wenglund wrote:Thanks for providing this examples. However, I am not sure how this constitutes judgementalism instead of a logical deduction. Any time guidance or counsel or rules are given (even in secular settings), it may be said of those who do not follow the guidance and so forth, that they are less valiant in following the guidance, or less obedient of the rule. If the governmental law says not to exceed the posted speed limit, then logically doesn't this reinforce that someone exceeding the speed limit is less valiant in obeying that traffic law? Is that judgementalism? I don't see that it is.
That would be fine and good if the implication weren't that less-valiant in following the prophet means that said person is "bad" or "unfaithful" or unworthy of temple marriage or whatever. We have no way of knowing the reasons behind the action. And that's judgmental. To extend your analogy, if I see someone speeding, I might assume that they are "less valiant" or habitual speeders or reckless or something. But if I look into the car and find a passenger is bleeding profusely and is being rushed to the hospital, my judgments are shown to be incorrect and based on surface appearances. Which is what I am talking about in regards to this example.
Now, if someone went beyond that logical deduction and made inappropriate value judgements (for example, were someone to say that Susie is a bad and evil person for wearing to sets of earings, or Johnny is a very bad person for breaking the speeed limit and people should not associate with him), then that would be judgementalism.
That happens all the time in the church, Wade. I believe that's the case in Bednar's praising a young man for breaking off an engagement over earrings. The implication is that a girl who doesn't remove her superfluous earrings is unworthy of marrying a righteous priesthood holder in the temple.
However, in this case, I would submit that it is not Hinkley's guidance and Bednar's example that excouraged the judgementalism, but the thoughts of the person who went beyond the logical deduction and made an inappropriate value judgement. In other words, it was encouraged by the mindset of the judgementalist.
I would respectfully and nonjudgmentally disagree.
I would also submit that in such cases, were the judgementalist to be unaware of his/her judgementalism, his/her awareness is in no way being inhibit by the counsel and example, but again by the mindset of the judgmentalist.
At least that is how I see it.
Again, given the examples, I disagree.
Perhaps, though, one may say that the young man in Bednar's example was being judgemental. That is certainly possible, though I believe it is equally or more plausible that the young man was merely made an assessment of compatibility regarding one of the most important decisions of his life (it depends on what-all went through the young man's mind and what the young man may have said about his fiance). Just as it may NOT be judgementalism for a young woman, for safety reasons, to decide not drive in a car on a date with a person known to break the speed limit, it may not be judgementalism for the young man to decide, on the same basis, not to marry the young women with two sets of earings.
I have no idea what the boy's thought process was, but the use of the example by Bednar was a tacit endorsement of judgmentalism, as I see it.
Granted, some may differ in the criteria they may use in choosing a mate. But, who are we to judge this young man and his decision. ;-)
Well, I'm not judging him. I'm more concerned with the broad application of this one act by a GA.