Marlin1

"How do you get a good man to sin. Tell him that he is good." Thanks for the quote. That's what I've been saying the whole time. There is danger in labeling people good or bad, people just might believe it! The good don't need grace, the bad don't want it. In regards to Bundy - Is there any glory in evil? I don't think that Ted ever had the Holy Ghost to be able to deny it. Even he will be saved to a degree of glory. The D&C states that the Telestial Kingdom is reserved for murderers. Therefore he is not evil by definition, because there is no glory in evil. I know that may leave a bad taste in your mouth, but it just goes to show our understanding of God's mercy. I know I probably won't be popular for this belief, but that's ok. If someone tells me they are part of the kingdom of Satan, I would ask him when he had his calling and election made sure. They don't know the meaning of being bad! "Bad men" is a figure of speech that Mckay was using to refer to men that do bad things. It's like saying "be good" it really means do good things. We cannot change our being, we can only change our doing. God changes our being, not us. If you claim that Mckay was being literal, how do you explain Oaks' talk when he said not to judge people as good or bad? Let me ask you this, what good comes from labeling people good or bad?

I think it adds a lot. Thank you! As far as protecting ourselves goes, you are right, we do need to use our judgment. I don't believe, however, that judging someone protects us any more than judging hurtful and harmful behavior. We can avoid someone without labeling them good or bad.

Christ said that he was not good. You have to believe what he said or you are making him a liar - we know that can't be true. My explanation is the only one that makes sense to me, I admit that I may be wrong. The argument that he was just avoiding pride and vanity doesn't hold salt. If he was just avoiding pride and vanity, he wouldn't have included all of humanity in saying that "none are good." There would have been no pride or vanity in him simply accepting the compliment graciously. He wouldn't have lied (or spoken an untruth) to avoid vanity. As far as I know, only those who deny the Holy Ghost are truly evil, with no light in them. That is lower than even Ted Bundy. How blind is it to label a person with the same label reserved for those who are lower than even Ted Bundy? It may seem easy to label murderers bad, yet the anti-nephi-lehi's were once murderers. It may seem easy to label prophets good, yet David committed murder. Good and bad are far too wide stroked and premature. The degrees of glory are as varied as the stars. Why do we limit ourselves to good and bad? It is so ludicrous and hurtful in my mind. Why the compulsion to label? We can avoid evil without labeling people. Can you truly understand God's mercy while labeling someone as bad? That is the same label that is reserved for Lucifer himself. Satan and his kingdom = bad God and his kingdom = good Man = still in testing mode

Amen, thanks for your thoughts!

Good luck to you and your judgment. If good and bad are subjective (when it comes to judging others), how could you ever be wrong? No wonder you think you are a good judge of character. If they are subjective, the only opinion that matters is God's.

Ha, ha, my bad! Pun intended.

It may not take a genius, but it does take a God. You cannot take into account a persons entirety of thoughts, words, actions, and motivations, weigh them in the balance thereby determining if they are good or bad! The level of sanity comes into play, the history of abuse and trauma comes into play, the degree to which the law was given comes into play, the degree to which it was understood, the mental capacity. The variables are endless and cannot be undertaken by anyone less than God. Christ did not consider himself good at the time, because he had not yet fulfilled all righteousness. His probation was not yet complete. After he fulfilled all righteousness he did indeed call himself good, because God deemed him good. Pres. Monson does good (not all), Ted Bundy did bad (not all).

It shall be said in time to come...if you don't repent. He clearly gave him the option. Cain chose not to repent making him an exception, along with those whose callings and elections are made sure. Their judgment came a little early.

Me too! I think most of us would. But, we cannot deem ourselves good, even Christ refused to do so. Only God can deem us good or bad, after we have fully proven ourselves in probation. There is danger in believing that we are good or bad - The good don't need grace, the bad don't wan't it.

He was perdition before the world? Don't think so, he wouldn't have made it here. I was before the world too. Verse 25 - "a cursing I will put upon thee, except thou repent." God still had hope in him...saw his potential. The problem is, Cain didn't see his own potential. Probably because he had the false belief that he was "bad".

I've actually worked personally with at risk youth in residential treatment. You know, those kids who most people consider to be "bad" kids - gangsters, sexually active, abusive, manipulative, vulgar, in and out of correction facilities, etc. If you only knew the heart of these kids and their histories you might reconsider and become wiser about the issue yourself.

Badwolf...ironic! you know these people to be good and bad because your judgement and perspective is infallible? What happened to probation? None good but God?

I am so sorry to hear about your niece. I am not sure about the bargaining issue. It does show your character however - "greater love hath no man than this, than that he lay down his life for his friends." I can offer perhaps a different perspective. Your love for your niece is unquestioned. If it truly is her time to go, God has other blessings in store for her that we should not desire to take from her. If you love her, let her go. It may be hard to see and accept now, but it will become clear when you are reunited in the next life. If it is not her time to go, God doesn't need to take your life to save hers.

I am of the belief that there are no good or bad people, only people who do good and bad things. What are your thoughts? The scriptures can't seem to make up their mind on the matter. Christ taught that there are none good but God. We are also taught that this life is a probationary period, and thus judgment of good or bad should be reserved for God at final judgement. Yet, in Luke 6:45 Christ teaches - "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil..." Acts 11 - "For he was a good man..." referring to Barnabas. There are endless contradictions (seeming contradictions) on the matter.

I have only heard your side of the story, but if everything you said is true. That is messed up! This man should be reported to police and excommunicated immediately. Why was he not ex-ed? This is a far worse offense than adultery! The extent of his abuse needs to be fully investigated. The fact that he still works with the scouts pisses me off (excuse my language). The bishop and branch president should be reprimanded. These children need to be protected!!!

Agreed!

LDS Addiction Recovery Program - click on "support meeting locator" find a group and go. I know it is scary to face others, but they are all in the same boat. You will feel a brotherhood there like no other. Must read - Healing the Shame that Binds You, by John Bradshaw.. Bishops are great and necessary for repentance, but they often have limited ability to offer the support that you need. Go where others understand addiction because they have been through it. You NEED to go to the 12 step program. It will save your life!!! It did mine.

Welcome home brother!

Ya, but that takes the fun out of it! :) Welcome aboard!

Yeah it's all right now. I've learned my lesson well. You can't please everybody, so, you've got to please yourself... It sounds like you need to feed yourself. You're probably like most women, feeding everybody else while starving yourself. That's not what Christ taught. He taught to love others as ourselves, not in neglect of ourselves. If we are not loving ourselves properly, what kind of pitiful love will we have to give others? Give yourself what you need, if others are not happy with that, they need to repent.

Are you going to marry this girl?

Ya, I'd like to read his book. Thanks for the referral. I really do like the concepts that you present and I believe most of it. I have actually read a lot about these concepts based in eastern philosophy, such as mindfulness, contemplative prayer, and meditation. I practice these daily. The problem I see with eastern philosophy however, is that they deny dualism exists at all. As Christians who believe in a deity and an adversary, it is impossible to deny that it truly exists. I agree with you that those who are born again have transcended dualism and are no longer dualistic creatures with both carnal desires and spiritual desires. The difference is that eastern philosophy teaches that dualism does not exist. Christian philosophy teaches that dualism does exist, but we should not be dualistic creatures. We should "strive" to be single in nature with God, yet not beat ourselves up when we fail at that. Eastern philosophy teaches that desire, striving, and judging bring suffering. Christian philosophy teaches that righteous desire, striving towards God, and righteous judgment are the only path to God and happiness. The problem that Christians run into is when they start judging themselves and beat themselves up for wrong doing. We sometimes forget that this is a probationary state and jump the gun with judgment, which is unrighteous judgment. There is righteous judgment, righteous desires, and righteous striving which bring light and joy. The opposite of unrighteous judgment, etc. bring darkness and suffering. When we are "luke warm" (dualistic), not able to stay to one side of hot or cold, suffering is very real and God will spew us out.

I like almost everything you have said, but I disagree with the symbolism of the tree and the idea of non-duality. I like the idea of quieting the mind to find truth and light, and to not trust so much in our own understanding etc. That is all good...and that's exactly my point that the opposite, therefore, must be bad. So, you end up with dualism. If dualism does not exist, what exactly are we judging between?

jb789, It's actually found in the second scripture that James12 listed - 2 Nephi 2:22-23. "...and they would have had no children." I really like where you are going with non-judgment approach of eastern mindfulness, and not labeling things, people, and even self as good or bad. I believe in that approach fully. We are taught not to judge people, but we are taught to judge with a righteous judgement. Not so much between people and things, rather between powers and principles. We do have to judge between the real dualities of good and evil.

jb789, I disagree with Skousen. The tree does not represent our tendency to falsely judge. Their eyes were opened by the fruit. All things do have their opposites. The whole is not unified. Good is not unified with evil. God himself said that they are become as one of us... I think that people erroneously assume that because the fruit was forbidden that it was somehow bad, or represents something bad. Not all things that are forbidden are bad. I believe that it was forbidden the same way the sex is forbidden before marriage. They needed to be prepared. Without proper preparation, Lucifer would gain control of their hearts. Which he did. The scriptures say that Adam loved Lucifer more than God. The tree was a very, very good thing. It was incredibly sacred and necessary for salvation. I personally believe that the further instruction that they would have received would have been preparatory to partaking the fruit. That's alright if you disagree with me seminarysnoozer, like I said it is all speculation. I'm not claiming that I'm right.