Judge not...

[The Folk Prophet]

The well known and oft quoted Matthew 7:1-2 reads

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

The Joseph Smith translation of this is delivered thus:

Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment.

(Note: 3 Nephi 14 is rendered the same as the Bible pre-JST (“Judge not, that ye be not judged…”))

Judgment is an interesting topic, and I thought some insight into it was in order. I did a bit of scriptural research on it. I think it’s clear that certain types of judgment are reserved for the Lord. Certain levels of condemnation are to be left to God alone. Other levels of condemnation are only appropriate to the right political or ecclesiastical authorities. So if using judgment as a synonym for condemnation, I think the idea of “judge not” can be taken as generally accurate. However, judging is not synonymous with condemning, but it has become popular to look at it that way. To condemn is a judgment. To judge is not necessarily a condemnation.

If you read a bit on judgment in the scriptures and look past those referring to final judgment, condemnation, etc., we find insight in scriptures like:

Lev 19:15

Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

John 7:24

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Alma 41:14-15

Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again. For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored; therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all.

Moroni 7:18 (other verses surrounding this are quite insightful as well)

And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

And D&C 11:12

And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.

It’s a bit difficult to really set a factual standard on judgment because we use the idea of judging to mean something that it doesn’t necessarily mean, and even the scriptures use it this way. But scriptures like the above seem to indicate that rather than “judge not” (which even aside from the JST rendering could rightly, I think, be understood to mean “condemn not”) that we are, in fact, commanded to judge, but to do so in righteousness.

Ultimately, I would contend that the reading of “judge not” as a literal expression is a paradoxical impossibility, arguing strongly for the JST rendering. By this I mean to say, in order to not judge, one must judge. There is no fence sitting when it comes to judgment. There is no neutral. Non action is choice.

Going further with this: Action requires choice, choice requires judgment. If one is to act, including the act of remaining motionless or neutral, it requires a choice, and that choice requires a judgment.

To use a specific example, a loved one wants to be in your home whose standards are at odds with yours. The common Christian approach to this is to decry that not letting them in your home is judging them. Letting them into your home is not. I cry foul on that logic. Letting them into your home is judging them just as much as not letting them into your home is. Either way, the action requires choice and the choice requires judgment. The intention of this example is not to draw a conclusion as to which choice should be made (and which judgment, therefore, should have been made) but to simply point out that “judge not” as a denunciation of a choice is not a valid response.

I would argue that a replacement for preaching "judge not" (which in and of itself, I would point out, is a judgment) would be to preach "judge righteously".

[bytebear]

I always interpreted it as to having more to do with hypocrisy than actual judgments.

[The Folk Prophet]

I always interpreted it as to having more to do with hypocrisy than actual judgments.

I assume by "it" you mean Matthew 7:1. Which is certainly a valid presumption I think. But what I'm talking about is more related to people's' generic interpretation that seeing others as sinners is wrong because it's judging. I'm saying that it's perfectly acceptable see a sinner as a sinner. But it needs to be harnessed by righteousness and the spirit's guidance.

I hope to love people in spite of their sins. But I do judge. I see their horrible behavior and I judge it as wrong. I judge their choices as wrong. I judge them as sinners. I utilize this to make choices that I hope are appropriate. I strive to act and judge in righteousness. But seeing a sinner as a sinner is not unrighteous. But it is judging.

Ultimately, we are commanded to call sinners to repentance. How, may I ask, can we possibly do this if we cannot judge anyone to actually be sinners? Know what I mean? :)

[Anddenex]

What I find most interesting when people quote Matthew 7: 1, they often forget or choose not to understand the whole scripture in context with other scriptures for example, Luke 6: 42.

In both of these verses, or series of verses, the expression is given, "Judge not..." They both mention the insight the relation of our personal judgement and the judgement we receive from the Lord.

Luke, however, provides further insight in order for us to "judge righteously" as you mentioned at the end of your post.

Luke explain, that we are to remove first our own beam, in order to see clearly to be able to remove the mote from our brother's eye.

How does one remove a mote from another person's eye without making a "judgement call" that a mote is there in the first place?

Thus, a person must look inward - remember their fallen state before the Lord. We are to remember we are all beggars desiring the same remission of sins. Once a person is full of this knowledge, full of the love of God, then they will be able to see clearly with appropriate "judgement" in order to remove the mote from a brother's eye.

Thus, to "judge not" ultimately ends with a "righteous judgement."

[bytebear]

I assume by "it" you mean Matthew 7:1. Which is certainly a valid presumption I think. But what I'm talking about is more related to people's' generic interpretation that seeing others as sinners is wrong because it's judging. I'm saying that it's perfectly acceptable see a sinner as a sinner. But it needs to be harnessed by righteousness and the spirit's guidance.

I hope to love people in spite of their sins. But I do judge. I see their horrible behavior and I judge it as wrong. I judge their choices as wrong. I judge them as sinners. I utilize this to make choices that I hope are appropriate. I strive to act and judge in righteousness. But seeing a sinner as a sinner is not unrighteous. But it is judging.

Ultimately, we are commanded to call sinners to repentance. How, may I ask, can we possibly do this if we cannot judge anyone to actually be sinners? Know what I mean? :)

Here are a couple thoughts.

1. the concept of "Judge not" is not exclusive to Matt 7:1. It's reflected in various proverbs like "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." and the next couple verses about a beam in your eye. It's clearly about hypocrisy.

2. This particular advice was given to the leaders of the church, not the members at large. In other words, those who are in authority and a position to pass judgments on the rest of the church. They are held to a higher standard because they are called to be stewards and to judge the rest of their flock.

[Anddenex]

2. This particular advice was given to the leaders of the church, not the members at large. In other words, those who are in authority and a position to pass judgments on the rest of the church. They are held to a higher standard because they are called to be stewards and to judge the rest of their flock.

You will need to provide more evidence with regard to this statement. This was provided during the Sermon on the Mount, where more than just leaders attended.

Where does your interpretation stem from the Lord only speaking to the leaders, and not the general population who were in attendance?

Are we not all stewards?

[bytebear]

You will need to provide more evidence with regard to this statement. This was provided during the Sermon on the Mount, where more than just leaders attended.

Where does your interpretation stem from the Lord only speaking to the leaders, and not the general population who were in attendance?

Are we not all stewards?

JST:

"Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people."

Why do you think Joseph Smith clarified that Jesus was teaching his disciples separately from "the people?"

[Anddenex]

JST:

"Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people."

Why do you think Joseph Smith clarified that Jesus was teaching his disciples separately from "the people?"

In answer to your question, I will ask a few questions in relation to the JST interpretation and your second question. Who did Jesus ask his disciples to teach this principle to if it were only for leaders, or stewards?

When I attend a stake training for high priests, is the training solely for high priests, or is the training an instruction to teach and share with others the message which was given to the high priests?

Does the lack of members present dictate the message was solely for those in attendance? Or does this follow an already accepted principle of how the Lord instructs his followers, his sheep?

Does the Lord teach his disciples lessons by which they then are to relate the same message to us, and the same message we are to follow as they are expected to follow?

In light of your first statement, and the additional question my question still remains, Are we not all stewards?

[The Folk Prophet]

JST:

"Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people."

Why do you think Joseph Smith clarified that Jesus was teaching his disciples separately from "the people?"

Disciples = all followers. Not just leader. Moreover, the instruction was specifically to tell it to the people, so... I'm not sure I follow the logic.

[The Folk Prophet]

1. the concept of "Judge not" is not exclusive to Matt 7:1. It's reflected in various proverbs like "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." and the next couple verses about a beam in your eye. It's clearly about hypocrisy. .

I think these examples/proverbs/etc., are further insight into HOW to judge righteously (or when it is inappropriate to judge at all). I think your point is valid, but not entirely supportive that hypocrisy is always the issue and therefore we should never judge.

Thank you though for the thought and some discussion action, which I really wanted. :) I do not think it is as simple as judge not, but I also don't think it's as simple as don't judge not--if that makes any sense at all. In other words, discussion is certainly warranted.

[Dravin]

A talk relevant to the topic: Judge Not and Judging - Ensign Aug. 1999 - ensign

[Traveler]

In general I believe that judging is a good and divine thing. G-d exercises judgment and if we consider the Joseph Smith translation – G-d exercises righteous judgments. To make the whole thing simple I believe we should substitute the term “condemn” for the word judgment.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

I assume by "it" you mean Matthew 7:1. Which is certainly a valid presumption I think. But what I'm talking about is more related to people's' generic interpretation that seeing others as sinners is wrong because it's judging. I'm saying that it's perfectly acceptable see a sinner as a sinner. But it needs to be harnessed by righteousness and the spirit's guidance.

)

I think "the spirit's guidance" is the key. I think there are very few times in which the spirit (which is not a spirit of contention) would provide such knowledge. It would have to be in situations in which there was a need to judge and make permanent judgements for which the person will be standing witness to in the next life. For example, if a missionary knocks on a door and they righteously try to share the gospel with someone and despite their best effort they feel by the spirit that they are not willing to receive the message, they can make the judgement to move on. They may be called in the next life to stand witness that they gave them the opportunity to receive the gospel but they didn't.

Ultimately, to judge requires knowing what is in a person's heart as well as completely understanding all the variables that we cannot see for ourselves. So, "the spirit's guidance" is one of revealing what is in that person's heart, what is the desire of their heart. That kind of thing, nobody is going to get by watching 20-20 or the evening news etc., or even going to a legal court. Even if someone is convicted of a crime by law, that doesn't tell us what is in their heart. I know I don't have that ability to see what is in the heart of a person, except when I have certain stewardship given, like with my children or at times when I was in the Young Women's presidency so I could help someone in need.

For example, we may not know if a mass murderer does what he does because that is in his heart or does he have a brain tumor that did not allow his spirit to dictate his actions at that moment, etc. So, even things that may outwardly seem like an obvious sin cannot be determined by our limited view of the total situation.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think "the spirit's guidance" is the key. I think there are very few times in which the spirit (which is not a spirit of contention) would provide such knowledge. It would have to be in situations in which there was a need to judge and make permanent judgements for which the person will be standing witness to in the next life. For example, if a missionary knocks on a door and they righteously try to share the gospel with someone and despite their best effort they feel by the spirit that they are not willing to receive the message, they can make the judgement to move on. They may be called in the next life to stand witness that they gave them the opportunity to receive the gospel but they didn't.

Ultimately, to judge requires knowing what is in a person's heart as well as completely understanding all the variables that we cannot see for ourselves. So, "the spirit's guidance" is one of revealing what is in that person's heart, what is the desire of their heart. That kind of thing, nobody is going to get by watching 20-20 or the evening news etc., or even going to a legal court. Even if someone is convicted of a crime by law, that doesn't tell us what is in their heart. I know I don't have that ability to see what is in the heart of a person, except when I have certain stewardship given, like with my children or at times when I was in the Young Women's presidency so I could help someone in need.

For example, we may not know if a mass murderer does what he does because that is in his heart or does he have a brain tumor that did not allow his spirit to dictate his actions at that moment, etc. So, even things that may outwardly seem like an obvious sin cannot be determined by our limited view of the total situation.

Hmm. Except this doesn't seem to allow for concepts like--

Matthew 7:16

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

And

Ezek 44:23

And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

And

D&C 101:95

That I may proceed to bring to pass my act, my strange act, and perform my work, my strange work, that men may discern between the righteous and the wicked, saith your God.

What I mean to say is, to see wickedness as wickedness does not take a spiritual prompting. I am not discounting the importance of the spirit, of course. And we should always be in tune and listen to the spirit. But we don't need a spiritual witness every time we think someone is doing something wrong.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmm. Except this doesn't seem to allow for concepts like--

Matthew 7:16

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

And

Ezek 44:23

And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

And

D&C 101:95

That I may proceed to bring to pass my act, my strange act, and perform my work, my strange work, that men may discern between the righteous and the wicked, saith your God.

What I mean to say is, to see wickedness as wickedness does not take a spiritual prompting. I am not discounting the importance of the spirit, of course. And we should always be in tune and listen to the spirit. But we don't need a spiritual witness every time we think someone is doing something wrong.

Discerning right from wrong to help one make a choice between right from wrong for their self is a separate issue from judging someone. (I think)

To "think" someone is wrong doesn't take the spirit, I agree but that is not the same as "judging".

If I was walking down the street alone and I saw a man coming towards me who looks as if he could harm me (irregardless of whether he would or not), I might cross the street to the other side. Is that judging?

Or, if I have someone work on my house in the middle of the day, I might not want to be alone with the person by myself and have my husband or someone else with me here as they do their work, for safety, is that judging?

I would say though, if I am guided by the spirit in those situations, I am not going to feel bad about making those decisions. If I made those decisions without the promptings of the spirit I might be missing an opportunity to change someone's life because of what I "thought"and not felt.

[The Folk Prophet]

Discerning right from wrong to help one make a choice between right from wrong for their self is a separate issue from judging someone. (I think)

To "think" someone is wrong doesn't take the spirit, I agree but that is not the same as "judging".

If I was walking down the street alone and I saw a man coming towards me who looks as if he could harm me (irregardless of whether he would or not), I might cross the street to the other side. Is that judging?

Or, if I have someone work on my house in the middle of the day, I might not want to be alone with the person by myself and have my husband or someone else with me here as they do their work, for safety, is that judging?

I would say though, if I am guided by the spirit in those situations, I am not going to feel bad about making those decisions. If I made those decisions without the promptings of the spirit I might be missing an opportunity to change someone's life because of what I "thought"and not felt.

Right. Well, basically, you're saying the same sort of things, just looking at what's considered judging differently. I would contend that your examples above are definitely judging and supportive of my point.

Crossing the street to avoid a shady character is judging, but it is justified and appropriate. Yes, if the spirit whispered to you to stay on that side and talk to them, you follow. Short of that, I would, in those cases, err on the side of safety, generally speaking. Moreover, I'd stay out of those parts of town entirely. Don't walk down the dark alleys in the first place, right? Why? Because you're judging that the people who hang out there are evil.

Where it gets complicated is when we move away from the idea of physical safety (which is obvious to most people) and get into spiritual safety.

Should you have friends who are immoral? There are definitely two sides to this, though in todays hippy-free-love, "tolerance is a virtue" world there is only one side. I cry foul on that thinking.

My elder's quorum president, for example, called the whole quorum to repentance because he'd heard that someone had not let their kids play with some non-member kids next door. He preached at us in tears as he condemned us all for judging and not loving. I'm sitting there the whole time thinking, "Are you kidding me? I'm not letting my kids play with the little pot-smoking, cussy, thieving, rotten kids next door!" Mind you, I don't have kids so I was only thinking it theoretically. But there was a disconnect of safety in what my elders quorum president was saying.

Our spiritual safety is much, much more important than our physical safety. However, if we cannot judge people to be spiritually dangerous, we put ourselves and our families in great peril.

The common viewpoint nowadays seems to be that we must always favor the sinner. I say we always favor spiritual safety. You hear all this talk of tolerance, and going after the lost sheep, and how horrible it would be to stop being friends with someone for whatever evil viewpoint they may have. But I don't think bringing (or keeping) the wolf into my life accounts to the same as going after a lost sheep. However, in order to make this decision, I must judge between the lost sheep and the wolves.

Whereas (as we've all said again and again) the spirit is requisite in this judgment, I think there are obvious, self-governing principles that apply. We will not feel a burning to the bosom, or a whisper in our ear, or what-have-you with every interaction we have. At least I don't. I strive to keep myself worthy and clean, and I work to listen to the spirit. But I have found that in a lot of ways, the Lord leaves us to our own judgments.

If the neighbor kids are rotten little stinkers that I think will be bad influences on my kids, I'm going to restrict my children from playing with them. This is basic good sense and I don't buy that it's judgmental, hateful, un-Christian, or unloving.

There are certain people that I simply will not interact with. I can make this judgment on my own based on principles of basic wisdom. Certain intentions, viewpoints, agendas, and influences I just avoid. I judge and I act on that judgment.

[Justice]

I don't have anything to contribute directly to the topic, but one of the off-topics.

In the "Sermon on the Mount" delivered in 3 Nephi, we see Jesus speaking directly to the "twelve" disciples or Apostles, and then turning to the multitude and speaking. If you follow this pattern and compare it to the same sermon as delivered in the Bible, you can see that parts of it were directed specifically at the twelve, or leaders.