Anddenex

So, instead of calling a nation or enemy bad, it is ok to call label them as "deceived, lost, blind, etc..."? The logic being presented here is that if a person supplants one labeling term over another label term (i.e. bad verses blind, deceived, or lost), that this won't foster or cause any wars, hate, prejudice, or any turmoil between nations? EDIT: This will be my final post in this section. I am glad to hear how you have been able to overcome, and find peace in your heart. Best wishes in your current endeavors.

No one was speaking about calling a child "bad", so this point is moot also.

In a previous post, I am quoting your statement: Then this begs the question, "Why would you feel unloveable or bad, unless you had made decision which were bad?" I don't know many people who call a person "bad" unless they have overtly made decisions which are bad. It appears from your statements that your feelings of being unloveable were a result of bad choices, and what other had said to you. You definitely over use the word "rash".

I never said I understood what caused your pain, please don't put words in my mouth so you can feel better about your personal view. I never said I did have a clue as to what choices you have made. I am responding to the general statements you have made about addictions, and calling people bad or good. When someone talks about choices that lead to severe addictions, do you consider these good choices? I have only addressed your addiction statement, nothing more, nothing less, please don't put words into my mouth I never addressed or alluded to.

This would be incorrect. Not willing to enter into a circular argument. This would also be incorrect. I never said you don't believe it yourself. I know you believe it yourself. I would disagree that this is the root problem. I am more inclined, as I have already shared, to believe that the root is that people feel "unloveable", because of their bad choices. And this definitely isn't a "rash" statement? Have you come to know me so well, my thoughts, my heart, my personal experiences and personal revelations, that you can make such a statement?

Alert to all LDS.net friends. I have officially prophesied and it has come true. I previously stated, "I just need to read Vort's statements every day (correction, which Vort so politely pointed out of "everyday" to "every day"), that I would learn a new word. My prophecy is sure and true. "panacea". I now know a new word today.

Thank you for the invitation. This book isn't going to help me with what I already know. I would agree that if we call a person "bad" who isn't "bad" then yes this is hurtful. Calling someone "bad" who is "bad" is simply pointing out a factual state of being. I don't need to convince anyone that they are bad, if they are bad, their actions define them. This book is merely another persons opinion, through their personal experiences. If this book helped you, that is awesome. This would be incorrect. I am assessing your statements with the subject of the thread: "Good people and bad people." I am assessing what you feel to be true, with my personal experience and what I know to be true, by spiritual confirmation. In light of myself making no such conclusions, as pertaining to your addiction, this point is moot. I don't mean to point out the obvious, however, there are "professionals" who actually do make rash decisions all over the place. This is why there are so many misdiagnosis throughout the world. I accept your choice, as it is your choice and your choice alone to make.

The situation you generally shared. You were heavily into some form of addiction. You felt that this was a result of people calling you "bad" and that you felt "unloveable". Thus you have shared a general statement of your situation. I disagree with regards to people calling you "bad" was a problem. I agree that you felt unloveable, thus from what you shared I can make a logical assessment of what I know to be true myself. I am able to make an assessment according to my experience and knowledge. If anything is "rash" it is someone telling someone else not to use their personal knowledge and experience, or by telling someone else they cannot feel the way they do, because they don't feel the same way as you do. This is rash. You are on an open forum, sharing your personal views, your personal assessment of why you think it isn't ok to call people "bad" or "good", and why you think there are no "good" people, or "bad" people. It is your personal assessment. Just as others on here are sharing their personal assessment from what they have experienced. I am a person with a God given right to judge for myself. You ask me this rhetorical question, while assessing me at the same time, have you not realized this? While telling me not to assess you, you have been assessing me? You have already made judgments about me. Nope. Nope. True.

It isn't a rash judgement Marlin1. I simple don't agree with your personal assessment. When people do not accept their current state of being, this is called denial. My brother-in-law, didn't feel loved and accepted due to choices he has made. In my experience, when we don't feel "loved" or we feel "unloveable", this is why people typically do not change, or spiral into strange roads. A logical assessment of situations isn't rash in the least. I would agree men, in and of themselves, are not able to judge a man's heart, however with the spirit the heart of men can easily be judged. I understand you feel that it was because you felt "unloveable" and this I would agree with. I can disagree, because I simply have "moral agency" and a God given "logical mind" to accept what appears as truth, and what appears as personal opinion. Either way brother, I am glad to hear that through the atonement you have found your way back. This is simply wonderful!

I have a brother-in-law who also has been through hell and back due to addiction. That is wonderful you were able to overcome. This is where we would diverge in agreement. I don't believe it is that you felt you were bad, that caused you your pain. However, as a result of bad choices, you felt unloveable, and that is the root of the problem. Bad people must still be loved, if we want to help change them. As long as people feel unloveable, there is no way they will change. The result of your change from "bad" to "good" is a direct result of the love of God, and through the Atonement. I realize we disagree. A righteous judgment will always benefit a person, if that person is open to the judgement. I personally believe people do not change until they are able to accept who and what they are. If they are bad, then they must know bad people can change. If they are good, they must know they can be better. A judge in Israel actually judges both, being and doing. A person can not truly help a person unless they have an idea of their state of being.

If I am understanding you correctly Traveler, yes, this is what I am saying. With regards to your first statement, I am reminded of a conference talk titled, "Beware of the Evil behind the Smiling Eyes." Unfortunately, many young men and young women have fallen in glory, due to the friendly encourages of those who would lead them astray. As pertaining to your last statement, yes, a person whose criticism is to help me get my act together, like my wife, to change certain behaviors, or get my act together, is certainly not mine enemy. I think of the Lord's rebuke to Peter "Get thee hence Satan" could have been taken the wrong way, but it was a sure and true statement to help Peter change and correct his pattern of thought and actions.

Nope, not trying to be rude, but who are you that I should place any trust in your personal interpretation? No one responded to you trying to convince you that we should convince someone is bad or good. This point is moot. First sentence, true, people need to know their identity as a child of God. Even as a child of God people can be good or bad. As pertaining to the last statement, without a judgment we are unable to assist a person to change. A judgement is only detrimental if the judgement is false. If the judgement is sure and true, then the judgement actually benefits the person, it doesn't harm them in the least. This is why we have judges in Israel. I am not worried about you. We have a difference of opinion.

One thing I do know, is all I need to do is read Vort's responses, and I can learn a new word everyday. :)

As Skippy740 mentioned, it would be nice to know the whole circumstance from both parties involved, however I am truly sorrow that you and your husband are currently facing such a difficult trial, especially within the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This surely must be devastating at times, and your heart and soul must weep when you are alone, or when you are in your parents arms. In relationships sometimes one spouse will use tears to manipulate the other spouse. I am not saying you are, but I am wondering if this may be the way he felt, and may be he was thinking, "She is crying to manipulate me." In my experience, I agree with my parents, that it takes two to tango. If from your response, you woke up feeling sorry and wanting to work things out, then I truly feel sorry for this young man. There is so much more pain in anguish in life, and if he feels a marriage is over, due to disagreements that all marriages have, then I would say he is a little immature. This provides a very difficult choice for you. If he isn't opening up to anyone, has stopped praying, etc... and it appears from what you have shared is loosing his testimony, I would wonder, as Eowyn (hopefully not though) if he has been truly faithful. I am not saying he hasn't been faithful, I am just saying this is a common tendency among dishonest men. Instead of being honest, and repenting, it is too hard and thus they forsake everything. I would recommend reading Jacob 2: 8. These are great words. It appears you have a big choice, either fight for a man who seems not to care and thus cause more hardship (or a complete joy when things work out, if they do), or to recognize yourself, this isn't going to work out. I wish you the best. Our prayers are with you and your husband.

This is also where we would disagree. Let me clarify, we definitely are within a state of probation. To place titles on people as "good" or "bad" I would disagree that it is premature. I agree with the first statement, without Christ we would all be evil continually, without any means to return to our Heavenly Father. Without any means to become good. I would however disagree with atonement changing us from bad to lost. The Atonement allows us to go from sin, to perfection. While covered in the atonement, through our Savior, we actually have become good. I would disagree it neglects the atonement, because no one is saying that the atonement isn't able to cover the sin, nor the ability for a person to repent. I disagree. If I call a murderer bad, it doesn't negate the ability for that person to repent, as the gospel is to help "bad men" to be "good men" and "good men" to be "better." A final judgement would be in this case if I said, "You are going to hell because of that decision." My judgement of calling someone bad is based upon the current time and place, not the eternity.

Is there anything bad is telling someone that he is good? I don't believe there is. I think it is good if a child is told that he is good and believes it. I don't have any bad taste in my mouth. I would agree, God's mercy far extends what I thought mercy is capable of. I would agree there is no glory in evil, or there is no glory within outer-darkness. Yet, I would also say those who are within the Telestial Kingdom were bad in this life. They choose evil, and by choosing evil, their actions define them as evil. Yes, I believe President McKay, and Elder Bednar were being literal. The gospel literally changes bad men to good and good men to better. I would agree that God changes our being. If we are not bad or good, how then can God change a person from bad to good, and from good to better? A person must be in one state, bad or good, to be changed to another state. If we are not bad or good, then a change is not able to take place. God can change us because we are in one state or another. I was attending BYU when Elder Oaks gave this talk, and have thoroughly loved it. I would whole heartily agree that we are not to make final judgments. I would agree we are to make intermediate judgments. I couldn't find anything in here that specifies we are not to call people good or bad. It really depends on the judgment and if the judgment is sure and true. It also depends on how people respond to their judgment. I would also say, if our judgment regarding a person is faulty than it actually serves to hurt us. I would thus answer, it really depends if the intermediate judgement is a righteous judgment.

I think Miami is going to be a hard team to beat. With Lebron and Wade, and if they truly learn to play together as Pippin and Jordan, my goodness, they will be tough. That is my only beef with the Lakers, Kobe hasn't truly learned to play with this teammates, even when Shaq was with him. Instead of playing together and winning, they wanted to argue who was the best player.

I would agree Traveler.

Key emphasis within this response, "makes sense to me." I do believe what Christ said, he isn't a liar. I disagree, that your "makes sense to me" is the only reason why the Lord said what he said. Then, it is assumed, by yourself, that anything outside of your bubble doesn't hold any salt. Note, I never said "he was just avoiding pride or vanity", I opened it up to other possibilities which you are unwilling to review, since it is not within your bubble of thought. I actually love the words of C.S. Lewis within "Screwtape Letters" who once shared, how do you get a humble man to sin. Tell him that he is humble. How do you get a good man to sin. Tell him that he is good. Thus pride and vanity can enter into the heart. Great book, and great thoughts. Thus yes, the Lord could have responded the way he did, to avoid sin. I will respond to this with an additional question, "How naive is it to think Ted Bundy wasn't evil?" It is only blind to not accept what is. Ted Bundy was evil. The idea of other people being more evil, as you have said, those who have no light, doesn't negate other people being evil. They were wicked, evil, people before they received the gospel. This is fully explained in the Book of Mormon. Traveler gives an excellent explanation to this statement. This is only within your current understanding. Labeling people good and bad is not a limit, it is a judgement with regard to a person's actions. It really isn't a compulsion, it is a matter of truth. Certain people are evil, and certain people are really good. Yes, a person can easily understand God's mercy and grace while labeling someone as bad, or evil. The Anti-Nephi-Lehis were bad before they received the gospel. They were good after they received the gospel, even more so than the Nephites. I will now share the words of a Prophet, that it appears you would say has a limited view, and a compulsion to label, and is blind: The Atonement and the Journey of Mortality It would appear President David O. McKay, and Elder Bednar would agree, that there are bad men in our world, the gospel helps them to become good (Anti-Nephi-Lehi's), and the gospel helps good men to become better. Thus, I can now ask you some questions with regard to these words: Are there people on this earth who would say they are part of the kingdom of Satan? If so, then by your words, they would be "bad." Are there people on this earth who belong to God and his kingdom? If so, then there are those who are good. The city of Enoch, while still in probation had become so good that the Lord received them unto himself. These were good people. These were people who made good decisions, such that their actions easily defined them as good.

One does not need to know a person's whole history to know that a person is good or bad. As said previously, it doesn't take a genius or and infallible mind to recognize someone who is good, and someone who is bad. Our actions define us. Are you sure this is the reason Christ did not consider himself good? A person's probation doesn't need to be complete in order to be considered good. No person, no intelligent person, would call the Lord evil, even in this life. He was perfect. Thus he was good. I am not even sure how you are justifying Ted Bundy evil (not all), and then in the same sentence President Monson good (not all). It is really simple matter. Ted Bundy, evil, it doesn't matter what little good he accomplished. President Monson, good, and what little evil he has done is covered through the atonement. If the fruits of a person is good, we have the ability to judge, and say they are good. In some cases, we say the act was good, but it doesn't negate a person is good, or a person is evil.

In connect with your statement and comment, I find it interesting the words the Brother of Jared said right before he saw the Lord's finger: Thus we have in scripture what appears to be a contradiction. With regard to your first verse where The Lord responded to a man who called him good saying there are not any good save it be my Father in Heaven. In relation to this verse when The Lord visited the Nephite, he said both he and the father were good. In emphasis to this verse, it can be simply seen as The Lord is avoiding pride or vanity, because we both know that The Lord was "good" in this life. By avoiding pride and vanity he remained perfect. In scripture, we are beings with the capacity both to choose acts of good and acts of evil, as you have suggested. However, although like the Brother of Jared said we are evil continually, through the atonement of Jesus Christ I am perfect, even in this life. This perfection through Christ, allows a person to be considered "good". As we continue in faithfulness, as others, The Lord then calls us good. If The Lord declares a person to be good, then that person is good. If men declares a man is good, than that may be the case or it may not be the case. A person, that is more good than evil, I would personally consider good. Those who choose evil more than good, I surely would consider to be good. It appears within scripture a pendelum swings between good and evil. When a nation has ripened in iniquity, or have nearly become purely evil, The Lord has wiped them out. When a person or a nation has ripened in keeping the commandments he has taken them up to himself. In light of BadWolf's response, I would agree with her, and it doesn't take an infallible man to make a judgement call about a person being evil or good. President Monson is a good man, the same good that is used in scriture, because he brings forth good fruit. Ted Bundy on the other hand was a purely evil man who murdered tons of women. It doesn't take a genious to distinguish between these two types of indivdiuals and to consider one good and the other evil.

Ether 12: 27, The gospel is one of progression, and when we come unto Christ, we are consistently shown how to be perfected in Christ. There is only one source which discourages a person from coming unto Christ and that is the adversary. Simply don't give up.

Apostate, is also in reference to the Apostasy, as you have shared. We know, and we preach that Christianity fell into apostasy after the death of the Apostles in the NT. Thus, theologically and by definition, it could easily be said that all of Christianity, before the restoration, was apostate, or in other words had fallen away from truth, the fullness of the truth. Without the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, we would still be in apostasy, and thus apostate. However, it would be hard to liken, or call in our day, Christianity apostate. True apostasy is having the fullness, or having a portion, and forsaking the portion of truth a person once had. Thus, a Mormon who forsakes his religion, is in an apostate condition. A Christian which forsakes their faith, for atheism, agnosticism, or any other religion, is in an apostate condition as well. Thus, today, it is better said (as Pam mentioned), that we believe all religions have truth, some more than others, and ask them to bring their truths with them, and allow us to add the fullness of the gospel.

My favorite one (this was actually accomplished by a daughter who's father was the Stake President and he asked her to speak at Stake Conference): 1. Bring you own scriptures and put some baby powder in between two pages. 2. When you open your talk make sure you mention that due to forgetfulness, you didn't bring your scriptures. Let the ward know you asked to borrow your Dad's, or Mom's, or even the Bishop's scriptures. 3. As you open your scriptures, give a puzzled look and then say, "I'm sorry, one sec, having a hard time reading the verse." 4. Blow the baby powder. Result: looks like you are blowing dust away from either your Mom's, Dad's, or Bishop's scriptures. Usually receives a great laugh, if no one has seen it. I pulled this on my mission with one of our Branch Presidents. At actually spoke at the end and said, "I am sorry brother's and sister's, I let Elder Exon borrow my old scriptures, and then likened it to Moroni's statement, "out of the dust". It was a great comeback to my joke.

I like this verse in connection to "turn the other cheek." Alma 48: 15 I believe to turn the other cheek would be similar to this verse, that there are times when turning the other cheek isn't appropriate, whereas, there are times when turning the other cheek is. In other words, there is a time he warns (turn the other cheek), and there is a time he says prepare (slap back, and slap hard). I once read a different interpretation of turn the other cheek, which mentioned how the tradition back then during the Lord's time was not as we would interpret it today. It specified that a person, with higher standing than you, could only slap you a specific way. If he slapped you another way, it meant he saw you as his equal with equal standing. Thus, when the Romans slapped them, if they turned the other cheek, they would be required to slap them in a manner that said they were equals. Seeing the Romans didn't see the Jews as equals, they then would not be able to slap them unless they considered them as equals. Very interesting.