Too Sinful to Relate

[clbent04]

Having grown up in the Church and lived an overall obedient life to the gospel (minus my on and off activity in the Church over the last 7 years), I've lived what I consider to be a straight-laced life, a life that has been more straight laced than most.   

Having been raised conservatively and personally preferring to live most my life by conservative values, I've seen myself, particularly in my former years, failing at being able to relate to people who commit sins I've never had an issue with personally.

For example, my younger self would look at a drug user and simply think they're dumb.  Or I'd read in the news about depressed people committing suicide, and, while I felt sad about it happening, I couldn't relate since I had never experienced severe depression.  

And while my sympathy and understanding for the world around me has improved over the years, I find myself still dealing with closemindedness in relation to being unable to understand people who commit certain sins that I personally don't have issues with. 

The primary issue isn't being incapable of understanding why people commit certain sins, but rather writing that person off entirely as unrelatable, dumb, or as a low-caliber human I have no interest in associating with.  I need to be better at separating the sin from the person and keeping in mind we all are natural men capable of committing the same sins. 

The husband that beats his wife. Scumbag, right?  But what about the abusive husband that was physically and sexually abused himself as a child who never got therapy or help from anyone which compounded into the mental issues he deals with today?  Maybe still a scumbag in our eyes, but how does God see him?

The drug addict or alcoholic who can't keep a job while trying to bum money off anyone he comes across.  I may have labeled this one as a drain on society.  But what if he's just trying to escape reality because being present is too painful to deal with?

What about murder?  If God condones murder to preserve a historical record, could all the murders in the world be unequivocally parallel in the degree of seriousness of the sin?

Where I'm at right now is I'd like to change my gut reaction to the sensational headline news out there that lures us in by saying things like, "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS PERSON DID THIS?!"  Or I'd like to maybe befriend someone I previously would never have wanted to associate with because of my judgmental attitude towards them. 

I'd like to do a better job at keeping in mind that even within this microcosm called Third Hour that we're a part of, maybe someone expresses an idea very differently to how my life experience would allow me to understand, but that doesn't mean their opinion is any less valid than mine, and maybe getting to know them a little more will help open up my understanding and relate to them as we are all worthless absent of God. 

Edited August 13, 2021 by clbent04

[Vort]

5 hours ago, clbent04 said:

If God condones murder to preserve a historical record

This is untrue. By definition, God never condones murder. Never. No exceptions.

[Just_A_Guy]

The primary issue isn't being incapable of understanding why people commit certain sins, but rather writing that person off entirely as unrelatable, dumb, or as a low-caliber human I have no interest in associating with.  I need to be better at separating the sin from the person and keeping in mind we all are natural men capable of committing the same sins.

Are you talking about general social associations?  Or are you thinking specifically of people within your family/ecclesiastical ministry?  I don’t think we are under any sort of obligation to be willing to unreservedly, perpetually associate with everyone.  Sometimes we have to write people off/cut them out of our lives, either because we have higher priorities or for the sake of our own mental health.  We belong to a church that excommunicates people, for goodness’ sake!

But the key is why we do it—it shouldn’t be a function of what the person did; or even why they did what they did.  IMHO it should be a function of the person’s attitude about their past, whether they are committed to doing better in the future, and a balancing of their anticipated degree of “neediness” versus our own personal/emotional resources to cope with those needs.

If the problem really is that because of a person’s past actions I simply can’t fully embrace their humanity (which was an issue with me as a criminal defense/bankruptcy lawyer, and continues to be an issue even as I’ve transitioned into more of a prosecutorial role)—I think the best two things one can do are a) try to learn more about mental health issues and brain physiology, and especially the impact of trauma on cognitive patterns; and b) just try to spend more time with people having those kinds of problems and try to relate to them as peers rather than as saviors (it’s one thing to munificently ladle out soup at a homeless shelter; it’s another thing to spend your break sitting down and striking up a conversation with the guy eating his dinner and learning his story and genuinely getting to know him). 

[clbent04]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is untrue. By definition, God never condones murder. Never. No exceptions.

Oh really? Cause I have a copy of the newspaper from the local Jerusalem news network that covered the story that night that Nephi killed Laban, and the headline was "Laban, Notable Citizen of Jerusalem, Murdered"

[Fether]

5 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Oh really? Cause I have a copy of the newspaper from the local Jerusalem news network that covered the story that night that Nephi killed Laban, and the headline was "Laban, Notable Citizen of Jerusalem, Murdered"

Would you say David murdered goliath? Or Teancum Murdered Amalickiah? Or Coriantumr murdered Shiz? Or God murdered the Pharaoh’s son?

Edited August 13, 2021 by Fether

[Just_A_Guy]

“Murder” is kind of a cultural construct.  It has been argued that under Mosaic law, given the history between Nephi and Laban, what Nephi did was not technically “murder”.

[clbent04]

Just now, Fether said:

Would you say David murdered goliath? Or Teancum Murdered Ammonihah? Or Coriantumr murdered Shiz? Or God murdered the Pharaoh’s son?

My Jerusalem channel 9 news network analogy was me making the distinction between what God and mankind would classify as murder

[clbent04]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

“Murder” is kind of a cultural construct.  It has been argued that under Mosaic law, given the history between Nephi and Laban, what Nephi did was not technically “murder”.

I imagine Jerusalem still viewed Laban's death as a murder given they probably weren't privy to all the facts considering Nephi's skedaddle with his family

[Fether]

5 hours ago, clbent04 said:

The husband that beats his wife. Scumbag, right?  But what about the abusive husband that was physically and sexually abused himself as a child who never got therapy or help from anyone which compounded into the mental issues he deals with today?  Maybe still a scumbag in our eyes, but how does God see him?

The drug addict or alcoholic who can't keep a job while trying to bum money off anyone he comes across.  I may have labeled this one as a drain on society.  But what if he's just trying to escape reality because being present is too painful to deal with?

…

Where I'm at right now is I'd like to change my gut reaction to the sensational headline news out there that lures us in by saying things like, "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS PERSON DID THIS?!"  Or I'd like to maybe befriend someone I previously would never have wanted to associate with because of my judgmental attitude towards them. 

I'd like to do a better job at keeping in mind that even within this microcosm called Third Hour that we're a part of, maybe someone expresses an idea very differently to how my life experience would allow me to understand, but that doesn't mean their opinion is any less valid than mine, and maybe getting to know them a little more will help open up my understanding and relate to them as we are all worthless absent of God. 

This is Charity. And charity is not normally what we describe it to be. Charity is not thinking Nicky of other or doing nice things for people, charity is the pure love of Christ, which means that charity is amazing experience, not an attribute. And when we feel that true love of Christ, it changes our lives and MAKES us want to share that with others. The kind thoughts, words, and deeds need to be byproducts of the charity, not the charity itself.

One tool that helps me experience that love naturally is to stop assuming I know what is going on and to simply ask questions to the person. Most people hate their weaknesses and if we can understand that, they then  can feel that love and understanding that we feel from God

[dprh]

If we're getting technical, the commandment is not Thou shalt not murder.  It is "Thou shalt not kill", correct?  

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/ex/20?lang=eng

Edited August 13, 2021 by dprh

[clbent04]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Are you talking about general social associations?  Or are you thinking specifically of people within your family/ecclesiastical ministry?  I don’t think we are under any sort of obligation to be willing to unreservedly, perpetually associate with everyone.  Sometimes we have to write people off/cut them out of our lives, either because we have higher priorities or for the sake of our own mental health.  We belong to a church that excommunicates people, for goodness’ sake!

I guess I'm talking about any associations we have, but I wrote the OP specifically thinking about our relationships with other members within the Church.

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If the problem really is that because of a person’s past actions I simply can’t fully embrace their humanity (which was an issue with me as a criminal defense/bankruptcy lawyer, and continues to be an issue even as I’ve transitioned into more of a prosecutorial role)—I think the best two things one can do are a) try to learn more about mental health issues and brain physiology, and especially the impact of trauma on cognitive patterns; and b) just try to spend more time with people having those kinds of problems and try to relate to them as peers rather than as saviors (it’s one thing to munificently ladle out soup at a homeless shelter; it’s another thing to spend your break sitting down and striking up a conversation with the guy eating his dinner and learning his story and genuinely getting to know him). 

I've always wondered how lawyers try to balance their personal opinions of their clients versus trying to represent their clients' best legal interests.

These are great suggestions. Just getting to know others more seems to be the best remedy.

[Ironhold]

"If that ox is in the mire, and you're down there trying to get it out, how long are you going to stay clean?"

The sad, simple truth is that the further down a person is, the further down you've got to go if you're going to try and pull them back up. As you go down, you'll see things you'll wish you'd never seen. As much as you want to flinch, to turn away, you have to remember that whoever you're trying to reach is *living* down there. 

Even the first rescue attempt will ensure that you'll never be the same person again. But if you're lucky, whoever you just rescued won't be the same, either. 

[clwnuke]

1 hour ago, dprh said:

If we're getting technical, the commandment is not Thou shalt not murder.  It is "Thou shalt not kill", correct?

In my view "THOU" shalt not kill, does not include the same restriction on the commandment giver. As the Lord and giver of life, He can call his children back to His presence whenever he deems necessary, and he can order his servants to perform the action of taking it. I believe that in my pre-mortal life I agreed completely to those terms as part of coming to earth.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 hours ago, Vort said:

This is untrue. By definition, God never condones murder. Never. No exceptions.

 

15 hours ago, clbent04 said:

Oh really? Cause I have a copy of the newspaper from the local Jerusalem news network that covered the story that night that Nephi killed Laban, and the headline was "Laban, Notable Citizen of Jerusalem, Murdered"

This past Sunday I made a comment about something being a "semantic" issue and the guy I was responding to became visibly irritated and stated, "I will never dismiss something because of semantics. Semantics is the meaning of words and the meaning of words matters!" Later I explained to him that when I said it was a semantic issue I was not dismissing it. Saying something is a semantic issue isn't dismissive. It's pointing out that, perhaps, two individuals are using different meanings of a given word and then debating past each other instead of communicating. Or, in this case, looking at how others might view a word.

God never condones "murder" according to His definition. He most certainly does sometimes condone murder according to other's definition of it.

Edit:

15 hours ago, clbent04 said:

My Jerusalem channel 9 news network analogy was me making the distinction between what God and mankind would classify as murder

I see that you actually already addressed this point.

Edited August 14, 2021 by The Folk Prophet

[clbent04]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

God never condones "murder" according to His definition. He most certainly does sometimes condone murder according to other's definition of it.

Yes, this is stated correctly and more succinctly than how I originally stated it. I think oftentimes, someone like me has an idea in their minds they are trying to express, but describe their thoughts in a way that is technically incorrect and not fully in line with the original point they were trying to make.

Edited August 14, 2021 by clbent04

[JohnsonJones]

On 8/13/2021 at 5:32 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

“Murder” is kind of a cultural construct.  It has been argued that under Mosaic law, given the history between Nephi and Laban, what Nephi did was not technically “murder”.

If I recall, under Moses, they were under an idea of a rather militaristic tradition to do as the Lord told them.  Under his successor, Joshua, they were told to kill many things, Women and Children included in many instances...guilty AND innocent. 

Many of those would probably be considered murder on a massive scale today...under the legal systems we have in place and history of genocide and mass murder.

NOW...in this light, we also have a stance as the Church goes.  When a soldier or another kills another soldier or another person in war or conflict it is not they who are held accountable for that murder or death, but those who order them into the actions that caused them to commit that killing.  It is thus upon the leaders who create these things that the accountability is held.

With that in mind, ultimate authority and responsibility for the deaths under the Wars led by Joshua are under he who commanded them to do so...aka...the Lord.  AS the Lord is the creator and giver of life, the preserver of life who, if he took away his preservation we would all die anyways without his constant protection in that degree...one could say he is under a certain amount of ability to control that situation.  However, in an even greater light, he is the creator of the law and hence, in many ways, above the law as it were, much as one who controls an ant farm stands outside that ant farm.

Perhaps a better analogy...I once did a study of a game (due to people on this site who seemed unabashed fans of it) called Dungeons and Dragons.  In it you have a Dungeon Master.  The Dungeon Master in this game is the arbitrator of the rules and also can create rules to cover situations as they see fit.  They control how the rules govern, but are not themselves necessarily governed by the same rules as those who are playing the game as players. 

Or...in otherwords, the individual writing the book is not necessarily subject to the same rules as they give the characters in the book to be subject to.

With that in mind, the situation on Nephi could be considered murder...BUT...the accountability of it was upon he who ordered it, and as the one that ordered it is the creator of the law and owner of it, as well as it's judge and arbitrator.  Hence, though accountable, they have a higher authority towards which they are working and thus that authority over rides the lower law of which they, themselves, created.

At least, in my late night pondering (who doesn't love Jet-lag) of this topic.