NeedleinA

How can one preach to another that they need to stop judging without judging that they're judging in the first place?

You just got finished saying earlier in the thread that our words were (as compared to God) powerful tools and possible weapons and we had to be careful with them. Now you're saying that words don't count?
 
Color me confused.
 
What about the son that says he won't till his fathers land but shows up anyway vs the son who says he will and does? Or the son who says he will but then doesn't show up vs the son who says he won't and then doesn't.
 
Words count as actions.

Deuteronomy 1: 16, "Judge righteously"
 
 
Proverbs 31:9, "Judge righteously"
 
Psalms 96:10, "judge the people righteously"
 
Leviticus 19:15, "but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour"
 
Alma 41: 14, "Judge righteously, and you shall have justice restored unto you again.
 
Doctrine and Covenants 11: 12, "Put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to judge righteously"
 
"Judge" scripturally is not meant to condemn, the notion that "judge" is meant to condemn is false.  When a child does good and we call this act good, a judgement, we haven't condemned.
 
Are we to make "eternal" judgements, no.  Eternal judgements are left to God.  If a man steals, and I call him a thief -- a judgement -- have I condemned?  No.  I have merely called the individual what they are.  If a man murders, and I judge him to be a murderer, have I condemned him?  No.
 
If a woman/man commits adultery and I call them an adulterer, have I condemned? No.  The scriptures, as have been inspired by modern and past prophets are replete with the notion that we are to judge righteously, and to leave eternal judgements to God.

It's more than not fair. It would be downright stupid to not do so in many cases. Would one let a condemned child molester babysit their kids? Should they? Does not letting them babysit mean condemnation? Does it mean one cannot otherwise be kind, loving, and friendly to them? Failure to make such a judgment, however, would be utter foolishness.
 
This is an extreme example, of course, but the principle applies. Wise judgment is requisite.

Just as a side note and entirely off topic: I've seen people say this a lot -- as if sincerity in and of itself is a virtue. But sincerity doesn't really define good and bad. Sincerely evil is still sincere. Even Satan is sincere in his desire to destroy us.

We have to make judgments in some things, Byron. It's the nature of our lives in mortality. And that mortal nature also guarantees that we will make wrong judgments at times. We are not to excuse ourselves for that, any more than we are to excuse ourselves for other sins. But no one is sinless; we are made sinless through Christ's atonement. So recognizing that we will mess up despite our best efforts is really just recognizing that we need Christ's atonement.
 
I am not justifying wrong judgment. Indeed, the Lord commanded us to judge righteously, warning us that by what judgment we judge, we will ourselves by judged. But in context, it is clear that the Lord was not saying "Don't ever judge". Such a thing would be very foolish, if it were even possible.
 
Given this, I think it's not fair to say that any time we act on a judgment or supposition we have made about a person, we are condemning him. It means simply that we're acting off of incomplete information.

Disagree.
 
The simple fact is that we cannot not judge. It is imperative that we do in order to act. Every choice we make, every conversation we have, every interaction, requires judgment. If we're going to claim that we cannot have any accuracy in those judgments (or "realizations"), and therefore any judging therefore qualifies as condemnation (which is a bit silly...I can tell when someone's being a jerk...just the same as you who have realized that some were jerks to you here), then we cannot act. But that is impossible. We must act, for even failure to act is an act -- which requires judgment.
 
Everything we understand about others tends to be presumption. Whereas we should be careful with our presumptions, yes, to claim that we can never know at all is a bit extreme.

(This is not exactly doctrine of our church, but my own personal thoughts of the matter)

I don't think God has a particular problem with setting bounds to live by. Bounds are like a fence warning of a cliff which is to mean sin.

In the same thought we need to understand more than just the bounds we need to recognize the difference between sheep of our fold, wolves, and even as we are warned in the bible of the sheep in wolves clothes.

The use of labels to comprehend, to recognize this is not sin.

I believe this view has strong standing in biblical wisdom.

It is regrettable that your initial posts had a very strong similarity to those who often attack our church. If the mistake is on us I would hope that you would be forgiving of us, and those who in their weakness erred. I do also believe that if you stick around for discussion, trying to learn from your mistakes in how you approached us through likely little fault of your own(I'm going to give you the benefit of believing you are sincere) that it may go better. Though it is to be expected that we will still assert what we believe here, even if it may be at odds with what you do.

The necessity of an invitation for labeling would be an irrelevant stipulation.  I assume, the Pharisees never labeled themselves as, nor invited the declaration, hypocrite, and yet, the Lord referred to them as "hypocrites" consistently.
 
 
The first commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our fellowmen.  We would agree.  The concept of what we "want" would again be irrelevant if the statement is indeed true.  
 
In light of the warning "judge not, lest ye be judged" we are also informed a few verses later to remove first the beam from our own eye such that we might "see clearly to cast out the mote out of they brother's eye."  In order to remove the mote that was there previously requires a judgement to be made.  We are not to fear making judgements, but we are to make righteous judgements, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see clearly to remove any mote without a judgement being made.
 
 
 
This statement reminds me of PC.  A champion of his faith, although we disagree, and an individual who is loved by many, if not all, in this forum.  We share many truths.  We are polarized in others.  Yet, we are still able to have peaceful discussions, majority of the time (eh PC ) because we all know where his love stands with the members here, and LDS members around the world.  We also know he will defend falsehoods preached.  

This would be false.  Calling a noun by its name or description isn't ostracizing anyone.  This sentiment is similar to an individual who claims if we describe an individual by their skin tone then we must be racist.  This is false.
 
For a minute let us say this sentiment is true.  Then we should be more like Christ, and respond to those who merely come to stoke a fire (i.e. Pharisees who came to Jesus with questions who cared not for an answer but only to trap), or as you say "add fuel to a fire, in the language our Master did, "Woe unto you...hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." Or, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites."
 
Thus, we should not call an anti-Mormon, "anti-Mormon," but we should call them by their real names, as our Savior did, "hypocrites!" Unless of course, the only perfect man to walk this earth exhibited pride also, as I am sure the strong tone of "hypocrite" most likely ostracized these individuals by which one specifies "is not doing God's will"?  Intriguing.

Our prefix "anti-" comes from the Greek ἀντί, meaning "over against", "opposite", or "in place of". So there certainly can be that inference of "in place of".
 
For example, the Book of Mormon talks of Lamanites, descendants chlidren of the prophet Lehi who rebelled against him and his righteous son Nephi, These Lamanites repented of their murders and wished to join the Nephites. They called themselves "Anti-Nephi-Lehis". In context, it would not make sense for "Anti-Nephi-Lehies" to mean "opposed to the Nephites". Rather, it appears to mean something closer to "in place of": "Lehite descendants who stand over against the Nephites, or in the place they stand."
 
But in this case, "anti-" has a clear and obvious meaning -- and contrary to your assertion, it is not "I am right and you are wrong." Rather, it is "you have a clear bias against me/my religion and an agenda to that end." It is, in fact, an accusation, and may not be (N.B.: may not be, not isn't) a good thing. But that does not make it false.
 
For example someone who approaches a group of religionists with (as he claims) questions about their religion, seeking further light and understanding, but who point-blank refuses even to consider reading a foundational text for the religion, is not likely to be perceived as sincere. Can you imagine someone coming up to a group of Christians, professing to be merely searching for truth about Christians while asking a bunch of loaded questions typical of those who hate Christians, and who then refuses to consider reading the Bible to see for himself?
 
What you say is worth considering, but in the end I don't think it really stands up to scrutiny. Those of us who accused you of being anti-Mormon may have been wrong to do so, and indeed may have even been accusing you falsely. But I disagree with the idea that the term "anti-Mormon" itself is somehow flawed or wrong.

Not really. Anti means opposed to, and it has always meant opposed to (contrary to what 7th day Adventists apparently said). Calling someone anti-Mormon simply means you are saying they are opposed to Mormonism. It has nothing to do with who's right or wrong, who's better, or anything about pride at all.

NonMormon: "I drink coffee for the benefits."
Mormon: "And what benefits would those be?"
NonMormon: "Well, for one thing, it keeps me from becoming Mormon!"
 
Ba-DOOM-Toom

The presumption is that the poster in question is a seeker.  When the poster claims they will not read anything but what they already accept as true we can rule them out as a seeker...

Rather than the concept or idea of confront - perhaps soften the idea a little and think of having a open and in depth discussion.  Confront sounds a lot like blame and I do not know of many episodes of blame in a marriage relationship that have worked out well.

Which is funny. Because with a lot of these sorts of questions (you see them a lot for Ask Gramps too) my initial response to myself is, "Really? Do you not know how to Google? Can you not read the answers to this on fairlds or lds.org or jefflindsay, or whathaveyou a whole lot easier than making us regurgitate what they've already explained there?"

The concept of wolves is sheep clothing comes from Matthew 7:15 This scripture is part of the sermon on the mount.  Jesus uses the symbolism of wolves and as the verses 15-20 clearly indicate who wolves are.  Note that in the example of Jesus he is talking about the sheep of his fold - in other words those that follow him or if you will - what is a Christian?
 
Jesus clearly says that real Christians are not to be determined by the doctrine they teach.  But rather by their intent in saying anything.  Jesus also compares fruit of trees - he says by their fruits you shall know them.  The intent of a wolf is the kill or hurt.  In other words the intent to criticize and cause the flock to scatter.  The result of a Christian is a witness of Christ and the fruit of repentance.  To bring together.

"Your dad is a righteous and loving man who tries to do right by his family. But I divorced him because he read too much and didn't like to exercise. Also he didn't shower as often as I thought he should."
 
If you think your kids will accept this as a reasonable explanation and will in turn go forward to build successful marriages based on their parents' example, I think you are mistaken.

Regarding personal hygiene:
 
Until very recently in history, the vast majority of people bathed only occasionally, once or twice a week at most, sometimes once or twice a year. People smelled like, well, people. No big deal, Cows smell like cows, pigs smell like pigs, rats smell like rats, and humans smell like humans.
 
I am not necessarily advocating a return to the "good old days" of constant BO. But I do think our insistence that people shower at least once per day and put all sorts of deodorants and perfumes on to cover up any possibility of their body actually having the odor of a human being is prissy and ridiculous. On my mission (to Italy, an advanced first-world country), I was introduced to masses of people who showered only every other day, women who didn't shave their legs or armpits, and all sorts of other curiosities of personal hygiene that a naive American like myself had never encountered. After 13 months in Italy, such things didn't faze me a bit, or even strike me as odd or repulsive. They seemed perfectly normal. I think we would do well to move toward such an attitude.
 
Oral hygiene, on the contrary, is quite important, but is typically a learned habit, preferably from early childhood. It can be learned and practiced in adulthood, but the adult has to be the one to make that decision. All you can do is encourage him.
 
(The one thing I do not get is people who brush their teeth right after they get up. Huh? What sense does that make? After breakfast makes sense, but right after you get up? How about brush your teeth BEFORE YOU GO TO BED, so your teeth don't rot all night in their unwashed state? My wife's "morning breath" smells fine to me. I have never been bothered by it, and I gather she doesn't mind mine. it goes away within 30 minutes of getting up, anyway, or when you eat breakfast. IMO, this is just another "I'm afraid of humans smelling human" problem.)

Kirrkko,
Let it go. Whatever your hanging onto, whatever you are trying to work out yourself. Just let it go. You do not have to solve it. You do not need to divvy out the consequences. Christ has already stepped between you and those who have hurt you. He will give you peace and those who have hurt you just recompense. 
 
Many experiences in this life are painful. But they will only have power to hurt us for a short moment so long as we do not continue to re-live them over and over again in our minds. In fact, such experiences will only make us stronger if we learn what to do different next time and move on.  
 
Christ himself has said, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid" (John 14:27). Elder Holland said of this scripture, "I submit to you that may be one of the Savior's commandments that is, even in the hearts of the otherwise faithful Latter-day Saints, almost universally disobeyed; and yet I wonder whether our resistance to this invitation could be any more grievous to the Lord's merciful heart ("Come Unto Me" BYU March 2, 1992). It is to those who turn to him with broken hearts that he gives such peace. I tell you that you are not exempt from such a promise. He will, even in your heart, replace beauty for ashes and the oil of joy for mourning.

Generally I see the wolves in sheep's clothing more as the so-called "faithful" who are murmuring, criticizing, advocating for change, etc. "Progressives" in other words.

a few times.. doesn't seem to be too often tho.  Generally i prefer to wait till the costume comes off; sometimes honest questions and troll questions are too similar.

The mods here are like shepherds who do a good job protecting the flock.  I appreciate their vigilance.

A lot of the misconceptions and misunderstandings about the Church come from people confusing us with other sects.  When I was getting ready to join the Church, my mom said, "If you think we'd let you die instead of letting you have a blood transfusion, you have another thing coming!"  "No Mom," I replied, "That's the Jehovah's Witnesses."  Then she though I wouldn't celebrate Christmas anymore--again, that was the Jehovah's Witnesses.  She didn't know the difference.
 
My best friend thought I'd give up on using technology and go around wearing black.  I had to explain that the Amish aren't Mormons.  (They're actually Anabaptists.)
 
Some other crazy things included:
 
"Mormons will come into your house and just eat anything they want from your refrigerator!"  (Must have known some missionaries, lol!)
 
"A Mormon woman has to sleep with any man who asks her."  (My wife heard that one from her mother before she joined the Church.)
 
"On their wedding night, the Mormons sew the newly married couple into a big sack for their 'honeymoon.'"  (Seriously).
 
When I was running the S.P.A.M. web site, I used to get statistics that included search terms that brought people to the site.  One recurring question was, "Can Mormons swim?"  Somewhere people think that Mormons aren't allowed to swim.  (Maybe because mission insurance doesn't allow missionaries to swim, do martial arts, ride a motorcycle, etc.)

Trust the process.  Those who are not interested in dialogue eventually violate TOS, or become frustrated, and disappear.