs exist in nearly every ward (my understanding on the "official" question was that they are not ever official activities in the sense that things said or done don't reflect the church or its teachings and you can't sue the church over anything that occurs there). Women are also expected to know the candidates and vote- and not just what their husband says.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I was pretty chagrined at agreeing with the statement after I reviewed the wiki on Taliban, especially regarding their restriction of women to education after age 8 and the women can't go to a doctor without male supervision, so a lot of diseases go untreated.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I said - a wide gap between how you and I understand the gospels.
What does the word "judge" entail, in your opinion? Why do you feel it's such a terrible thing to judge someone else's actions?
By "judging," I mean the act of examining the difference between God's commandments and the actions/words of a person or society. (That person should necessarily be oneself. Often)
I wonder if the difference between our POVs isn't in the word "judge," but the word "commandment."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Judge" for me means having the level of arrogance to believe that any of us have the corner on knowing how to be in communion with God. Deciding that our way is the only way and that everyone should do it our way. Or that our way is necessarily God's way.
Certainly, we have to evaluate how someone's impact us or other people (simply for our own safety), certainly we should try to set worthy examples and teach our children. Beyond that, however, none of us are nearly so perfect as to be deciding the righteousness or unrighteousness of anybody else.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was Jesus the only person who could have righteously driven the money changers out of the temple grounds?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the way and for the reasons He is said to have done it, yes.
Now - if the worshippers at the Temple had decided that it negatively impacted on their worship, I think they could reasonably argued that position. And, you will note, the money changers presence was sanctioned by the religious authority. More evidence that thr religious authority doesn't always get it right.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't. Unless someone asks, I think it more often hinders someone's relationship with God to have someone insist on a specific model for that relationship.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that part of trying to not judge people too harshly is that we don't know all the details of their lives. If someone is rude to me, I can assume that they're a rude person, or I can consider that maybe they're having a terrible day.
Likewise, I can assume that a man who publicly disapproves of alcohol and then sits on his lawn drinking out of a can is a hypocrite, or I can consider that perhaps it's non-alcoholic beer or even soda.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:it more often hinders someone's relationship with God to have someone insist on a specific model for that relationship.
How do you reconcile our relationship to God through Christ in light of the quoted portion? Christian scriptures insist that we simply cannot get to God without a mediator-- without Christ.
Do you accept that view? Why EDIT or why not (if you self-identify as a Christian)?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't as simple as it seems. Christ is one on being with the Father. It is sort of like saying you can't get to Canada without going to Canada. "Christ" is a condition as much as a person. You can't be in relationship with the Creator without being in that condition.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Asking that question (twice now) almost gives me the answer, doesn't it?
For oneself, first-- how does one know that they are acting in a way that God desires them to act?
(My answer: Charismatic experience, in conjunction with scriptural and doctrinal understanding)
For others-- when can we know when to grab a tissue and help our brother wipe out the mote in their eye?
(My answer-- when they ask for it; when they don't ask for it, but obviously need assistance; when they don't obviously need assistance and don't ask for it, but the Spirit of God nudges to you that they do; when you think they need help, and you've got a reason to give it)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. I think I might answer in almost exactly the same way. Maybe. Does your answer to the second part vary in any way based on the relationship you have with the "brother"?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does your answer to the second part vary in any way based on the relationship you have with the "neighbor"?
Yes.
For example, if they've specifically asked that I not help them, then I just make myself eagerly available. Discretion and graciousness are a part of being a good Christian.
Also, if they've yelled at my kids for drawing on "their portion" of the communal sidewalk, I will be somewhat inclined to dab with the tissue a bit harder than may be warranted.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For others - I suppose if they are in some sort of distress, are incompetent, have come to me for help etc. or their actions or inactions are hurtful.
My being concerned with other people's motes would lead me into smug satisfaction at best, hurting other people, using my own certainty to berate people that I dislike etc.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In short, Jesus commands us not only to judge our brother, but to actively pursue their good.
Would this also apply to someone who believes you are mortally sinning and wish to pursue your salvation through their faith? Would you mind if they judged you and tried to persuade or force you to follow their moral precepts? Thanks for any clarity. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that "actively pursuing their good" is quite possible without dictating or judging the specifics of their relationship with God or, within reason, their choices about their sexual morality.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would this also apply to someone who believes you are mortally sinning and wish to pursue your salvation through their faith?
YES.
quote:Would you mind if they judged you and tried to persuade or force you to follow their moral precepts?
I don't mind the persuasion. I don't really mind the judging either.
The forcing bit of your statement though...I don't think anyone would appreciate that. I hope you don't think I'm calling for people to be forced into a behavior, much less a religion.
quote:I think that "actively pursuing their good" is quite possible without dictating or judging the specifics of their relationship with God or, within reason, their choices about their sexual morality.
That "within reason" is the subjective part.
From the Articles of Faith:
quote:11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I'm fine with allowing people to worship God as they see fit, as they accord me the same respect; I'm in favor of protecting ALL religious solicitors, and in not allowing their persecution (or prosecution) under harassment laws.
It'll be a tough fight for me to accept kmboots' view on sexual morality (which she has shared elsewhere on this site) as something positive for society; much less acceptable from a scriptural standpoint. But I'm not going to pass any laws in that regard; nor am I going to make a judgment about whether or not she's righteous or wicked. That's God's affair.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm glad to know that forcing people to accept religion is not on your list of "okay" things. I'm not sure, though, where persuading stops and pushing begins. And for me, the underlying certainty that what is the right and good way to worship for me must be right and good for everyone else is where the sin lies. Thinking that other people need to be like me.
I am a joyful, Catholic; I do not by any means think everybody would be better off if they were Catholic.
So, I would not want you to accept my morality for you. It isn't for everybody. Frankly, it takes a lot of work and self discipline and a good deal of self examination. But I will try not to make too many judgements about whether your morality is good for you or good for society*. Having the same consideration would be nice.
*Except as it impacts the freedom of other people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, do you have any thoughts about where the line should be between moral laws you live by but don't expect anyone else to agree with, and moral laws that ought to be applied, universally, to everyone, for the good of society?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:for me, the underlying certainty that what is the right and good way to worship for me must be right and good for everyone else is where the sin lies. Thinking that other people need to be like me.
I think here is where we need to differentiate. My personal view of God, the ways I personally communicate with Him-- I wouldn't feel comfortable stating that those methods are the only way to get to God.
But the *facts* about God, His character, His commandments, and His dealings with the general human population-- those things I *do* feel quite comfortable in being exclusionary about.
quote:I will try not to make too many judgements about whether your morality is good for you or good for society*. Having the same consideration would be nice.
Alas. Not from me, although I'll try my best to be polite about it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:kmbboots, do you have any thoughts about where the line should be between moral laws you live by but don't expect anyone else to agree with, and moral laws that ought to be applied, universally, to everyone, for the good of society?
I know the question wasn't directed at me, but demonstrable harm seems like a good starting point.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:kmbboots, do you have any thoughts about where the line should be between moral laws you live by but don't expect anyone else to agree with, and moral laws that ought to be applied, universally, to everyone, for the good of society?
I know the question wasn't directed at me, but demonstrable harm seems like a good starting point.
Something akin to that old adage, 'your right to swing your arm ends at my face.'?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something like that. I do think that we should be concerned with doing some demonstrable good as well. But that "good" should (assuming competance) be "good" in the other person's opinion as well. We don't get to decide what is good for other people as long as their good isn't demonstrably harmful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the major difference of opinion comes from the belief about authority. kmboots states, "I am a joyful, Catholic; I do not by any means think everybody would be better off if they were Catholic." Now, I admit that sounds strange to me coming from a Catholic. Things might be changing, but I was always under the impression they believed in the authority of the Catholic Church in matters of Salvation.
As for Scott R, Puppy, myself, and other Mormons, the authority to judge is essential to the theology of Priesthood. In fact, the Book of Mormon is called "A Witness and a Warning" of Jesus Christ's Second Coming with the judgements to follow. The three-fold mission of the LDS Church, as stated by a recent Prophet, is to "Proclaim the Gospel," "Perfect the Saints," and "Redeem the Dead." On top of that, the lay membership is the ones responsible for leadership from top to bottom. There has also been several commandments to go and preach the Gospel to the World, bringing in the scattered of Israel. In other words, for Mormons to not judge is to be derelict of our duties. It is what we would call "magnifying our office."
On the other hand, to judge harshly, unrighteously, or simply without love and charity is to judge unrighteously. Such is considered sinful. The central focus of this isn't jugdement, but Service. You simply can't serve without making judgements about people. This is especially the case when part of service means acting as a leader for family, group, congregation, or wherever you are called. I admit that this is the first time I had thought of how important judging was in the LDS Church, but there is no getting around it as a major component of the religous life.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I really don't like the idea that everything is just going downhill or that things were so much better way back whenever.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(Well, not totally, but different.)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
