Fether
-
Posts
3690 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
27
Posts posted by Fether
-
-
7 hours ago, laronius said:
Neither coworker is justified in basing their decision to address the issue by guessing at the motive … Now if you want to talk about how to actually help him then you'd have to move past merely making judgements and find the real reason behind his behavior .
Just so I understand. You are saying we shouldn’t judge motives… but we should find the reason for why someone does something?
7 hours ago, laronius said:you didn't want to go there.
Please expound in this satement
-
@Just_A_Guy and anyone else who wishes to chime in.
At what point does it become appropriate to assume I’ll intentions from a person like this? Obviously, if they come at you with a knife, there is ill intent, but is there any benefit found in assuming harmful motives for someone who is, on occasion, acting inappropriately in their cry for help?
Is it a gospel principle to think the best of others? Is this apparent on what we learn about patience, forgiveness, and mercy?
-
15 minutes ago, laronius said:
Based on Elder Oaks' talk I would say that neither coworker can righteously judge the motives or reasoning behind the inappropriate behavior but everyone is justified in determining the behavior as inappropriate and perhaps in need of being addressed.
But where does this leave us? I feel like this falls short of the issue. Both coworkers agree the actions are inappropriate. However, there views on the motives change everything. Person #1 is not going to offer aid, but rather avoid them and continue to complain about them. Person #2 is going to have more patience with them and offer assistance where appropriate.
What does looking at an action and say “this is bad” really accomplish if there is no thoughts on what the person needs?
-
21 minutes ago, mikbone said:
You must have a kindler gentler work environment than I do.
This is not appropriate for my workplace.
We have a very unique and tight work place. We are all 1099 contracted employees, speak openly of God and personal growth. It’s actually pretty cool. But can cause issues that you don’t see elsewhere.
We are all close friends
-
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:
I agree. I just think it renders one a little more vulnerable to possible exploitation, if one doesn’t have a clear set of boundaries and a firm understanding for where ultimate accountability lies.
True. I think this is true of virtually all Christlike attributes.
-
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Perhaps; but this is an age of weaponized compassion. There’s a reason the Savior combined “harmless as doves” with “wise as serpents”.
I definitely think it is something to be aware of. But I refuse to believe (and I imagine you do to, I don’t want to misrepresent what you are saying) that attributing positive motive, thinking the best of others and offering grace to those that make mistakes also means you are naive and will be taken advantage of.
-
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:
That said, in the here-and-now Person #2 probably needs to be wary of being taken advantage of/being subjected to behaviors that, intentional or not, constitute some form of abuse.
I would argue that one can easily have the views of person #2, but still have a sense of personal space and self respect. It is not apparent to me that person #2 would naturally be taken advantage of. Though I do believe the opposite to be true. people who are easily taken advantage of of likely share similar thoughts as person #2.
Its sort of a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn’t a square situation.
- SilentOne and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
I’ve been trying to put this into more sensible words, so maybe you can help me complete my thought.
We are asked not to judge unrighteously of others. Part of this includes not attributing negative motives to one’s actions. But what about attributing innocent or positive motives to one’s actions. Is that unrighteous? I would argue no, but What exactly is it that makes that not unrighteous?
I have a co-worker of mine that struggles deeply with emotional trauma. They, on occasion, call out for help in inappropriate ways. Person #1 assumes that this co-worker knows exactly what they are doing and being deliberately manipulative with their tactics and claims they are just wanting attention. Person #2 believes the co-worker is just in deep pain and knows no other way to get through it then by doing what they is doing.
Neither can really know what is going on, but both are still attributing motive and making some sort of judgement, yet one seems to be the more righteous of the judgements.
Is one better than the other? Why?
Are there any scriptures or words from prophets that add insight?
As of now, the only thing that comes to mind is Mosiah 4:19 “For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?”
when we refuse to offer grace to others, we in turn are becoming incapable, or at least hindered, in our ability to help those that are begging.
PLEASE NOTE: This is not a thread about depression and trauma, nor about who is more right. The core question is why is it appropriate to attribute innocence or positive motives, but not ok to attribute negative motives
-
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:
Republicans only care about government spending when a democrat is in office, and democrats only care about “deficits” when a republican in office. So again, it’s strictly politics and gives the sides another reason to bicker.
I’m still not convinced we really know what debt will and won’t do in the long run
-
7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
It's a dangerous situations...hopefully I'm long gone before it all comes due
What does this mean?
-
14 hours ago, mikbone said:
Does this concern anyone?
It might if I understood the economic affect of a $5,000,000,000,000 infrastructure bill. I remember the world was supposed to end when Obama passed the stimulus bill. I may have missed that, cause I’m still fine.
-
5 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:
No good deed goes unpunished.
Fiyeeeeeeeeeeeero!!!!!!
-
Just now, LDSGator said:
Wrong. It’s called “justice” to want to see, in this life, the guilty punished. So....no.
10 minutes ago, Fether said:Your right! And I fixed what I wrote before you submitted your reply.
This is why Charity is a Christlike attribute. The whole purpose of the atonement was to satisfy justice in a way that saved the sinner from the full blow of justice. Mercy is applied where the sinner is repenting. That is the purpose of charity. To have that empathy for both victim and criminal. It’s hard, but it is chrisrlike.
3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:Actually, to some degree, yes. I DO think it’s unjust to the families of the victims. If I shot your wife and kids then said “Well, Christ forgives me, so we’re cool. See you in Heaven bud.”’ you’d feel the same way I do now, even if you don’t admit it.
It’s a good thing “what I would do” do not dictate right and wrong. It’s also a good thing we aren’t talking about what I would do, rather, we are talking about what is the Christlike approach.
This point remains moot
-
41 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
Tom gets a DUI, and kills a 12 year old boy scout. I want to show Tom “charity” by holding his hand, praying with him, advocating for him to get a lesser sentence, etc.
Ok first off, this goes back to my original point. You don’t SHOW charity, you have charity. You have empathy for the person and you seek to help them recover from the traumatic event.
The acts of advocating for a lesser sentence is not inherently an act that comes from charity.
41 minutes ago, LDSGator said:Now, what about the family of the Boy Scout? Charity towards Tom is innately cruel to them. Hence, it’s bullying the victim.
You are coming from a place of justice and revenge with this example. No mercy or grace, which is heart of the pain they feel. Me loving the sinner is not hurting them. They are hurting themselves with their hellish feelings of revenge.
Would you say that Christ forgiving the sins of a repenting thief is harming the people he stole from?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
“suffereth”. Means “suffers”, not “sufferers”.
That was auto correct’s doing
-
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?
Judgement and attributing motives
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
So say there is a friend, like the one above, who struggles deeply with emotional pain and trauma, and on occasion acted inappropriately to deal with it. One can easily assume, as illustrated, that they are either being manipulative and seeking attention, or just doesn’t realize what they are doing and are simply crying out for help. What would the appropriate thought process and actions be?