Jesus: The Advocate

[JVW]

The last few weeks I've been pondering on what may be a newly discovered Christlike attribute (for me) and I wanted to get the forum's input on my idea.

In Preach My Gospel there are several Christlike attributes listed: Faith, Hope, Charity, Virtue, Integrity, Knowledge, Patience, Humility, Diligence, and Obedience. See: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-2023/14-chapter-6?lang=eng and there is a fun little quiz at the bottom of that link.

The Christlike attribute I'm now considering I'm not sure what word to name it but I'll try and express the idea.

We hear in church all the time that Christ suffered in the flesh so that He would understand perfectly everything that we're going through in order to succor us. I would also argue that His perfect understanding of us will enable Him to be a perfect advocate for us at the judgment bar of God. Christ perfectly understands each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan and said that Latter-day Saints will burn in hell or that a return to "Christian Nationalism" cannot include the Latter-day Saints. Christ understands how incomprehensibly, impossibly stupid the "other side" of the political aisle appears to be. I believe that Jesus gives me the benefit of the doubt when considering my perspective and beliefs. I even view Him as agreeing with me in many ways and I don't think I'm unique in that belief. I believe that he understands the reasons why I believe what I do, and why I act the way I act, and that He doesn't condemn me for it. And I believe that He views my enemies the same way.

We are all wrong compared to God. The amount of truth we know is infinitesimally small compared to all their is to know. Yet I haven't personally encountered many instances in which God has told me, "You're wrong" and I don't believe He has done that very often to others. He allowed Brigham Young to preach blood atonement, he allows me to hold my wacky views, and he doesn't often correct my perspective or condemn me for holding said views even when they are wrong.

Maybe this is similar to "steel man" or that practice in debate where you study to defend a side you disagree with? I don't know what to call it but I hope I'm making sense.

People talk about being tolerant, patient, kind, compassionate, peacemakers. Yet those types of attributes aren't adequate for a perfect advocate, and they aren't exactly healing the algorithmic division existing in our hearts.

I have felt this way recently about my cousin. He has left the church and is currently going through a divorce. After hearing a brief account of his life story and some of the significant events that have happened in it, I can't blame him for acting and believing the way that he does even if I don't personally agree with all of his choices and see some ways in which he appears foolish (like picking up a cigarette habit).

Is what I'm talking about a Christlike attribute? What would you call it? How would you more succinctly define it? Is there any scriptural backing for this idea? Is it a bad thing? These are fresh thoughts so sorry for the text wall. Also, if I'm not really conveying my idea properly please let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase my thoughts better. I'm hoping that the discussion here will help me learn more about these ideas I've been having.

[Rain]

49 minutes ago, JVW said:

The last few weeks I've been pondering on what may be a newly discovered Christlike attribute (for me) and I wanted to get the forum's input on my idea.

In Preach My Gospel there are several Christlike attributes listed: Faith, Hope, Charity, Virtue, Integrity, Knowledge, Patience, Humility, Diligence, and Obedience. See: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-2023/14-chapter-6?lang=eng and there is a fun little quiz at the bottom of that link.

The Christlike attribute I'm now considering I'm not sure what word to name it but I'll try and express the idea.

We hear in church all the time that Christ suffered in the flesh so that He would understand perfectly everything that we're going through in order to succor us. I would also argue that His perfect understanding of us will enable Him to be a perfect advocate for us at the judgment bar of God. Christ perfectly understands each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan and said that Latter-day Saints will burn in hell or that a return to "Christian Nationalism" cannot include the Latter-day Saints. Christ understands how incomprehensibly, impossibly stupid the "other side" of the political aisle appears to be. I believe that Jesus gives me the benefit of the doubt when considering my perspective and beliefs. I even view Him as agreeing with me in many ways and I don't think I'm unique in that belief. I believe that he understands the reasons why I believe what I do, and why I act the way I act, and that He doesn't condemn me for it. And I believe that He views my enemies the same way.

We are all wrong compared to God. The amount of truth we know is infinitesimally small compared to all their is to know. Yet I haven't personally encountered many instances in which God has told me, "You're wrong" and I don't believe He has done that very often to others. He allowed Brigham Young to preach blood atonement, he allows me to hold my wacky views, and he doesn't often correct my perspective or condemn me for holding said views even when they are wrong.

Maybe this is similar to "steel man" or that practice in debate where you study to defend a side you disagree with? I don't know what to call it but I hope I'm making sense.

People talk about being tolerant, patient, kind, compassionate, peacemakers. Yet those types of attributes aren't adequate for a perfect advocate, and they aren't exactly healing the algorithmic division existing in our hearts.

I have felt this way recently about my cousin. He has left the church and is currently going through a divorce. After hearing a brief account of his life story and some of the significant events that have happened in it, I can't blame him for acting and believing the way that he does even if I don't personally agree with all of his choices and see some ways in which he appears foolish (like picking up a cigarette habit).

Is what I'm talking about a Christlike attribute? What would you call it? How would you more succinctly define it? Is there any scriptural backing for this idea? Is it a bad thing? These are fresh thoughts so sorry for the text wall. Also, if I'm not really conveying my idea properly please let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase my thoughts better. I'm hoping that the discussion here will help me learn more about these ideas I've been having.

Empathy?

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, JVW said:

Maybe this is similar to "steel man" or that practice in debate where you study to defend a side you disagree with?

Not devil’s advocate, but it would be quite amusing if it was the correct term.

https://study.com/learn/lesson/devils-advocate.html

I am leaning towards “empathy” as well.  It’s definitely a Christlike attribute imo, understanding, comprehending people where they are at.

 

[Calm]

What about grok?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

The last few weeks I've been pondering on what may be a newly discovered Christlike attribute (for me) and I wanted to get the forum's input on my idea.

In Preach My Gospel there are several Christlike attributes listed: Faith, Hope, Charity, Virtue, Integrity, Knowledge, Patience, Humility, Diligence, and Obedience. See: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-2023/14-chapter-6?lang=eng and there is a fun little quiz at the bottom of that link.

The Christlike attribute I'm now considering I'm not sure what word to name it but I'll try and express the idea.

We hear in church all the time that Christ suffered in the flesh so that He would understand perfectly everything that we're going through in order to succor us. I would also argue that His perfect understanding of us will enable Him to be a perfect advocate for us at the judgment bar of God. Christ perfectly understands each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan and said that Latter-day Saints will burn in hell or that a return to "Christian Nationalism" cannot include the Latter-day Saints. Christ understands how incomprehensibly, impossibly stupid the "other side" of the political aisle appears to be. I believe that Jesus gives me the benefit of the doubt when considering my perspective and beliefs. I even view Him as agreeing with me in many ways and I don't think I'm unique in that belief. I believe that he understands the reasons why I believe what I do, and why I act the way I act, and that He doesn't condemn me for it. And I believe that He views my enemies the same way.

We are all wrong compared to God. The amount of truth we know is infinitesimally small compared to all their is to know. Yet I haven't personally encountered many instances in which God has told me, "You're wrong" and I don't believe He has done that very often to others. He allowed Brigham Young to preach blood atonement, he allows me to hold my wacky views, and he doesn't often correct my perspective or condemn me for holding said views even when they are wrong.

Maybe this is similar to "steel man" or that practice in debate where you study to defend a side you disagree with? I don't know what to call it but I hope I'm making sense.

People talk about being tolerant, patient, kind, compassionate, peacemakers. Yet those types of attributes aren't adequate for a perfect advocate, and they aren't exactly healing the algorithmic division existing in our hearts.

I have felt this way recently about my cousin. He has left the church and is currently going through a divorce. After hearing a brief account of his life story and some of the significant events that have happened in it, I can't blame him for acting and believing the way that he does even if I don't personally agree with all of his choices and see some ways in which he appears foolish (like picking up a cigarette habit).

Is what I'm talking about a Christlike attribute? What would you call it? How would you more succinctly define it? Is there any scriptural backing for this idea? Is it a bad thing? These are fresh thoughts so sorry for the text wall. Also, if I'm not really conveying my idea properly please let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase my thoughts better. I'm hoping that the discussion here will help me learn more about these ideas I've been having.

It makes sense to me.  I think empathy is a good label. 

If Christ defends us (is our Advocate with the Father), but also looks on sin with no allowance and doesn't lie, He must sincerely believe our actions and beliefs are defendable.  There's no other way for all those statements to be true.  And it seems like empathy would be the key.  His atonement makes it possible for Him to empathize with us, and then yoking ourselves to Him through our covenants allows Him to use that empathy on our behalf.

[teddyaware]

21 hours ago, JVW said:

The last few weeks I've been pondering on what may be a newly discovered Christlike attribute (for me) and I wanted to get the forum's input on my idea.

In Preach My Gospel there are several Christlike attributes listed: Faith, Hope, Charity, Virtue, Integrity, Knowledge, Patience, Humility, Diligence, and Obedience. See: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-2023/14-chapter-6?lang=eng and there is a fun little quiz at the bottom of that link.

The Christlike attribute I'm now considering I'm not sure what word to name it but I'll try and express the idea.

We hear in church all the time that Christ suffered in the flesh so that He would understand perfectly everything that we're going through in order to succor us. I would also argue that His perfect understanding of us will enable Him to be a perfect advocate for us at the judgment bar of God. Christ perfectly understands each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan and said that Latter-day Saints will burn in hell or that a return to "Christian Nationalism" cannot include the Latter-day Saints. Christ understands how incomprehensibly, impossibly stupid the "other side" of the political aisle appears to be. I believe that Jesus gives me the benefit of the doubt when considering my perspective and beliefs. I even view Him as agreeing with me in many ways and I don't think I'm unique in that belief. I believe that he understands the reasons why I believe what I do, and why I act the way I act, and that He doesn't condemn me for it. And I believe that He views my enemies the same way.

We are all wrong compared to God. The amount of truth we know is infinitesimally small compared to all their is to know. Yet I haven't personally encountered many instances in which God has told me, "You're wrong" and I don't believe He has done that very often to others. He allowed Brigham Young to preach blood atonement, he allows me to hold my wacky views, and he doesn't often correct my perspective or condemn me for holding said views even when they are wrong.

Maybe this is similar to "steel man" or that practice in debate where you study to defend a side you disagree with? I don't know what to call it but I hope I'm making sense.

People talk about being tolerant, patient, kind, compassionate, peacemakers. Yet those types of attributes aren't adequate for a perfect advocate, and they aren't exactly healing the algorithmic division existing in our hearts.

I have felt this way recently about my cousin. He has left the church and is currently going through a divorce. After hearing a brief account of his life story and some of the significant events that have happened in it, I can't blame him for acting and believing the way that he does even if I don't personally agree with all of his choices and see some ways in which he appears foolish (like picking up a cigarette habit).

Is what I'm talking about a Christlike attribute? What would you call it? How would you more succinctly define it? Is there any scriptural backing for this idea? Is it a bad thing? These are fresh thoughts so sorry for the text wall. Also, if I'm not really conveying my idea properly please let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase my thoughts better. I'm hoping that the discussion here will help me learn more about these ideas I've been having.

I would call it the gift of forbearance, which can be defined as the divinely inspired wisdom to withhold premature condemnation of sinners so as to allow the children of men to learn through their own experience how to discern, comprehend and fully prize the love, goodness and mercy of God. Think of the experience of Alma the younger and how by allowing him to make all kinds of terrible judgements and destructive actions, even while the Lord wisely withheld premature harsh judgement against him, the groundwork was laid for this “most vile of all sinners” to become one of most righteous, profoundly thankful and fully devoted men of God who ever lived!

Edited October 17, 2025 by teddyaware

[manol]

17 hours ago, JVW said:

I believe that Jesus gives me the benefit of the doubt when considering my perspective and beliefs. I even view Him as agreeing with me in many ways and I don't think I'm unique in that belief. I believe that he understands the reasons why I believe what I do, and why I act the way I act, and that He doesn't condemn me for it. And I believe that He views my enemies the same way. (emphasis manol's)

Amen, brother!

I think what you are describing is pretty much the process of becoming Christ-like.

I see becoming Christ-like as being, or entailing, a shift in consciousness, such as what you just described.  I see the “list of Christ-like attributes” as being what shows up as we align ourselves to the consciousness of Christ. 

And, I think that becoming Christ-like, or aligning oneself with the consciousness of Christ, may well be the main thing we are here to learn, each in our own way.  And that includes our “enemies”.  

Take, for example, the Sacrament prayers.  I think they are about aligning oneself to the consciousness of Christ.  Those who partake of the bread are witnessing three things: They are willing (← state of consciousness) to take upon themselves the name of Christ; they are willing (← state of consciousness) to always remember Christ; and they are willing (← state of consciousness) to keep his commandments.  And then those who partake of the water witness that they do always remember Christ (← again, state of consciousness).

Circling back to one of those concepts: To take a name upon oneself is to claim an identity.  So, perhaps, we are to align ourselves not only to the consciousness of Christ, but also as the consciousness of Christ.

Anyway I think you're doing great, JVW, regardless of whether or not we agree on all of the issues that come up on this message board.  There would be no challenges and therefore no growth in this life if we all agreed about everything.

I think you're doing absolutely great.

Edited October 17, 2025 by manol

[JVW]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

Not devil’s advocate, but it would be quite amusing if it was the correct term.

https://study.com/learn/lesson/devils-advocate.html

I am leaning towards “empathy” as well.  It’s definitely a Christlike attribute imo, understanding, comprehending people where they are at.

 

I have typically viewed "devil's advocate" as a really lame way to poke and prod at someone when they're trying to express their views. In the past I've used devil's advocate as a way to shield myself from criticism of my own views, or to keep them hidden from others. However, the way I currently use devil's advocate is different now since I find life more rich when I'm honest and open with others about sensitive topics. I now use devil's advocate in specific cases when I feel like someone isn't critically thinking and could use a little nudge.

In my mind, perhaps due to my atheistic roots, I play devil's advocate with myself a lot, and perhaps devil's advocate is part of the roots that build a critical thinking mind. But the really interesting thought I had while reading about it on that link you shared is that Christ is literally a devil's advocate. We are all carnal and devilish. Those who believe in God all use Him as justification for their beliefs and actions, regardless of what those may be. And it is pretty much certain that we all believe things that align with the devil, because we are all proud in our own ways. So I actually think this term fits in nicely with what I've been thinking about.

I've mentioned the idea before in some prior post that just as Laban was drunk when he was slain since it was better for "one man to perish than for an entire nation to dwindle" that Christ was drunk on the sins of the world when He was slain, and the way He was treated by God was the way that God would treat the ultimate sinner. So I don't think it's unreasonable to view Christ as a devil's advocate because, though sinless, He was in the company of devils when the Father forsook Him.

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

It makes sense to me.  I think empathy is a good label. 

If Christ defends us (is our Advocate with the Father), but also looks on sin with no allowance and doesn't lie, He must sincerely believe our actions and beliefs are defendable.  There's no other way for all those statements to be true.  And it seems like empathy would be the key.  His atonement makes it possible for Him to empathize with us, and then yoking ourselves to Him through our covenants allows Him to use that empathy on our behalf.

I'm not a terribly emotional person, so I'm not sure what to think about empathy being applied here. I know that as far as feelings go, a distinct lack of hatred, vitriol, accusation, bitter condescension, and dismissal are key. I don't know if Jesus has to believe we are innocent of the crime though, because I don't think the best lawyer on the planet cares about whether or not their client is innocent. Do you have any links that have your favorite description or explanation of how you feel about and define the word "empathy" that I could take a look at?

My initial response was to agree wholeheartedly with your logic about Christ as our advocate, but there is one thing I'm not sure I agree with. I don't know if Christ will be defending our actions and beliefs except in how they relate to us turning towards or away from Him because there's really no action I've ever taken that I could view as being defendable before God, but maybe I'm being a little too hard on myself here.

14 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I would call it the gift of forbearance, which can be defined as the divinely inspired wisdom to withhold premature condemnation of sinners so as to allow the children of men to learn through their own experience how to discern, comprehend and fully prize the love, goodness and mercy of God. Think of the experience of Alma the younger and how by allowing him to make all kinds of terrible judgements and destructive actions, even while the Lord wisely withheld premature harsh judgement against him, laid the groundwork for this “most vile of all sinners” to become one of most righteous, profoundly thankful and fully devoted men of God who ever lived!

That's an interesting idea and I can agree with it to an extent. How would you reconcile forbearance with how Captain Moroni treated the Kingsmen? I don't know if Captain Moroni had the attribute we are discussing here, since we don't have a biography of his whole life, but I like to believe that he was one of the most Christlike men who ever lived based on how he's revered in the Book of Mormon. If Captain Moroni wasn't very forbearing then was he making poor decisions? If he was alive in our current political and religious climate do you think he would be on the peacemaker side or would he be an "intolerant bigot" type of person?

I do believe it's possible to have the quality I'm referring to while also being short-tempered with people, or standing up for truth without compromise. I believe that the way we feel about others and perceive them will subconsciously influence the words we use, tone of voice we have, and a bunch of other non-verbal things that ultimately contribute to a peacemaking environment.

11 hours ago, manol said:

Circling back to one of those concepts: To take a name upon oneself is to claim an identity.  So, perhaps, we are to align ourselves not only to the consciousness of Christ, but also as the consciousness of Christ.

Anyway I think you're doing great, JVW, regardless of whether or not we agree on all of the issues that come up on this message board.  There would be no challenges and therefore no growth in this life if we all agreed about everything.

I think you're doing absolutely great.

Thanks brother, I like you too. Life is sure is complicated, but it is a lot of fun how much color everyone brings to the table in these online discussions, and I've been given so much to think about due to the diversity of perspective present here.

[blackstrap]

Charity ? 

[JVW]

4 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Charity ? 

Isn't charity more about giving service to people and donating money and stuff? What do you mean?

[telnetd]

21 minutes ago, JVW said:

If Captain Moroni wasn't very forbearing then was he making poor decisions? If he was alive in our current political and religious climate do you think he would be on the peacemaker side or would he be an "intolerant bigot" type of person?

I see one possible scenario in Alma 51.

The King-Men opposed the democratic rule of judges and wanted to install a king, siding
with the Lamanites. When the Lamanites invaded, these King-Men refused to take up arms 
to defend their country. Moroni petitioned the government for the authority to compel them
to fight or execute them for treason. The government granted his request. Moroni sent his
army, and 4000 King-Men were killed and others were imprisoned; the rest were forced to
fight for their freedom.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, JVW said:

I'm not a terribly emotional person, so I'm not sure what to think about empathy being applied here. I know that as far as feelings go, a distinct lack of hatred, vitriol, accusation, bitter condescension, and dismissal are key. I don't know if Jesus has to believe we are innocent of the crime though, because I don't think the best lawyer on the planet cares about whether or not their client is innocent. Do you have any links that have your favorite description or explanation of how you feel about and define the word "empathy" that I could take a look at?

My initial response was to agree wholeheartedly with your logic about Christ as our advocate, but there is one thing I'm not sure I agree with. I don't know if Christ will be defending our actions and beliefs except in how they relate to us turning towards or away from Him because there's really no action I've ever taken that I could view as being defendable before God, but maybe I'm being a little too hard on myself here.

(to be clear, I'm spitballing here and thinking as I type.  Same with my first post.  Just me contemplating what you said and seeing how it makes sense to me...)

First, it's interesting to me that you equated empathy with emotion.  Not that it's wrong, but interesting because it's not where my mind goes when it thinks of empathy.  I think of it as the ability to understand another person, because of your own personal experiences in similar circumstances.  Emotion is there (because you can't have a human in the equation without emotions being involved), but not as the primary aspect.  Not sure how to describe it so now I'm going to go and google it to see if I can figure out where I'm coming from.

**Just returned from googling emotion and empathy and learned something new today!  There are primarily two different types of empathy.  Emotional empathy and cognitive empathy.  Emotional empathy is where you feel what the other person is feeling while cognitive is knowing how the other person is feeling, but not necessarily sharing those feelings.  I've realized that I'm pretty good at cognitive empathy and not that great at emotional empathy.  I also just learned that I don't value emotional empathy that much when applied towards me.  I'd rather have someone knowing how I feel than feeling how I feel I guess.  And that could explain why I'm not great at providing emotional empathy towards others, because personally it feels useless.

Anyway, I would imagine that Christ has both kinds of empathy, but when I was typing my previous response, I was pretty much just thinking about cognitive empathy.

When I said that I think that Christ can defend our actions without defending sin or lying (like some defense attorneys must have to do), I meant that I think that because He has the ability to know how we were feeling when we did something, He can find the part of it that made our actions seem reasonable in the state we were in, even if still sinful.  I don't think that will be true for all of our actions.  Some things we do, we do wiling, knowing they are wrong and there is no defense of them.  For those, we must repent.  We know they are wrong and when we know we are doing wrong, repentance is the only defense.  In those cases, I think that Christ will use our repentance, and our turning to Him, and seeking help, etc. as His way of advocating for us.  Kind of a "look, they did this bad thing but they repented so my Atonement has covered it" form of advocacy.

But for the other stuff, the things that are sins but we never got enlightened enough to be able to repent of them, that's where the cognitive empathy part of advocating comes in (I think. Like I said, this is me coming up with this as I type because I've never thought of it before.  So there are going to be some flaws in it).

I'm really enjoying the discussion though!

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, JVW said:

Isn't charity more about giving service to people and donating money and stuff? What do you mean?

In the scriptures, charity is the pure love of Christ, so maybe that's what blackstrap meant.

[Rain]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

(to be clear, I'm spitballing here and thinking as I type.  Same with my first post.  Just me contemplating what you said and seeing how it makes sense to me...)

First, it's interesting to me that you equated empathy with emotion.  Not that it's wrong, but interesting because it's not where my mind goes when it thinks of empathy.  I think of it as the ability to understand another person, because of your own personal experiences in similar circumstances.  Emotion is there (because you can't have a human in the equation without emotions being involved), but not as the primary aspect.  Not sure how to describe it so now I'm going to go and google it to see if I can figure out where I'm coming from.

**Just returned from googling emotion and empathy and learned something new today!  There are primarily two different types of empathy.  Emotional empathy and cognitive empathy.  Emotional empathy is where you feel what the other person is feeling while cognitive is knowing how the other person is feeling, but not necessarily sharing those feelings.  I've realized that I'm pretty at cognitive empathy and not that great at emotional empathy.  I also just learned that I don't value emotional empathy that much when applied towards me.  I'd rather have someone knowing how I feel than feeling how I feel I guess.  And that could explain why I'm not great at providing emotional empathy towards others, because personally it feels useless.

Anyway, I would imagine that Christ has both kinds of empathy, but when I was typing my previous response, I was pretty much just thinking about cognitive empathy.

When I said that I think that Christ can defend our actions without defending sin or lying (like some defense attorneys must have to do), I meant that I think that because He has the ability to know how we were feeling when we did something, He can find the part of it that made our actions seem reasonable in the state we were in, even if still sinful.  I don't think that will be true for all of our actions.  Some things we do, we do wiling, knowing they are wrong and there is no defense of them.  For those, we must repent.  We know they are wrong and when we know we are doing wrong, repentance is the only defense.  In those cases, I think that Christ will use our repentance, and our turning to Him, and seeking help, etc. as His way of advocating for us.  Kind of a "look, they did this bad thing but they repented so my Atonement has covered it" form of advocacy.

But for the other stuff, the things that are sins but we never got enlightened enough to be able to repent of them, that's where the cognitive empathy part of advocating comes in (I think. Like I said, this is me coming up with this as I type because I've never thought of it before.  So there are going to be some flaws in it).

I'm really enjoying the discussion though!

It's interesting because we often talk about the emotional aspect of empathy (I definitely have, especially with Steven Covey's empathic listening), but when I think about applying it, and when I hear of others applying it then I think of it more similar to "understanding" which is probably close to what you are thinking of as cognitive empathy.  Even in Covey's descriptions, he very clearly talks about how each side feels, but when you really look at it then it is more understanding as to how the other side got to the place where they are.   

One of the dictionary definitions I found of it is "The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another."  That really opens up to why people feel very differently about empathy - if you think empathy is just "experiencing feelings," you will have very different feelings/thoughts about where the word is used than if you think it is "being sensitive to...the experience of another".

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's interesting because we often talk about the emotional aspect of empathy (I definitely have, especially with Steven Covey's empathic listening), but when I think about applying it, and when I hear of others applying it then I think of it more similar to "understanding" which is probably close to what you are thinking of as cognitive empathy.  Even in Covey's descriptions, he very clearly talks about how each side feels, but when you really look at it then it is more understanding as to how the other side got to the place where they are.   

One of the dictionary definitions I found of it is "The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another."  That really opens up to why people feel very differently about empathy - if you think empathy is just "experiencing feelings," you will have very different feelings/thoughts about where the word is used than if you think it is "being sensitive to...the experience of another".

Very true.  

Knowing how someone feels, and actually feeling how they feel, are two different aspects of empathy that I had never really thought about before.  I find great value in being able to know how someone feels or having someone know how I feel.  But I don't see value in actually feeling the emotions that another is feeling.  To me, that seems more like bringing a liability to a situation rather than being any help. 

But I say that fully aware that my perspective is largely due to my personality and just because I can't see the benefit of emotional empathy doesn't mean the benefits don't exist.  My perspective is probably blocking my ability to see them.  I feel bad for anyone who has ever tried to show me emotional empathy in the past because I probably dismissed them.  Going forward I can work on doing better.

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

I have typically viewed "devil's advocate" as a really lame way to poke and prod at someone when they're trying to express their views. In the past I've used devil's advocate as a way to shield myself from criticism of my own views, or to keep them hidden from others. However, the way I currently use devil's advocate is different now since I find life more rich when I'm honest and open with others about sensitive topics. I now use devil's advocate in specific cases when I feel like someone isn't critically thinking and could use a little nudge.

In my mind, perhaps due to my atheistic roots, I play devil's advocate with myself a lot, and perhaps devil's advocate is part of the roots that build a critical thinking mind. But the really interesting thought I had while reading about it on that link you shared is that Christ is literally a devil's advocate. We are all carnal and devilish. Those who believe in God all use Him as justification for their beliefs and actions, regardless of what those may be. And it is pretty much certain that we all believe things that align with the devil, because we are all proud in our own ways. So I actually think this term fits in nicely with what I've been thinking about.

I've mentioned the idea before in some prior post that just as Laban was drunk when he was slain since it was better for "one man to perish than for an entire nation to dwindle" that Christ was drunk on the sins of the world when He was slain, and the way He was treated by God was the way that God would treat the ultimate sinner. So I don't think it's unreasonable to view Christ as a devil's advocate because, though sinless, He was in the company of devils when the Father forsook Him.

I'm not a terribly emotional person, so I'm not sure what to think about empathy being applied here. I know that as far as feelings go, a distinct lack of hatred, vitriol, accusation, bitter condescension, and dismissal are key. I don't know if Jesus has to believe we are innocent of the crime though, because I don't think the best lawyer on the planet cares about whether or not their client is innocent. Do you have any links that have your favorite description or explanation of how you feel about and define the word "empathy" that I could take a look at?

My initial response was to agree wholeheartedly with your logic about Christ as our advocate, but there is one thing I'm not sure I agree with. I don't know if Christ will be defending our actions and beliefs except in how they relate to us turning towards or away from Him because there's really no action I've ever taken that I could view as being defendable before God, but maybe I'm being a little too hard on myself here.

That's an interesting idea and I can agree with it to an extent. How would you reconcile forbearance with how Captain Moroni treated the Kingsmen? I don't know if Captain Moroni had the attribute we are discussing here, since we don't have a biography of his whole life, but I like to believe that he was one of the most Christlike men who ever lived based on how he's revered in the Book of Mormon. If Captain Moroni wasn't very forbearing then was he making poor decisions? If he was alive in our current political and religious climate do you think he would be on the peacemaker side or would he be an "intolerant bigot" type of person?

I do believe it's possible to have the quality I'm referring to while also being short-tempered with people, or standing up for truth without compromise. I believe that the way we feel about others and perceive them will subconsciously influence the words we use, tone of voice we have, and a bunch of other non-verbal things that ultimately contribute to a peacemaking environment.

Thanks brother, I like you too. Life is sure is complicated, but it is a lot of fun how much color everyone brings to the table in these online discussions, and I've been given so much to think about due to the diversity of perspective present here.

I’m surprised you would think that the time of a fratricidal Nephite civil war being waged by the rebellious Nephite kingmen, traitors who were in league with the murderous Lamanites, and a simultaneous war of total destruction that was being waged by the Lamanites against the Nephite civilization and their Christian religion, would be a propitious time for the exercise the spiritual gift of forbearance? How exactly would the gift of forbearance be applied in this situation? Should captain Moroni have allowed the treasonous kingmen and hate inspired Lamanites to win a few major battles without even putting up a fight, in the hope that these vicious internal and external enemies would suddenly awake to the error or their ways and plead for forgiveness?

Nevertheless, the following verses plainly demonstrate that when the opportunity presented itself captain Moroni did indeed attempt to extend mercy and forbearance to his enemies…

(To set the stage, the Nephite dissenter Zerahemnah, who was the leader of the Lamanite armies, had just been defeated in battle by captain Moroni’s forces. The following excerpt from the post-battle words of warning of Moroni to Zerahemnah powerfully demonstrate Moroni’s attitude of mercy and forbearance, even after hundreds of his men had been slain and gravely wounded by the Lamanites in pitched battle.)

1 And it came to pass that they did stop and withdrew a pace from them. And Moroni said unto Zerahemna: Behold, Zerahemnah, that we do not desire to be men of blood. Ye know that ye are in our hands, yet we do not desire to slay you.

2 Behold, we have not come out to battle against you that we might shed your blood for power; neither do we desire to bring any one to the yoke of bondage. But this is the very cause for which ye have come against us; yea, and ye are angry with us because of our religion.

3 But now, ye behold that the Lord is with us; and ye behold that he has delivered you into our hands. And now I would that ye should understand that this is done unto us because our religion and our faith in Christ. And now ye see that ye cannot destroy this our faith.

4 Now ye see that this is the true faith of God; yea, ye see that God will support, and keep, and preserve us, so long as we are faithful unto him, and unto our faith, and our religion; and never will the Lord suffer that we shall be destroyed except we should fall into transgression and deny our faith.

5 And now, Zerahemnah, I command you, in the name of that all-powerful God, who has strengthened our arms that we have gained power over you, by our faith, by our religion, and by our rites of worship, and by our church, and by the sacred support which we owe to our wives and our children, by that liberty which binds us to our lands and our country; yea, and also by the maintenance of the sacred word of God, to which we owe all our happiness; and by all that is most dear unto us—

6 Yea, and this is not all; I command you by all the desires which ye have for life, that ye deliver up your weapons of war unto us, and we will seek not your blood, but we will spare your lives, if ye will go your way and come not again to war against us. (Alma 44)

 

Edited October 17, 2025 by teddyaware

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Very true.  

Knowing how someone feels, and actually feeling how they feel, are two different aspects of empathy that I had never really thought about before.  I find great value in being able to know how someone feels or having someone know how I feel.  But I don't see value in actually feeling the emotions that another is feeling.  To me, that seems more like bringing a liability to a situation rather than being any help. 

But I say that fully aware that my perspective is largely due to my personality and just because I can't see the benefit of emotional empathy doesn't mean the benefits don't exist.  My perspective is probably blocking my ability to see them.  I feel bad for anyone who has ever tried to show me emotional empathy in the past because I probably dismissed them.  Going forward I can work on doing better.

From my experience, it can be a liability - if it stops you from feeling your own emotions, stops you from helping the other person or freezes you, but if it doesn't do those things, it can be a great strength in helping others. 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Rain said:

From my experience, it can be a liability - if it stops you from feeling your own emotions, stops you from helping the other person or freezes you, but if it doesn't do those things, it can be a great strength in helping others. 

I see the feelings side of empathy as more as being able to relate to them in some fashion, perhaps by remembering a situation where your feelings were likely similar to the other’s or at least you believe so.  Doesn’t mean you need to reexperience those feelings, but remembering what the consequences of the situation were for you, especially the consequences of those feelings, can help you process the why and how someone is reacting as they are, the more cognitive side and this awareness can allow you to more effectively support them and may even allow you to help nudge them away from harmful responses you personally had experience with.  Of course it’s very important not to assume they will react identically to how you did, that is not empathy, but projection and can be harmful at times.

Edited October 17, 2025 by Calm

[Tony uk]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Very true.  

Knowing how someone feels, and actually feeling how they feel, are two different aspects of empathy that I had never really thought about before.  I find great value in being able to know how someone feels or having someone know how I feel.  But I don't see value in actually feeling the emotions that another is feeling.  To me, that seems more like bringing a liability to a situation rather than being any help. 

But I say that fully aware that my perspective is largely due to my personality and just because I can't see the benefit of emotional empathy doesn't mean the benefits don't exist.  My perspective is probably blocking my ability to see them.  I feel bad for anyone who has ever tried to show me emotional empathy in the past because I probably dismissed them.  Going forward I can work on doing better.

This is something that I can appreciate in my own way. 

 It is easy to understand how someone is feeling if I have been through the same or similar experience. However, if I do not have a shared experience. Then I can try and understand how the person is feeling, and support them the best that I can.

[CV75]

22 hours ago, JVW said:

The last few weeks I've been pondering on what may be a newly discovered Christlike attribute (for me) and I wanted to get the forum's input on my idea.

In Preach My Gospel there are several Christlike attributes listed: Faith, Hope, Charity, Virtue, Integrity, Knowledge, Patience, Humility, Diligence, and Obedience. See: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-2023/14-chapter-6?lang=eng and there is a fun little quiz at the bottom of that link.

The Christlike attribute I'm now considering I'm not sure what word to name it but I'll try and express the idea.

We hear in church all the time that Christ suffered in the flesh so that He would understand perfectly everything that we're going through in order to succor us. I would also argue that His perfect understanding of us will enable Him to be a perfect advocate for us at the judgment bar of God. Christ perfectly understands each individual in the Evangelical community who reacted with judgment against the LDS in Michigan and said that Latter-day Saints will burn in hell or that a return to "Christian Nationalism" cannot include the Latter-day Saints. Christ understands how incomprehensibly, impossibly stupid the "other side" of the political aisle appears to be. I believe that Jesus gives me the benefit of the doubt when considering my perspective and beliefs. I even view Him as agreeing with me in many ways and I don't think I'm unique in that belief. I believe that he understands the reasons why I believe what I do, and why I act the way I act, and that He doesn't condemn me for it. And I believe that He views my enemies the same way.

We are all wrong compared to God. The amount of truth we know is infinitesimally small compared to all their is to know. Yet I haven't personally encountered many instances in which God has told me, "You're wrong" and I don't believe He has done that very often to others. He allowed Brigham Young to preach blood atonement, he allows me to hold my wacky views, and he doesn't often correct my perspective or condemn me for holding said views even when they are wrong.

Maybe this is similar to "steel man" or that practice in debate where you study to defend a side you disagree with? I don't know what to call it but I hope I'm making sense.

People talk about being tolerant, patient, kind, compassionate, peacemakers. Yet those types of attributes aren't adequate for a perfect advocate, and they aren't exactly healing the algorithmic division existing in our hearts.

I have felt this way recently about my cousin. He has left the church and is currently going through a divorce. After hearing a brief account of his life story and some of the significant events that have happened in it, I can't blame him for acting and believing the way that he does even if I don't personally agree with all of his choices and see some ways in which he appears foolish (like picking up a cigarette habit).

Is what I'm talking about a Christlike attribute? What would you call it? How would you more succinctly define it? Is there any scriptural backing for this idea? Is it a bad thing? These are fresh thoughts so sorry for the text wall. Also, if I'm not really conveying my idea properly please let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase my thoughts better. I'm hoping that the discussion here will help me learn more about these ideas I've been having.

I think it is a synthesis of many attributes of Christ and one of the hallmarks of a disciple of Christ growing in grace. For example, can it be said that Christ "can't blame him for acting and believing the way that he does even if He don't personally agree with all of his choices ..."? I think not. While an Advocate in our behalf by buying us time and opportunity to repent and access His grace by virtue of His atonement (mercy), Christ is also an Officer of His Father's court (justice). We are neither. We cannot atone for the sins of another like Christ did, so we cannot be advocates and officers as He is. But we can be meek and lowly in heart, which Christ certainly is, and which leads to innumerable other godly attributes or graces. This is what I would call the attribute enabling you to treat your cousin as you described.

He would cease to be God once He acts against His knowledge of the full picture He possesses in the same way we undermine our opportunities to become like Him when we presumptuously advocate and judge, divine functions He reserves for Himself.

Edited October 17, 2025 by CV75

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

can't blame him for acting and believing the way

Depends on what “blame” means here.  There can be additional connotations, often of shaming, than just the definition of  “holding responsible/accountable”, including some toxic implications.

Edited October 17, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on what “blame” means here.  There can be additional connotations, often of shaming, than just the definition of  “holding responsible/accountable”, including some toxic implications.

And Jesus of course never did that!

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, telnetd said:

I see one possible scenario in Alma 51.

The King-Men opposed the democratic rule of judges and wanted to install a king, siding
with the Lamanites. When the Lamanites invaded, these King-Men refused to take up arms 
to defend their country. Moroni petitioned the government for the authority to compel them
to fight or execute them for treason. The government granted his request. Moroni sent his
army, and 4000 King-Men were killed and others were imprisoned; the rest were forced to
fight for their freedom.

That is a little off. They didn’t just refuse to take up arms in their nation’s defense. They took up arms in rebellion against their nation. After they were defeated they were given the choice to fight for their nation or be executed.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tony uk said:

This is something that I can appreciate in my own way. 

 It is easy to understand how someone is feeling if I have been through the same or similar experience. However, if I do not have a shared experience. Then I can try and understand how the person is feeling, and support them the best that I can.

This reminded me of something I read this year. Sorry, but I cannot remember at all which book it was. It was talking about putting yourself in another person's shoes. What was really interesting to me about the study done was that they found that when you had similar experiences that putting yourself in their shoes helped you know what they were feeling better, but those that did not have similar experiences did worse at it when putting themselves in the other's shoes. What was happening is that when they didn't have similar experiences when they put themself in the other's shoes their brain had to create a scenerio that was based on their lack of experience so trying to place themself in it actually pushed them further from the experience of the other person. 

I would love to see that study replicated to see if the findings still held true. The idea of putting ourself in the place of others is so widespread in our society and religions that it would probably be hard to convince others that it actually makes you farther from understanding, but it would definitely point to the importance of a Savior who has actual empathy if He is going be the judge as well.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

This reminded me of something I read this year. Sorry, but I cannot remember at all which book it was. It was talking about putting yourself in another person's shoes. What was really interesting to me about the study done was that they found that when you had similar experiences that putting yourself in their shoes helped you know what they were feeling better, but those that did not have similar experiences did worse at it when putting themselves in the other's shoes. What was happening is that when they didn't have similar experiences when they put themself in the other's shoes their brain had to create a scenerio that was based on their lack of experience so trying to place themself in it actually pushed them further from the experience of the other person. 

I would love to see that study replicated to see if the findings still held true. The idea of putting ourself in the place of others is so widespread in our society and religions that it would probably be hard to convince others that it actually makes you farther from understanding, but it would definitely point to the importance of a Savior who has actual empathy if He is going be the judge as well.

Sounds accurate. When you put yourselves in someone else’s shoes and can only imagine nefarious motives for their decisions it is not likely to help with empathy. Putting yourself in another’s shoes is not as valuable as actually listening to what they have to say as to why they are doing what they are doing. If the reasons they give are trite or superficial or a fabrication then you can feel pity for them but it is unlikely to build any kind of respect. On the other hand if you learn about their experience and allow it to work with you a bit and maybe overwrite some preconceptions you might get somewhere.

Edited October 17, 2025 by The Nehor