How Evil Is The World?

[Traveler]

There have been a number concerning how evil the world is. I am wondering and asking for opinions. At what point of evil will the L-rd step in and take matters into his own hands. I have an opinion but I wanted to do a sanity check. What does “ripe for destruction” mean?

The Traveler

[a-train]

In one sense, the LORD has never stepped out or given matters to another's hands. He controls all things and as far as Satan has power over the governments of the earth and the hearts of men, the LORD still plays them all to bring about His own purposes.

True, today is the day of Satan's power, but there is no war, no plague, no work of death, no affliction that falls upon man save that which is from God. No ruler comes to power, no party rises to supremacy, nothing takes place without Him. He causes the Sun to rise, the tides to come in, all things are in His power.

So why do good things happen to bad people? Why do bad things happen to good people? Because this life is a probationary state (2 Nephi 2:21), a time to prepare to meet God and to see if we will do all things which the LORD commands us. These things should all work in our hearts to repentance and turn us to God. But if we let the evil one have our heart, they will drive us to hate and murmuring.

How wicked is the world? Paul said that the time would come that "men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:" (2 Tim 3)

YEP, THAT IS TODAY.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

The time is always ripe for God to reap.

[Fiannan]

I know there are scriptures that warn the wicked that they will vanish root and branch. Maybe the people of the world (when they adopt anti-Christian attitudes) insure they will be elliminated because they stop having children and just vanish. God's way of pruning the human race.

[MaidservantX]

It's not so much wicked people, as it is the fact that we will be freed from wicked and oppressive systems and beliefs. All of us need to repent. Even those who are wicked, we can't judge them by our standards, because they haven't had the light we have. It's hard enough for us to obey and we have the whole truth. God wants the wickedness to stop, but he has a tender love for all his children.

There are some ways that in this age we have become more wicked, as to practices and beliefs, but we have also become more enlightened and willing to do good as well. But so far, the suffering and war just increases.

Savior, please come!

[the_jason]

What I don't understand is why people type L-rd and G-d, instead of Lord and God. Is this not demeaning? I understand that the intent is to minimize the use of their names, which the scriptures warn against, but omitting one letter from their names does not accomplish this. Everyone knows who you are referring to, so either type out their names in full or don't type the name at all.

[shanstress70]

I personally don't think the 'world' is any more evil than it has been in the past. I know sometimes it seems like it is bc we are bombarded with 24 hour news channels and sensationalism. There are sicko's, but there have always been sicko's.

How can it get any worse than slavery - the majority of the people thinking that it's OK to own someone and make them work for your own well-being, just bc of the color of their skin? That wasn't a fringe thing... it was widely accepted as the norm.

[Traveler]

What I don't understand is why people type L-rd and G-d, instead of Lord and God. Is this not demeaning? I understand that the intent is to minimize the use of their names, which the scriptures warn against, but omitting one letter from their names does not accomplish this. Everyone knows who you are referring to, so either type out their names in full or don't type the name at all.

There are many in foreign places that love the use the internet to learn of other religions. Seldom will these people ever post for fear they will look foolish because of language differences. For some this is their only access to Christianity. In some of these places there are laws against coping material that spell out the name of G-d. As a curtsey to these people and also out of respect of sacred things I alter my spelling on the internet. From time to time I will receive an e-mail of thanks from such foreigners.

Please try to be less critical more forgiving and respectful of things you may not understand.

The Traveler

[the_jason]

I was merely expressing a concern. I was not trying to be critical.

By the way, those who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

[Traveler]

Currently I do not know of any prophets sent by G-d warning that unless “something” is repented of, G-d will destroy all those involved in the wickedness. What I am wondering is – what was being done differently or in greater concentrations that by the laws of G-d demand destruction?

What sin or concentration of sin brings the destruction of G-d? What is the “threshold” that when crossed brings down the “fire” of heaven as with Sodom and Gomorrah. Do we know why G-d sent the flood in the days of Noah or why Jonah was sent to Nineveh?

Perhaps if we understand the engine of such wickedness we can see and understand more clearly the “signs of the times”. As I said, I have an opinion of specific elements that when present in society will bring the destruction of G-d to all those that either are involved or (as some would say) are “enablers” of such elements.

What think this forum?

The Traveler

I was merely expressing a concern. I was not trying to be critical.

By the way, those who live in glass houses should never throw stones.

I am sorry that I did not take the following statement as concern:

so either type out their names in full or don't type the name at all.

This looked a lot like a critical demand - not an expression of concern.

My response:

Please try to be less critical more forgiving and respectful of things you may not understand.

Was not a demand nor a stone but a plee (as defined with the word "Please" - which still stands.

The Traveler

[Guest bizabra]

I agree with Shantress. The world is NOT any MORE evil than it has always been. In fact, I would make an arguement that it is LESS evil than ever before!

Anyone who is a serious student of history knows this to be true. Because there are MORE people alive today than ever before AND because we now have instantaneous world wide communication, MORE people can be affected by an evil person, such as Hitler or Lenin, and more people know more about the evil that is done.

In the Western world, that is Europe and America, the average "peon" is mUCH MUCH less exposed to the selfishness and wickedness of the ruling class than ever before. Average humans have much more personal freedom and human dignity and are not an oppressed mass that can be hurt by the whims of a "noble" class. Even in China this is true.

I just finished reading a couple of books about the Crusades and am now reading about the 14th century. If you think the world was LESS evil then, you should do a bit more research and find out for yourself how much LESS evil life in general is for most humans alive today.

Human nature doesn't change, but the civic institutions and democratic governments in place todayare much much better at controlling the selfish impulses of those in "power" than ever before in human history.

(final sentence edited for clarity)

[Buzzyboy]

Hear-Hear, Bizabra. You're right on. Any search of history tells a long and repeated story of the wickedness and tyranny of man toward his fellowman, and toward his God. We live, as you indicate, in a relatively wonderful world compared to what has existed throughout history. True, there seems to be a cheapening of our culture and our personal value system at present. And this may lead to our eventual downfall as a country and culture. But generally we exist quite well ethically and morally relative to our past.

[Dr T]

The time is always ripe for God to reap.

Good thought CK.

As Shan said, the world is evil but it has been evil from generation to generation. Is it getting worse? I'd say, in some instances, yes.

[Shade]

I agree with Shantress. The world is NOT any MORE evil than it has always been. In fact, I would make an arguement that it is LESS evil than ever before!

Anyone who is a serious student of history knows this to be true. Because there are MORE people alive today than ever before AND because we now have instantaneous world wide communication, MORE people can be affected by an evil person, such as Hitler or Lenin, and more people know more about the evil that is done.

In the Western world, that is Europe and America, the average "peon" is mUCH MUCH less exposed to the selfishness and wickedness of the ruling class than ever before. Average humans have much more personal freedom and human dignity and are not an oppressed mass that can be hurt by the whims of a "noble" class. Even in China this is true.

I just finished reading a couple of books about the Crusades and am now reading about the 14th century. If you think the world was LESS evil then, you should do a bit more research and find out for yourself how much LESS evil life in general is for most humans alive today.

Human nature doesn't change, but the civic institutions and democratic governments are much much better at controlling the selfish impulses of those in "power".

Hear-Hear, Bizabra. You're right on. Any search of history tells a long and repeated story of the wickedness and tyranny of man toward his fellowman, and toward his God. We live, as you indicate, in a relatively wonderful world compared to what has existed throughout history. True, there seems to be a cheapening of our culture and our personal value system at present. And this may lead to our eventual downfall as a country and culture. But generally we exist quite well ethically and morally relative to our past.

must say i'd have to both agree and disagree with these statements:

the oppressive ruling classes no longer are capable of exerting so much influence over the average person. well, let's qualify that by saying that this is most relevant in 1st world countries. 3rd world countries, such as most of africa, asia and large portions or areas of south america do not enjoy all of the same privileges afforded by "democracy". and i write that in inverted comas because most democratic countries will only ever offer democracy to that portion of the nation who is actually voting for the current ruling party. that's the funny thing about democracy; the majority who is in agreement with the rulers, by definition, are naturally enjoying a larger slice of the pie. sometimes only slightly larger, at other times that slice is quite a big one!

during the 80's there was this global paranoia about WWIII starting. take a good look around at the world today and try really hard to find a nation who is not at war, either civilly or internationally. the vast majority of countries are in the middle of some sort of conflict, or are involved in the conflicts of another nation, either directly or by association.

as for the rest of the portion of the topic, we may say that many enjoy freedom and that this means that the world is a better place. we may argue that because we are free to make many choices which, in bygone years were never afforded us, that we are less evil or better people. but are we really?

the democratisation of the "civilized world" has led to a blatant disregard for traditional moral values. many no longer believe in the sanctity of marriage. many schools may no longer include prayers or religious discourse in their daily activities. pornography is available to anybody who owns a computer or may be purchased in almost any store which sells books and magazines. alcohol, tobacco and illicit narcotics are available to almost anybody, almost anywhere and the alcohol and tobacco companies grow fat on the suffering and tragedy of billions.

a couple of figures to digest:

more than 2 billion people are living below the poverty line. per capita, more Americans live in poverty than anytime since 1959. in the US, the richest society in the whole of human history, 32 million people were living below the poverty line in 1988. of all the people alive in the world today, 500 million people most under the age of five will not survive to childbearing age because there isn't enough food to eat. if 0.5 percent of the worlds' spending on weapons was diverted to agriculture in Africa, then ¾ of that continent's poverty would be lifted. americans spend 11% of their incomes on food while most of africa spends 80%.

as for wars, the US alone has bombed over 20 different countries since WWII... 'nuff said!

also take a look here http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

sure, periods such as the crusades may have been periods where mass carnage was wreaked by groups of people often headed by religious and politico-religious personalities, but the suffering masses were suffering through this oppression. having been associated with people in china through business and having visited there myself, the picture is nowhere near as pretty as people like president Hu and his PR propagandists would insinuate. in russia, people on average are far worse off than ever. i have some close friends there who attest to this fact. i speak of Zimbabwe often in my posts; seen what's been going on there lately? or Liberia until very recently?

in this modern age, the iniquity of the wealthier and more fortunate portions of the world may be compared with the worst iniquities ever recorded. never before in recorded history has such a large portion of the population of the world voluntarily participated in such hedonistic and selfish lifestyles. the combined incomes of the 400 wealthiest people in the world would just about solve the current world hunger crisis!

the moral fiber of this planet is frayed and fraying...

just my 2 cents worth...

[Dr T]

Moral fiber has been tarnished since Adam and that lady...

[Traveler]

As we view history and scriptures here are a couple of thoughts:

It does not appear that slavery is evil enough for G-d to intervene with destruction.

In general it does not appear from history that war is evil enough for G-d to intervene with complete destruction – there have been many wars without bringing such destruction from G-d. However, war is often used as punishment for something. So here is a question: For what evil does G-d allow for the punishment of war – or should I say to be over run with war?

Another punishment from G-d that is not complete destruction is the punishment of “bondage”. What evil brings bondage?

And again the big question: for what evil is there complete destruction?

Once we understand these things – perhaps we can gauge and understand the signs of the times. Anyway I have a theory: That theory is that there must be certain elements in the progression of evil in society towards war, bondage and destruction. Or is it just a matter of looking around us and looking at history and saying to ourselves, “we are not so bad off – there have been worse times?”

The Traveler

[Guest bizabra]

Heh, marriage was so "sanctified" in the 13th century that in the upper classes children were married, even as infants, in order to further their father's connections and to form alliances. In the lower, laboring class, marriage was not usually for love, either. Women required a dowry of some sort and a man had to be able to provide for a father to give consent.

Adultery and bastards were a fact of life for many under these circumstances. No matter how devout a man or women might actually be, sexual relations outside of marriage were very common. Don't kid yourself.

Marriage as the idolized institution it is today is most definately NOT the past model for marriage in almost all cultures of the world.

It is a nice ideal, don't get me wrong, but it is akin to the idea that the "nuclear family" has always been the norm in the past until today, when in fact, in the past most families ALL worked, even outside the home, even the very small children. If they did not, then they would starve.

Mom staying at home, raising the childred and being the homemaker while Dad brought home the bacon is a very Victorian concept. The Victorian age was when childhood began to be seen as a special and innocent time of life, when previously, if a child lived through infancy to age 5 or 6 they were very lucky and were then treated as miniature adults and given responsibilities and were expected to have to help make money or work the farm.

The Victorian era was when more children (and mothers, not incidentally) actually began to live instead of die as infants, due to modern medical practices and new understanding about disease. The rise of the middle class meant more women could afford to stay at home as more men were able to make a living wage due to the rise of Unions and minimum wage laws.

It became illegal to employ children in factories or in service, and school became mandatory. Hence, children were not allowed any longer to function as adults. Women had more time and leisure to devote to them and to their nicer homes and consumer goods that were more affordable due to the increased wages of them men.

Marriage and stay at home mothers became idealized and now people who don't know any better think that is has "always been this way". This idea was also used to great effect to get the women out of the factories after WWII so that the returning GI's could have more jobs.