wenglund wrote: Also, I don't know if it is judgemental to logically (deductively and/or inductively) conclude that someone who is speeding is less valiant in observing posted speed limits, regardless of the reason for speeding, and particularly if one doesn't know the reasons. That someone may have good cause to break the speed limit, doesn't alter the fact that they are breaking the speed limit, which logically makes them less valiant in obeying the speed limit than those rigorously obeying the law. Viewing it that way is, to me, more an observation than judgementalism.
You appear to be saying Wade that blind obedient acceptance of authority is always a valiant good thing.
By this reasoning then it is a good thing that members of cults (which demand unquestioning obedience) obey without question the authority in that cult. I'd agree. With obedient unquestioning members the cult is stronger, more in control of its members, a united force.
Perhaps obedience, a non questioning attitude of members is a good thing for the cult itself. It may not necessarily be a good thing for each cult member personally, nor for those outside the cult, or the society within which the cult operates.
wenglund wrote:I think it important to draw a distinction between rational, value-free observations, and judgementalism, as well as reasonable value judgements and judgementalism. With the former, it is the difference between saying, in regards to someone speeding, "Hey...that guy is breaking the law" and "Hey...that guy is an idiot"; and with the latter, it is the difference between saying, "Hey...it may not be safe to drive with that guy around" and "Hey...that guy is stupidly dangerous and a threat to society, and should have his driving privileges revoked".
I think that's where the distinction should lie, so I guess we agree. I don't see the "less-valiant" earring wearer example to be a value-free observation. And of course our different perspectives determine whether we see it as such or not. It's important to note again that I don't believe Mormonism to be any more or less judgmental than other similar religions. I'm also not assigning negative value. You might say I'm just observing. ;-)
Are all of these statements problematic or ill-advised? I don't happen to think so. I only find the "idiot" and "stupidly dangerous" statements to be of any concern or in need of correction.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Agreed, Wade. The main difference is that you don't see anything analogous to "idiot" and "stupidly dangerous" in the church. That I do does indeed speak to our differing experiences and perceptions, as it should.
I am quite certain that you haven't correctly judged me here. I do, in fact, see things analogous to "idiot" and "stupidly dangerous" in the Church--and even some things far worse. Where I differ from you is not whether such things occur in the Church or not (though we may disagree as to the frequency or pervasiveness of judgementalism, and whether the degree and extent to which judgementalism may be cause for concern on an internet debate board such as this), but whether such occurances of judgementalism are encouraged by the Church and its culture, or simply a product of human weaknesses. The simple fact that you and I, as Church members, differ in what we presumed may or may not have been implied in the guidance and example from GA's, I believe logically supports my position and counters yours.
But, I can respect that you may view it differently.
wenglund wrote:I am quite certain that you haven't correctly judged me here. I do, in fact, see things analogous to "idiot" and "stupidly dangerous" in the Church--and even some things far worse. Where I differ from you is not whether such things occur in the Church or not (though we may disagree as to the frequency or pervasiveness of judgementalism, and whether the degree and extent to which judgementalism may be cause for concern on an internet debate board such as this), but whether such occurances of judgementalism are encouraged by the Church and its culture, or simply a product of human weaknesses. The simple fact that you and I, as Church members, differ in what we presumed may or may not have been implied in the guidance and example from GA's, I believe logically supports my position and counters yours.
I'm not "concerned" per se about judgmentalism in the church. And I have said more than once that I don't think the church is the cause, but rather that such judgmentalism occurs in readily identifiable areas in the church (such as dress and grooming) that are natural outgrowths of certain teachings. I don't recall saying that the church encourages judgmentalism. My belief is that the church places a premium on certain behaviors and standards, so judgmentalism in the church is naturally going to focus on those things. Again, it's not a slam against the church, just a fairly self-evident observation, I would think.
But, I can respect that you may view it differently.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Most of the time I think we're not very far apart, Wade, at least more so than you think.
wenglund wrote:Please see my post above where I draw a distinction between judging and judgementalism. BC and I are not at odds or in disagreement. I believe, as the scriptures say, that we should judge righteously (I.e. make judgements), though not unrighteously (I.e. not be judgemental).
Do you both understand the difference?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
No, Wade. What's the difference?
Here's the difference. If wade does it, it's righteous judging. if someone he doesn't agree with does it, it' unrighteous judgementalism.
You're forgetting something scratch. Wade and the church are always right. anyone who disagrees is wrong.
Again, I am quite certain that you are being wrongfully, and ironically, judgemental of me here. In fact, earlier in the thread I readily admitted to being judgemental (resorting to unrighteous judgement), myself. I have also admitted that judgementalism occurs in the Church. And, I believe judgementalism is wrong. So, what you suggest about me is, itself, and in multiple ways, demonstrably in error. It will interesting to see if you are willing to admit this, or whether you will inadvertantly render yourself guilty and/or projective of what you errantly accused me of. ;-)
wenglund wrote:Again, I am quite certain that you are being wrongfully, and ironically, judgemental of me here. In fact, earlier in the thread I readily admitted to being judgemental (resorting to unrighteous judgement), myself. I have also admitted that judgementalism occurs in the Church. And, I believe judgementalism is wrong. So, what you suggest about me is, itself, and in multiple ways, demonstrably in error. It will interesting to see if you are willing to admit this, or whether you will inadvertantly render yourself guilty and/or projective of what you errantly accused me of. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Great. Like I said, i hadn't read the entire thread. I based my comments on your last post or two (and past history of my reading of your posts).
If you've turned over a new leaf, and are ready to admit the church is at fault for some things, great.
But I doubt it...
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
wenglund wrote:I am quite certain that you haven't correctly judged me here. I do, in fact, see things analogous to "idiot" and "stupidly dangerous" in the Church--and even some things far worse. Where I differ from you is not whether such things occur in the Church or not (though we may disagree as to the frequency or pervasiveness of judgementalism, and whether the degree and extent to which judgementalism may be cause for concern on an internet debate board such as this), but whether such occurances of judgementalism are encouraged by the Church and its culture, or simply a product of human weaknesses. The simple fact that you and I, as Church members, differ in what we presumed may or may not have been implied in the guidance and example from GA's, I believe logically supports my position and counters yours.
I'm not "concerned" per se about judgmentalism in the church. And I have said more than once that I don't think the church is the cause, but rather that such judgmentalism occurs in readily identifiable areas in the church (such as dress and grooming) that are natural outgrowths of certain teachings. I don't recall saying that the church encourages judgmentalism. My belief is that the church places a premium on certain behaviors and standards, so judgmentalism in the church is naturally going to focus on those things. Again, it's not a slam against the church, just a fairly self-evident observation, I would think.
But, I can respect that you may view it differently.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Most of the time I think we're not very far apart, Wade, at least more so than you think.
I appreciate this clarification, and I would agree that we likely are not very far apart in what we think.
As for you saying that the Church encourage judgementalism, I was going off your comments of 4/26/07 at 9:52am (see page 4 of this thread), where you said: "Wade, I don't believe it [the Church] 'causes' judgmentalism, but the church does encourage it and in many ways direct the form such judgmentalism takes."
I think, though, that I understand better now what you may have meant, and that is what is important.
wenglund wrote:I appreciate this clarification, and I would agree that we likely are not very far apart in what we think.
As for you saying that the Church encourage judgementalism, I was going off your comments of 4/26/07 at 9:52am (see page 4 of this thread), where you said: "Wade, I don't believe it [the Church] 'causes' judgmentalism, but the church does encourage it and in many ways direct the form such judgmentalism takes."
I think, though, that I understand better now what you may have meant, and that is what is important.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Then I misspoke. I think the church encourages judging in certain areas. I do not believe the church is more or less prone to judgmentalism than other similar religious groups.
Runtu wrote:Then I misspoke. I think the church encourages judging in certain areas. I do not believe the church is more or less prone to judgmentalism than other similar religious groups.
That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Anyone who's made out to be 'more special' than everyone else, is inevitably going to have some degree of judgmentalism. Whether you're Mormon, muslim, a scientologist, etc.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Yes, that's true, AND when that idea is coupled with an institution structured around everyone keeping tabs on everyone else, "worthiness" interviews, and permant record keeping of the results, then you've got a situation that produces judgementalism. That's not to say that individuals can't resist, either, but just that the overall situation is designed to produce certain effects.
But I've made this point before and there are obvious disagreements among us about what constitutes "judgementalism," let alone its root causes and possibilty for change.
However, I will say this: I've been quite pleased to see that this thread has continued to develop without much of anybody getting judgemental (maybe a few whiffs here and there, but on the whole quite, dare I say it, well mannered?)
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Blixa wrote:However, I will say this: I've been quite pleased to see that this thread has continued to develop without much of anybody getting judgemental (maybe a few whiffs here and there, but on the whole quite, dare I say it, well mannered?)
Who are you accusing of being well-mannered? I think the line between making judgments and being judgmental is quite fine. I am learning to be a little less hard on my fellow humans, at least I hope I am.