Latter-Day Saints, white Evangelical value empathy the least

[Eschaton]

A recent survey on empathy found that white Evangelicals care the least about empathy, followed by Latter-Day Saints. Although LDS people scored low, white evangelicals scored by far the lowest. A symptom of America's recent moral decline. I hope LDS leadership can shore up the Christian value of empathy among church members even as radical extremists try to poison their followers against this traditional Christian value. 

https://religionnews.com/2026/10/20/an-empathy-gap-divides-americans-ahead-of-the-midterms-say-prri-report/

"Religious groups were also split. At least two-thirds of most major religious groups said empathy “is a foundational moral value for a healthy society,” as did 83% of religiously unaffiliated Americans. White evangelicals were the least likely to name empathy as a foundational social value (42%), and more than half of white evangelicals (54%) said, “empathy can become dangerous when it leads people away from building a society guided by God’s truth.”

[3DOP]

From the results, it seems like "empathy" as understood by those responding, might be more of a non-Christian value than Christian. It appears that the Christian value of good will and the need to love our neighbors includes a balance that recognizes that loving everyone cannot blur the distinction between good and evil behaviors which we might discover among those for whom we are called to love. Unconditional love and good will to all? Yes. But that cannot mean unconditional approval of every possible kind of human behavior. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[teddyaware]

46 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

A recent survey on empathy found that white Evangelicals care the least about empathy, followed by Latter-Day Saints. Although LDS people scored low, white evangelicals scored by far the lowest. A symptom of America's recent moral decline. I hope LDS leadership can shore up the Christian value of empathy among church members even as radical extremists try to poison their followers against this traditional Christian value. 

https://religionnews.com/2026/10/20/an-empathy-gap-divides-americans-ahead-of-the-midterms-say-prri-report/

"Religious groups were also split. At least two-thirds of most major religious groups said empathy “is a foundational moral value for a healthy society,” as did 83% of religiously unaffiliated Americans. White evangelicals were the least likely to name empathy as a foundational social value (42%), and more than half of white evangelicals (54%) said, “empathy can become dangerous when it leads people away from building a society guided by God’s truth.”

Active Latter-Day Saints who have a good understanding of their religion know that empathy untethered to justice and accountability before God is all too often taken as a green light to persist in destructive sinful behavior. There can be no true mercy unless the appropriate and necessary measure of justice is placed into the opposing cup on the scale. 

Edited 22 hours ago by teddyaware

[Eschaton]

24 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

From the results, it seems like "empathy" as understood by those responding, might be more of a non-Christian value than Christian. It appears that the Christian value of good will and the need to love our neighbors includes a balance that recognizes that loving everyone cannot blur the distinction between good and evil behaviors which we might discover among those for whom we are called to love. Unconditional love and good will to all? Yes. But that cannot mean unconditional approval of every possible kind of human behavior. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Empathy is a traditional Christian value, which the opponents of Christianity have rejected. You don't seem to understand what the word means. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

A recent survey on empathy found that white Evangelicals care the least about empathy, followed by Latter-Day Saints.

I wonder if the survey defined "empathy."  I think its parameters need to be defined and contextualized and depoliticized.  Too many facets of society have, to varying degrees, conflated "empathy" with "agreeing with my sociopolitical ideology and preferences."  

For example, people wanting a strong and secured border and enforcement of immigration laws may be accused of lacking "empathy" by people who do not want these things.

Another: A person who is opposed to elective abortion may be accused of lacking "empathy" for women by people who are in favor of elective abortions.  Conversely, this latter group may be accused of lacking "empathy" for unborn children by those opposed to elective abortion.

And so on.

I am sort of curious about the poll.  There are two statements, but only one graph totaling 100%.  I would have answered "Strongly Agree" to both of those statements, but the poll results seem to limit respondents to responding one or other other.  Am I missing something?

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Although LDS people scored low, white evangelicals scored by far the lowest.  

Again, I would like to see how "empathy" is framed for the purposes of the poll.

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

A symptom of America's recent moral decline.

Perhaps so.  More non-dangerous empathy all around would be a good thing.  

There are dangerous and unhealthy manifestations of "empathy," though.  Weaponized empathy occurs when someone exploits another person's compassion, kindness, or emotional impulses to manipulate, control, or advance a self-serving agenda. Instead of acting as a bridge for genuine human connection, empathy is used as a tactical tool or defense mechanism.  Politicians and political actors do this all the time.

Similarly, suicidal empathy is a term popularized by Canadian behavioral scientist Gad Saad in his 2026 book, Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind.   Saad defines the concept as an inability to make rational or survival-oriented decisions because an individual or society is conditioned to prioritize emotional empathy or victimhood over logic, self-defense, and cultural preservation.   The theory claims that progressive political and cultural elites have "hijacked" human empathy, miscalibrating moral priorities so that offenders, fringe groups, or outsiders are favored over law-abiding citizens and traditional values. 

Examples: 

• Open-border or permissive immigration frameworks are cited as primary examples, which critics of the concept argue compromise national security and dilute local cultural norms.
• Criminal Justice: Proponents of the term claim that modern justice systems coddle violent criminals or prioritize the perceived hardships of perpetrators over the safety of victims.  Lindsey Clancy.  Oi.
• Privilege Guilt: The mindset is often attributed by its defenders to "privilege guilt" among affluent, educated Western populations who seek moral absolution through uncritical tolerance.  Lindsey Clancy.  Oi.

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I hope LDS leadership can shore up the Christian value of empathy among church members even as radical extremists try to poison their followers against this traditional Christian value. 

I hope the Latter-day Saints can embrace empathy in the form in which God intended, and also that they discern and resist efforts toward weaponized/suicidal "empathy."

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

https://religionnews.com/2026/10/20/an-empathy-gap-divides-americans-ahead-of-the-midterms-say-prri-report/

"Religious groups were also split. At least two-thirds of most major religious groups said empathy “is a foundational moral value for a healthy society,” as did 83% of religiously unaffiliated Americans. White evangelicals were the least likely to name empathy as a foundational social value (42%), and more than half of white evangelicals (54%) said, “empathy can become dangerous when it leads people away from building a society guided by God’s truth.”

Interesting.  Thank you for sharing.\

Some further thoughts:

Arguments for the notion that empathy is a Christian virtue

• Scripture repeatedly calls for entering into the experience of others. Romans 12:15 instructs believers to “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” The Gospels portray Jesus as moved with compassion at the sight of suffering (e.g., Matthew 9:36; 14:14; Mark 1:41), and his His mortal experience itself is the ultimate act of God entering human experience.
• The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) and the command to love one’s neighbor as oneself (Mark 12:31) presuppose the ability to imaginatively grasp another person’s situation and needs. Many Christian ethicists treat this capacity—often labeled empathy—as a practical means of fulfilling the law of love.
• Christian tradition has long valued “compassion” (literally, “suffering with”) and “mercy.” Empathy can be understood as the psychological or affective component that makes genuine compassion possible rather than merely formal or distant.

Arguments against the notion that empathy is a Christian virtue

• The Bible never uses the modern psychological term “empathy.” Its central moral vocabulary is love (agapē), compassion, mercy, justice, and truth. These are oriented toward the objective good of the other person and of the community, not toward the subjective accuracy or intensity of one’s emotional mirroring or adherence to or rejection of particularized sociopolitical objectives.
• Empathy, as commonly understood, is selective and partial. It tends to favor those who are most similar to us, most visible, or most skilled at eliciting emotional response. Christian love is commanded even toward enemies and the unlikable (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27–35). A virtue that systematically favors the near and the appealing is therefore incomplete at best and distorting at worst.
• When empathy becomes the governing moral criterion, and when it is not centered on objective good, it can override justice, truth-telling, and the long-term good. Scriptural examples of moral courage (e.g., the prophets confronting Israel, Jesus cleansing the temple, Paul’s rebuke of Peter) often involve actions that would register as low-empathy in the moment yet are presented as righteous. Christian ethics subordinates feeling to right action ordered toward the ultimate good.

In short, Christians widely affirm the duty to be moved by and act for the suffering of others. Whether the modern concept of “empathy” is the best name for that duty, or whether it introduces distinctive liabilities, remains a point of disagreement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 21 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Empathy is a traditional Christian value, which the opponents of Christianity have rejected. You don't seem to understand what the word means. 

How do you define the term?

Dictionary.com: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

Can a person be "empathetic" about people wanting to come to the United States and still feel that secured borders and enforcement of immigration laws are good ideas? 

Or does "empathy" require, in your view, not merely the "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another," but also the acquiescence to and endorsement and validation of those emotions/thoughts/attitudes?

I truly understand why so many people want to come to the U.S.  I nevertheless want them to come here in compliance with our laws, not in violation of them.  

I appreciate and respect the idea that a pregnant woman may want to not carry her pregnancy to term.  I can do that and still disagree with the elective killing of that baby.

I can empathize with the Cornell "Jane Doe" and still seek to dispassionately evaluate her allegations of sexual assault.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 21 hours ago by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if the survey defined "empathy."  I think its parameters need to be defined and contextualized and depoliticized.  Too many facets of society have, to varying degrees, conflated "empathy" with "agreeing with my sociopolitical ideology and preferences."  

I too was curious. See here for analysis: 

https://prri.org/research/darkening-mood-and-shifting-political-loyalties-ahead-of-midterm-elections-findings-from-the-2026-american-values-survey/#_ftnref6

 

And here for the apparent source question:

https://prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026-AVS-W3-Topline-V4.pdf

 

Quote

Q16. For each pair of statements, which of the following comes closest to your views, if neither is exactly right  

Q16c. Statement 1: Empathy is a foundational moral value that helps build a healthy society. OR Statement 2: Empathy can become dangerous when it leads people away from building a society guided by God’s truth.6

 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I too was curious. See here for analysis: 

https://prri.org/research/darkening-mood-and-shifting-political-loyalties-ahead-of-midterm-elections-findings-from-the-2026-american-values-survey/#_ftnref6

Ah.  So it's  a political poll, more than a religious one.  "Empathy" might well have been seen by respondents as being used in a political context, more than a religious one.

"Empathy" = open borders, lax-to-non-existent enforcement of immigration law.

"Empathy" = full-throated endorsement of elective abortion, on demand, for any reason or no reason at all.

And so on.

The framing of the questions, then, do seem to be questionable.

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And here for the apparent source question:

https://prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026-AVS-W3-Topline-V4.pdf

Quote

Q16. For each pair of statements, which of the following comes closest to your views, if neither is exactly right  

Q16c. Statement 1: Empathy is a foundational moral value that helps build a healthy society. OR Statement 2: Empathy can become dangerous when it leads people away from building a society guided by God’s truth.6

 

I find this to be substantively unhelpful.  The two statements are not logical opposites. Someone can hold that empathy is generally foundational and that it can become dangerous or distorting when it pulls people away from other moral commitments (truth, justice, long-term goods, etc.). A forced choice between them collapses that possibility and turns a continuum into a binary. Asking the two items separately (with standard agree/disagree scales) would almost certainly have produced substantial overlap—people strongly endorsing both.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 20 hours ago by smac97

[Navidad]

Your original post is more than a little deceiving. Answering both statements in what you consider to be the negative is not determinative of "not valuing empathy." Furthermore, nowhere does it define what they mean by Evangelical. As an Evangelical, I value empathy, but perhaps also not highly enough to respond positively to both statements, especially number 2. I am very uncertain as to what it means by "a society guided by God's truth." You would have to tell me a lot more before I would affirm that statement. What does the author of the statement deem to be God's truth? Do you believe that everyone in society should be guided by "God's truth" as determined by Fundamentalists? By the doctrine of the LDS Church? By non-Christian concepts of God's truth? All society? Everyone? 

Edited 20 hours ago by Navidad
clarification

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Eschaton said:

A recent survey on empathy found that white Evangelicals care the least about empathy, followed by Latter-Day Saints. Although LDS people scored low,

That’s strange to me. While charity does not require empathy, LDS have the highest rate of both volunteer hours and financial donations (outside their own community as well if iirc) They also send their kids out to serve in communities for different from their own and encouraging seniors to go as well.  Then there is how we view other religious groups in the most favorable light even while being low ourselves.

I wonder about the wording and whether they measured it as a principle or a behavior.  It is possible we have a hard time relating to others while still caring a lot.  Known lots of LDS like that including my dad, the most charitable man I have run across when it came to helping out.  

Edited 20 hours ago by Calm

[Eschaton]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Your original post is more than a little deceiving. Answering both statements in what you consider to be the negative is not determinative of "not valuing empathy." Furthermore, nowhere does it define what they mean by Evangelical. As an Evangelical, I value empathy, but perhaps also not highly enough to respond positively to both statements, especially number 2. I am very uncertain as to what it means by "a society guided by God's truth." You would have to tell me a lot more before I would affirm that statement. What does the author of the statement deem to be God's truth? Do you believe that everyone in society should be guided by "God's truth" as determined by Fundamentalists? By the doctrine of the LDS Church? By non-Christian concepts of God's truth? All society? Everyone? 

This seems to be an exercise in excuse-making. We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years, and the slow poison has worked its way into the two most conservative religious populations, white evangelicals and Latter-Day Saints. White evangelicals are probably a lost cause at this point, but I don't think the same is true of LDS people. 

[Eschaton]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

That’s strange to me. While charity does not require empathy, LDS have the highest rate of both volunteer hours and financial donations (outside their own community as well if iirc) They also send their kids out to serve in communities for different from their own and encouraging seniors to go as well.  Then there is how we view other religious groups in the most favorable light even while being low ourselves.

I wonder about the wording and whether they measured it as a principle or a behavior.  It is possible we have a hard time relating to others while still caring a lot.  Known lots of LDS like that including my dad, the most charitable man I have run across when it came to helping out.  

In terms of LDS people, it may be the word itself that people are rejecting to due to their political affiliations, but not (yet) the concept itself in their every day life. Hard to say. 

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Empathy is a traditional Christian value, which the opponents of Christianity have rejected. You don't seem to understand what the word means. 

Eschaton, hi. Accept my heartiest best wishes. The idea you raise is truly important! 

It is quite likely that I do not know what is meant by the word empathy. It is because Christians seemed more wary of empathy than those with no religion, it made me think that there is perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of participants in the poll as well.  

I am all in favor of "weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice." We should try to understand and appreciate the joys and pains of people who aren't Christians too. My Church teaches that "through the Incarnation of Christ as man, He has in a certain sense, united Himself with every human person". That is a paraphrase of a document from the Second Vatican Council called Gaudium et spes. It is in ch. 22. I have it partly memorized because that certain sense, spoken of, must be maximized. It is a radical recognition that He who our religion is named for, Christ, doesn't identify persons as what they have done, but as His, Who came to deliver all of the sons and daughters of Adam into the liberty and freedom to renounce the ties that bind them to that which is not God. He identifies with all of us together, through His most Sacred and Loving Heart in willing the best for everyone. Of course, He will not violate anyone's freedom to reject His love.

Everyone we encounter in any way is a brother or sister in Jesus. They may not have faith. They might be unbaptized. This isn't to say that they enjoy God's peace in a life indifferent to God's laws or in the next life. But it should mean that in justice, Christians should have the deepest compassion, (or empathy?), for everyone in this world of restlessness and sorrows, without ever ourselves being indifferent or triumphalist because of some self-imagined superiority. We have to want the best for those who might appear to be the farthest away from our beliefs. They are ever so close because Jesus is the God-Man. I suppose this is a truth that will be even more obvious to the Latter-day Saint who believes we are all God's spirit children. Coming at it differently, with a transcendent God, we join you, perhaps with more wonder, because of the belief that a God who is wholly content, who does not need us, would sacrifice that contentment for a time, to enter Creation, and become one of us. It is stupendous; faith alone makes it credible. 

Thanks for the post. 

Regards, Rory

Edited 19 hours ago by 3DOP

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Empathy is a traditional Christian value

I agree, I don’t believe one can truly love another unless there is some basic understanding of them (we may love our image of them, but that’s not the reality).  There is also the commandment to mourn with those who mourn. To truly do that takes empathy.

But not everyone uses “empathy” in that way.  Hopefully someone has pulled out all the ways it is framed in the survey so we can discuss the different perspectives it is using…at least that is what I see as most useful in this discussion.
 

There are unhealthy forms of empathy, such as losing oneself in another’s needs, especially in regards to one’s own.   And oh so many people think they are being empathetic while still substituting their own thoughts, feelings, and values on to the other in my experience (and this includes LDS as well as nonLDS).

Edited 20 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I too was curious. See here for analysis: 

https://prri.org/research/darkening-mood-and-shifting-political-loyalties-ahead-of-midterm-elections-findings-from-the-2026-american-values-survey/#_ftnref6

 

And here for the apparent source question:

https://prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/2026-AVS-W3-Topline-V4.pdf

 

 

I have a problem with this phrasing because it’s very black and white if they require one or the other.  You can be highly invested in both or very concerned about the latter while it doesn’t affect your own effective empathetic efforts that much.  I can see that they are trying to see which is more prioritized, but not sure this is a valid way to frame importance of empathy to someone.  
 

“About half side with the statement that empathy is a foundational moral value (49%), and nearly as many believe empathy can be dangerous (48%).”

This frames it as ‘either or’, at least the last one…as if believing empathy can be dangerous excludes empathy being a foundational value for them. 

I hate the way this gets framed in politics, but I was concerned about people believing that empathy for others justified mistreatment of themselves and those they had committed to care already long before it became major dog whistles (if that’s the right term) in politics. Such as those who adopted many children without considering how their current children felt or adapted to it or too often assumed sympathy was the same as actual empathy.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have a problem with this phrasing because it’s very black and white if they require one or the other.  You can be highly invested in both or very concerned about the latter while it doesn’t affect your own effective empathetic efforts that much.  I can see that they are trying to see which is more prioritized, but not sure this is a valid way to frame importance of empathy to someone.  

I too dislike the question set up. I can’t understand the second viewing, though with the definition of empathy like the following: How can empathy lead people away from God’s truth? I was taught that God perfectly understood shared and experienced all through the atonement. Wasn’t it empathy that led religious abolitionists to reinterpret the Bible when it comes to slavery?

Empathy is the ability to understand, share, and experience another person's feelings, thoughts, or point of view. It allows you to see the world from someone else's perspective rather than just your own. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So it's  a political poll, more than a religious one.  "Empathy" might well have been seen by respondents as being used in a political context, more than a religious one.

"Empathy" = open borders, lax-to-non-existent enforcement of immigration law.

"Empathy" = full-throated endorsement of elective abortion, on demand, for any reason or no reason at all.

And so on.

The framing of the questions, then, do seem to be questionable.

I find this to be substantively unhelpful.  The two statements are not logical opposites. Someone can hold that empathy is generally foundational and that it can become dangerous or distorting when it pulls people away from other moral commitments (truth, justice, long-term goods, etc.). A forced choice between them collapses that possibility and turns a continuum into a binary. Asking the two items separately (with standard agree/disagree scales) would almost certainly have produced substantial overlap—people strongly endorsing both.

Thanks,

-Smac

I disagree strongly with your two ‘examples’ of the meaning of empathy as I think those are caricatures while agreeing with your comment about it being an inappropriate forced choice.

I would also like to see how the survey was tested for its actual correspondence to valuing empathy and how it did.

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I too dislike the question set up. I can’t understand the second viewing, though with the definition of empathy like the following: How can empathy lead people away from God’s truth? I was taught that God perfectly understood shared and experienced all through the atonement. Wasn’t it empathy that led religious abolitionists to reinterpret the Bible when it comes to slavery?

 

Empathy is the ability to understand, share, and experience another person's feelings, thoughts, or point of view. It allows you to see the world from someone else's perspective rather than just your own. 

 

Yes, I think people are likely inserting some form of ‘false empathy’, performative empathy perhaps here rather than “godly empathy”?  But that needs its own survey to tease out.

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 

Your original post is more than a little deceiving.

 

Are you sure you want to use “deceiving” (it’s phrased as he is deceiving, which is intentional behaviour) here when he is referencing a survey?

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

This seems to be an exercise in excuse-making. We all know certain extremists have come out against empathy in recent years, and the slow poison has worked its way into the two most conservative religious populations, white evangelicals and Latter-Day Saints. White evangelicals are probably a lost cause at this point, but I don't think the same is true of LDS people. 

Navidad differentiates (probably correctly imo in terms of scholarly categories…spacing on the right word now for that, but I don’t believe that is how most people use “evangelical”) between Evangelical and Fundamentalist.  If I understand him correctly, one can’t be both.  OTOH, there can be evangelical or fundamentalists LDS, Catholics, Muslims, etc.

In his view, my guess that the groups of political or religious “extremists” that see empathy as highly dangerous are more likely Fundamentalist than Evangelical.  He will hopefully correct me if I have misunderstood him.

You both will end up talking past each other if you don’t agree on a definition for Evangelical here and given his past comments, I don’t think Navidad will budge on this.  It concerns him greatly.  I can understand that as it can cause great confusion as it is doing here (there are many liberal white evangelicals, but they are getting clumped in with white fundamentalists in this survey).

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

I am cooking waffles right now and then having to do other chores, so can’t dive into this.

How many questions actually dealt with empathy on the survey?  Was that its primary purpose or only a section of it with one or two questions?  If the latter, I see drawing any conclusions from it about actual empathy as highly problematic even while I find the framing of empathy by Republican leadership at this time horrendous.  
 

While I disagree with those who might broaden empathy to include requiring agreement in every way (though I don’t believe this is as widespread as claimed by some on the right, I have seen this type of acceptance being demanded by some or they will cut off contact, which is justified in some cases for sure, but not all that I have seen), I would prefer to see errors in that direction than the other.  While I believe empathy can be involved in the rejection of abortion, it naturally follows that if one is empathetic to the unborn, one needs to care for it in more than just saying no to abortion.   Not stepping in to ensure the healthiest pregnancy as possible, removing reasons for abortion being the best option is a rejection of empathy for the unborn as is not ensuring the children are fed no matter what their parents are like as children are not accountable for their parents’ mistakes or sins.  

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I too dislike the question set up. I can’t understand the second viewing, though with the definition of empathy like the following: How can empathy lead people away from God’s truth?

That depends on what "empathy" means, or its connotations.  As I asked previously: "{D}oes 'empathy' require, in your view, not merely the 'the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another,' but also the acquiescence to and endorsement and validation of those emotions/thoughts/attitudes?"

For example, Let's go with your proffered definition: "Empathy is the ability to understand, share, and experience another person's feelings, thoughts, or point of view. It allows you to see the world from someone else's perspective rather than just your own."  I think in the reckoning of some, to "empathize" with a woman who wants to electively abort her baby means to endorse and validate that desire.  Do you think that sort of "empathy" might be seen as "lead{ing} people way from God's truth" (assuming the individual believes "God's truth" to include rejection of elective abortions)?

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I was taught that God perfectly understood shared and experienced all through the atonement.

So was I.  But understanding and endorsement/validation are two different things.  I think some folks collapse them into each other.

25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Wasn’t it empathy that led religious abolitionists to reinterpret the Bible when it comes to slavery?

Yes.

I think plenty of people opposed to elective abortion do so out of empathy with and for the unborn.

I think plenty of people who want strong and secured borders do so in part out of empathy with and for the untold millions of women and children who have been physically and sexually abused during and after illegal border crossings.  Sex trafficking relies heavily on porous borders.

And yet people who oppose elective abortion and/or open/unsecured borders are often accused of lacking "empathy," presumably for the mothers of aborted babies and those who have entered the U.S. illegally, respectively.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I am all in favor of "weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice."

So am I.

The challenge is when "empathy" is portrayed as "And so it is your job to, in the name of 'empathy,' support and validate my decision to electively abort my baby."  It is this sort of weaponized / coercive strain of "empathy" that I find problematic.  Frankly, I think "empathy" is often used more for its imputed embellished connotations than for its normative meaning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding empathy:

Quote

30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

And passages like this:

Quote

If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother.  (Deuteronomy 15:7)

He doth execute the judgment (mishpat) for the orphan and the widow, and he loves the stranger and wants him to be provided with food and clothing. Therefore, you must do the same: love the stranger — remember that you too were strangers [and were oppressed] in the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 10:18–19).
 

Remembering "that you too were strangers" at least ancestrally, is a direct call and example of empathy-guiding behavior. Finding a way to see one's self in another's circumstance, rather than looking for evil and grounds to harden one's heart.

That is consistent with the foundational commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself."  It also happens that one characteristic of the loss of plain and precious things is hardening of hearts.  I have a forthcoming essay with long collection of quotes from the Bible on this topic.  I often think of this passage from Nibley in "The Unsolved Loyalty Problem".

Quote

"The cruelty of the times, says Alfioli,"cannot fully be explained by the corruption of the age;...the spirit of the fourth century has its part to play. The victory of abstract ways of thinking, the universal triumph of theory, knows no half measures, punishment, like everything else must be a hundred percent, but even this seems inadequate." Compromise is now out of the question: God, who once let the sun shine on the just and the unjust, and let the wheat and tares grow together, now insists that the unjust should cease to exist, that only wheat should grow in the earth, and that only sheep should inhabit it.."  (Nibley, The Ancient State, 212).  

Labels, carelessly splashed over minorities, like generalizing about them as "murders and rapists", "invaders", and inaccurate claims that they are "eating the dogs" or performing sex change surgery on school children without parental consent, or claiming that even notable citizens are "left wing radicals who want to destroy the country" are designed to circumvent empathy and "stir up the hearts of men to anger."  Even over-simplifying the question of legal abortion, (a very different thing than coercive abortion), allowing for case by case consideration of circumstances and a possibility that there might actually be application of a basic principle of "opposition in all things", rather than an absolute way of thinking to which all must conform without regard to circumstances, that has contributed recently to 200 women dying due to ectopic pregnancy and their not being able to get proper care for fear of legal repercussions in their states.   Is it toxic empathy that raises that kind of question?  Should we only mention circumstances and share only paradigmatic accounts that re-enforce our ideological preferences?  Is that "pure knowledge" that cannot fail to enlarge our souls?

Quote

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men,

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

[SeekingUnderstanding]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That depends on what "empathy" means, or its connotations.  As I asked previously: "{D}oes 'empathy' require, in your view, not merely the 'the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another,' but also the acquiescence to and endorsement and validation of those emotions/thoughts/attitudes?"

For example, Let's go with your proffered definition: "Empathy is the ability to understand, share, and experience another person's feelings, thoughts, or point of view. It allows you to see the world from someone else's perspective rather than just your own."  I think in the reckoning of some, to "empathize" with a woman who wants to electively abort her baby means to endorse and validate that desire.  Do you think that sort of "empathy" might be seen as "lead{ing} people way from God's truth" (assuming the individual believes "God's truth" to include rejection of elective abortions)?

So was I.  But understanding and endorsement/validation are two different things.  I think some folks collapse them into each other.

Yes.

I think plenty of people opposed to elective abortion do so out of empathy with and for the unborn.

I think plenty of people who want strong and secured borders do so in part out of empathy with and for the untold millions of women and children who have been physically and sexually abused during and after illegal border crossings.  Sex trafficking relies heavily on porous borders.

And yet people who oppose elective abortion and/or open/unsecured borders are often accused of lacking "empathy," presumably for the mothers of aborted babies and those who have entered the U.S. illegally, respectively.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I am unaware of any definition of empathy out side of right wing talking points that requires acquiescence to a policy point of view. I will say that some points of view are inherently unempathetic. For example describing a 20 week fetus as a clump of cells. Or calling undocumented migrants “illegals”. Or saying that the law of chastity impacts gay and straight people equally. Or saying religious people are delusional. This does not require one to adopt an anti-abortion, pro-immigration, pro-gay rights, or pro religious stance.