Judgmentalism

[JojoBag]

I've been accused of being judgmental in other posts when I've stated that many of the women in my ward dress immodestly. I've thought about this, wondering if I am being judgmental.  I don't think so.  I also wonder where judgmentalism ends and standing up for truth and right take over. I've also wondered if saying that someone is being judgmental is a cop out for not standing up for what is true and right.

 

So, let's discuss judgmentalism. What is being judgmental? I did some research and surprisingly enough, there is not a tremendous amount of conference talks on the subject. I came across a speech by Elder Oaks given at BYU and reprinted in the August 1999 Ensign titled, “Judge Not” and Judging. It was very interesting to say the least.  Before you respond, I recommend that you read the talk. Elder Oaks started out with this:

 

“I have been puzzled that some scriptures command us not to judge and others instruct us that we should judge and even tell us how to do it. But as I have studied these passages I have become convinced that these seemingly contradictory directions are consistent when we view them with the perspective of eternity. The key is to understand that there are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make, and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles.”

 

 

To quickly summarize, Elder Oaks stated that we do not make final judgments, which basically is saying that a particular person will go to hell or be exalted. This is pretty self-explanatory. Only God can make those types of judgments. Then there are the intermediate judgments, which are a lot more complicated, and at the same time very clear. Essentially, we are to make these types of judgments in righteousness.

 

Elder Oaks explained what intermediate judgments consist of.

 

 

During His mortal ministry the Savior made and acted upon many intermediate judgments, such as when He told the Samaritan woman of her sinful life (see John 4:17–19), when He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy (see Matt. 15:1–9; Matt. 23:1–33), and when He commented on the comparative merit of the offerings of the rich men and of the widow’s mites (see Mark 12:41–44).

* * * * *

The Savior also commanded individuals to be judges, both of circumstances and of other people. Through the prophet Moses, the Lord commanded Israel, “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” (Lev. 19:15).

 

So, let's analyze what I wrote in “All is Well in Zion.” I did not make any final judgments by saying that these women and men are going to hell. That is something I do not do. What I did do was state an observation. “What I see are women and the men who condone it, dress to what they think is modest, yet is against what you see as examples on the church web site.” I did not single out any one person, nor did I say that these were bad people.

 

If I were to observe a Latter-day Saint who was drunk and stated, “That LDS is wrong because he is drunk,” I'm pretty sure everyone would have jumped on the band wagon and agreed with me. Especially since it is one of those violations that jumps right out at you. It seems that Word of Wisdom violations get a harsher condemnation than other sins. It's like we are picking and choosing what is wrong and not wrong.

 

I read about a survey taken of BYU students where they were asked to list in order the seriousness of sins. I don't remember the exact wording of the survey, but I think the survey had several sins such as: sexual sin (violations of the law of chastity), stealing, lying, violations of the Word of Wisdom, taking the Lord's name in vain, etc. The students were asked to rate in order what they thought were the worst sins in order of seriousness. Guess what was number one? Word of Wisdom was number one with sexual sins further down the list in seriousness.

 

Now, I can hear people saying that immodesty is not a sexual sin. Well, I'll let you decide after reading this quote from Sister Elaine S. Dalton in the May 2007 Ensign, Stay on the Path.  I suggest you read this one, too.

 

 

“Virtue encompasses modesty—in thought, language, dress, and demeanor. And modesty is the foundation stone of chastity.”

 

 

“...Modesty is the foundation stone of chastity.” I guess this means that modesty is the stone around which the foundation of chastity is built. Sexual sins all violations of the law of chastity. Does that mean that all violations of the law of chastity are sexual sins?  She goes on:

 

 

 

“Modesty has everything to do with keeping our footing securely on the path of chastity and virtue. It is clear that virtue is a requirement for exaltation.”

 

So, getting back to saying certain actions are wrong. Is it ok to say one sin is wrong, but not another? The brethren readily and regularly state that immodesty is wrong. What I take from being called judgmental for saying immodesty is wrong is that it's ok for the brethren to say it's wrong, but it isn't ok for me to say it's wrong. That's a double standard.

 

I also think it's a two part problem. First, is that these are usually good people who are nice, loving, charitable, give good talks in church, hold callings, do their visiting teaching, are just young, and all the other things a good Latter-day Saint does and we don't like to say these type of people are doing something wrong. In this case, I think it's a cop out for not standing for truth and right. Second, we don't think that immodesty is really such a big deal to begin with unless it is very blatant and over the top.

 

It is my observation that the majority of Latter-day Saints do not realize the seriousness of immodesty. Many LDS are deceived by the world as to what constitutes immodesty. The acceptance of or the desensitization toward immodesty is the first step to sexual sin. If you do not teach your kids the correct Gospel standards of modesty, you are laying the potential foundation for their committing sexual sin.

 

I will say this once again: Find out what the real Gospel standards are for modesty. Do some research. Gain knowledge.

[Guest]

For us imperfect folks, judgment should only be reserved to gauge how you apply your freedom to choose the right in response to somebody's actions - not an absolute condemnation of his character.

 

Christ - the perfect one - is the only one qualified to condemn one's character.

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

[JojoBag]

For us imperfect folks, judgment should only be reserved to gauge how you apply your freedom to choose the right in response to somebody's actions - not an absolute condemnation of his character.

 

Christ - the perfect one - is the only one qualified to condemn one's character.

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

Did you read Elder Oaks talk?

[Guest]

Did you read Elder Oaks talk?

 

Yes.

[JojoBag]

Yes.

 

Did you understand it?  I have my doubts based on your answer.  We are commanded to make intermediate judgments and not just leave them up to other people, including the Savior.

[estradling75]

From Elder Oaks talk the requirements for Righteous Judgement

 

First, a righteous judgment must, by definition, be intermediate

Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest.

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship

Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts.

Fifth principle of a righteous intermediate judgment is that whenever possible we will refrain from judging people and only judge situations.

Sixth, forgiveness is a companion principle to the commandment that in final judgments we judge not and in intermediate judgments we judge righteously.

Seventh, a final ingredient or principle of a righteous judgment is that it will apply righteous standards.

 

Therefore unless we have all 7 we judge unrighteously

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I agree with Anatess, and yes I've read Elder Oaks classic talk. It's one of my favorites.

I also like the points Estradling made as well. Stewardship in particular is one I've been thinking about lately. I'm curious how others define their stewardship.

[Guest]

Did you understand it?  I have my doubts based on your answer.  We are commanded to make intermediate judgments and not just leave them up to other people, including the Savior.

 

Maybe you're the one that didn't understand.

 

We are simply to make judgments to be able to call people to repentance... like, I said, only as a means to determine how we exercise our freedom of choice in the fulfillment of our covenants.  One of our covenants is to LOVE our neighbors.  Loving our neighbors is to bring them closer to Christ.  A bishop, for example, is the Judge of Israel - the one that determines what is the best way for somebody to come closer to Christ.

 

Therefore, judging Hitler's actions to call him to repentance is righteous judgment.  Judging Hitler's actions to be able to teach our kids an example of what not to do is righteous judgment.  Judging that Hitler is a son of perdition and is going to hell is unrighteous judgment.  Judging that Hitler is so bad that he is not worthy of our love and care and service is unrighteous judgment.

 

And yes, I'm using Hitler as the object lesson because Hitler is generally considered by most, if not all, as the baddest person ever born.

Edited November 11, 2015 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

But is Hitler with in our stewardship? I'm mean figuratively speaking?

[Guest]

But is Hitler with in our stewardship? I'm mean figuratively speaking?

 

I'm not sure I understand the question completely.

 

But yes, Hitler is in our stewardship through his status as a Child of God who chose to follow Christ to be born on earth.  Therefore, in the commandment, Love thy Neighbors, Hitler is included in that.

[BeccaKirstyn]

I just don't really understand how acknowledging someone who is dressed immodestly is something worth even discussing. If it is someone in your ward, and you are not the mother, father, young women's/young men's leader, or bishop of that individual, then I do not believe it is within our judgment to say anything to the individual or even contemplate their lifestyle choices within ourselves. Can we contemplate the principle of modesty and how we are following it/not following it? Absolutely. But how is this individual's choice to dress immodestly pertinent to our salvation? It's not. What is pertinent to our salvation is to be loving and friendly to this individual. What is pertinent to the bishop's salvation, the mother and father's salvation, is to teach the correct principles to their son or daughter. What is pertinent to that individual's salvation is how they choose to follow that principle. 

[beefche]

I agree, Becca. I've taught YW for many years and we teach about how to dress modestly. But, when those girls come to church dressed immodestly, I don't say anything to them. The most I've ever done was when one girl wore a dress that was really short and when she crossed her legs, you could see her panties. I then took her aside and whispered in her ear, "hey, you might wanna watch how you sit as sometimes you flash us something more than you would want us to see." I never heard anything back from the girl, her parents, or the bishop, so I can only assume that it was taken the way it was meant--a warning about that particular dress.

[pkstpaul]

_{When being judged for being judgmental it is really someone telling you to filter your speech. You can't help but want to judge what is different than your understanding. But you can help not speaking up about it.}

Edited November 11, 2015 by pkstpaul

[Guest]

I just don't really understand how acknowledging someone who is dressed immodestly is something worth even discussing. If it is someone in your ward, and you are not the mother, father, young women's/young men's leader, or bishop of that individual, then I do not believe it is within our judgment to say anything to the individual or even contemplate their lifestyle choices within ourselves. Can we contemplate the principle of modesty and how we are following it/not following it? Absolutely. But how is this individual's choice to dress immodestly pertinent to our salvation? It's not. What is pertinent to our salvation is to be loving and friendly to this individual. What is pertinent to the bishop's salvation, the mother and father's salvation, is to teach the correct principles to their son or daughter. What is pertinent to that individual's salvation is how they choose to follow that principle. 

 

 

I agree, Becca. I've taught YW for many years and we teach about how to dress modestly. But, when those girls come to church dressed immodestly, I don't say anything to them. The most I've ever done was when one girl wore a dress that was really short and when she crossed her legs, you could see her panties. I then took her aside and whispered in her ear, "hey, you might wanna watch how you sit as sometimes you flash us something more than you would want us to see." I never heard anything back from the girl, her parents, or the bishop, so I can only assume that it was taken the way it was meant--a warning about that particular dress.

 

Let's take this to the extreme to get a better understanding of what is righteous judgment in this case.

 

Okay, some female member walked into Church in a shoe-string bikini.

 

Righteous judgment:  You walk to the female and tell her, shoe-string bikinis are immodest and encourage her to change.

 

Righteous judgment:  Going to lds.net to say - some female walked into Church in a bikini.  Isn't that immodest?  And then proceeded to discuss whether it is immodest or not.

 

Righteous judgment:  You talk to your daughter and tell her - did you see Sister ___'s bikini?  That's an example of what not to wear to Church.

 

Unrighteous judgment:  Sister ___ just walked into Church in a bikini!  She should be flogged.

 

Unrighteous judgment:  Sister ___ is going to hell in a handbasket.

 

Unrighteous judgment:  Please take Sister ___ out of my VT route.  She doesn't deserve a VT.

 

 

Make sense?

[Traveler]

I believe in making judgments - I believe it is impossible to employ any measure of agency and not make judgments.  It seem to me the problem in making judgments is using them to categorize others when in reality our judgments are our standards.  It seems to me that we are not really categorizing others but rather ourselves.  For example when someone is sure someone else is dressed immodestly - they are actually saying something as much or more so about themselves than they are about others.  In other words they are vocalizing the standards by which they want to be judged or others make judgments of them and understand when they are displaying their immodesty.

 

I have posted in another thread about my personal covenant concerning Sabbath dress.  I always wear a white shirt - this I do by personal covenant.  I hold my covenants sacred.  However, once while traveling for work I encountered a young man that was a return missionary that had become inactive (10 years since attending) with his personal covenants.  As we conversed - he expressed a desire to "come" back.  I invited him to attend Church with me on Sunday.  It was a ward I had attended before - and always in my suit, white shirt and tie.  But this young man told me he had nothing appropriate to wear to Church. I challenged this young man that his attendance at church at this point of his life was far more important that wearing something he knew to be appropriate.  All he had was a tee shirt and levies - so I told him I would pick him up and I would wear a tee shirt and levies and that we would go together.

 

Now someone seeing me at church that Sunday might think that I had dishonored my personal covenant - but the reality - at least as far as I am concerned, my covenant was untainted.  But at the same time I did learn a very important lesson.  Whenever I see someone at church wearing a tee shirt and levies - I make a great effort to make sure they feel welcome and know that I am so glad that they came to church.

 

Sometimes those struggling with covenants are more in need of love and fellowship than criticism.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Traveler

[Guest]

What do you hope to gain by pointing out the weakness of someone you have no stewardship or influence over? Does it make you feel more charity toward them? Does it compel you or them to do good to talk about what they are doing wrong?

[Traveler]

What do you hope to gain by pointing out the weakness of someone you have no stewardship or influence over? Does it make you feel more charity toward them? Does it compel you or them to do good to talk about what they are doing wrong?

 

With the example I gave in response #15 (the one just before yours) my pointing out the weakness of a young man not attending church resulted in a young man returning to activity and eventually a temple marriage.  And yes I did feel good and more charity towards him - and still do.

[Guest]

JoJo,

 

1) You basically violated point number 3 and possibly a few more.

 

2) The problem with the "drunk" example is that it is clear and obvious.  There is no "drink responsibly" point in the WoW.  It is simply "do not imbibe". 

 

3) When talking about modesty in dress it is a more nuanced gray line.  How low cut is too low cut? and so forth.  Yes, you gave some descriptions.  But we're not there.  We can't know.  And as such descriptions by necessity would be qualitative rather than quantitative, we have to relate to only what we read.

 

4) We always want to respond with love.  The drunk may clearly have violated the WoW.  But it is incumbent on us to guide him with love to sobering up.  Your post about the immodest dresses (and I read it.  I don't think I responded to it) was not filled with love.  It was all judgment and complaining about it.  It was in no way constructive to anyone.  I'd refer back to the thread about venting.

 

Since you've brought your complaint to this forum, I'm going to afford myself the luxury of judging you on this matter.  It seems you have a chip on your shoulder.  You've written a lot about your past trials.  I have sympathy for them.  It seems you still carry much baggage from said trials.  I also believe that much of what you judge in others is somehow born of that baggage.  That baggage is coloring much of your judgment and has the potential to eventually lead you down a path that you currently fear.  Please come to peace with it before it destroys you.

 

My overall issue with much of what you say is not what you say, but how you say it.  As a comparison, I agree with much of What Michael Savage says.  But he always ads so much hatred and vitriol into everything he says that I often don't have the stomach to listen to him.

 

No, you're not as bad as Savage (IMO).  But similarly, the way you say things makes me want to disagree with you even when I would normally agree with the point you're making.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Guest

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I'm not sure I understand the question completely.

 

But yes, Hitler is in our stewardship through his status as a Child of God who chose to follow Christ to be born on earth.  Therefore, in the commandment, Love thy Neighbors, Hitler is included in that.

 

Sorry I wasn't very clear because I'm still trying to sort it out myself.  My question is related to the conversation as it has unfolded though.  More specifically, how far does my stewardship extend?  For example my daughter is definitely in my stewardship, and so I will not only teach her modesty, but comment if I think she is wearing something un-modest.  At 16, though it's up to her what she does with that information (well, within reason).  But if my daughter's friend wears immodest clothes, should I say something to her?  I probably would not, but it depends on my relationship with her.  And if it were another girl in the Laurel's class, I wouldn't say anything to her at all.  That's definitely not my stewardship.

 

Sometimes in discussions here I wonder if we are overstepping our stewardship boundaries, but perhaps it's just me.  Like I said, I haven't sorted it all out yet.  So I'm curious what others think.  

[Guest]

Sorry I wasn't very clear because I'm still trying to sort it out myself.  My question is related to the conversation as it has unfolded though.  More specifically, how far does my stewardship extend?  For example my daughter is definitely in my stewardship, and so I will not only teach her modesty, but comment if I think she is wearing something un-modest.  At 16, though it's up to her what she does with that information (well, within reason).  But if my daughter's friend wears immodest clothes, should I say something to her?  I probably would not, but it depends on my relationship with her.  And if it were another girl in the Laurel's class, I wouldn't say anything to her at all.  That's definitely not my stewardship.

 

Sometimes in discussions here I wonder if we are overstepping our stewardship boundaries, but perhaps it's just me.  Like I said, I haven't sorted it all out yet.  So I'm curious what others think.  

 

I have a different take on stewardship.  As a covenant people, I believe that my stewardship includes every single person on the planet.  There's stewardship and there's sphere of influence.  Because the entire planet is in my stewardship, I strive to put the entire planet within my sphere of influence.  Of course, that's highly improbable, but you see what I mean.  I see these memes all the time - if you're not doing anything for me, I'm dropping you out of my life - those kinds of memes.  I don't subscribe to that idea.  It's going the opposite way of having them in my sphere of influence so that I can 1.) teach them, 2.) learn from them.

 

Now, as far as my son's friend wearing barely there clothes - the decision on how I approach teaching is through the expected results.  Me telling her, you're not wearing something modest, is not going to bring her closer to Christ... it will only get her mother mad at me so then she won't be friends with my son again and so then we won't ever have the chance to be an influence in her life.  A better teaching method would be to influence her decisions by our example so that she may, hopefully, decide to be modest.

 

Make sense?

[zil]

I have a different take on stewardship.  As a covenant people, I believe that my stewardship includes every single person on the planet.  There's stewardship and there's sphere of influence.  Because the entire planet is in my stewardship, I strive to put the entire planet within my sphere of influence.  Of course, that's highly improbable, but you see what I mean.  I see these memes all the time - if you're not doing anything for me, I'm dropping you out of my life - those kinds of memes.  I don't subscribe to that idea.  It's going the opposite way of having them in my sphere of influence so that I can 1.) teach them, 2.) learn from them.

 

Now, as far as my son's friend wearing barely there clothes - the decision on how I approach teaching is through the expected results.  Me telling her, you're not wearing something modest, is not going to bring her closer to Christ... it will only get her mother mad at me so then she won't be friends with my son again and so then we won't ever have the chance to be an influence in her life.  A better teaching method would be to influence her decisions by our example so that she may, hopefully, decide to be modest.

 

Make sense?

 

Anatess,

 

I suspect most Mormons think of "stewardship" as described here.  But regardless, your ideas make good sense.  For your son's friend, you could try a Sheldonian experiment to see if positive reinforcement (via chocolate) helps...

[The Folk Prophet]

I have a different take on stewardship (which I will grant, I did not make up).

 

Stewardship is equivalent to agency.