Why The Need To Classify Ideas, People, Groups, And Activities As "Evil".

[Stone holm]

I have been puzzling of late about the seeming need to classify certain ideas, people, groups and activities as "evil" or "Satan inspired", or "Satanic", or "inherently evil." Cannot certain activities be inconsistent with the structure of the eternal universe as we understand it in the Church without being "inherently evil." It seems like there must have been an inconsistent passing down of the knowledge between good and evil that Adam and Eve obtained from the tree since there is such a wide variance in the understanding amongst humankind. Why is it that so many cultures for example only applied the fig leaves to the lower part of the anatomy and left the women topless? Is this need to determine something as "evil" inherent in our concept of "sin", is there a difference between this and "bad karma?"

[ERayR]

I have been puzzling of late about the seeming need to classify certain ideas, people, groups and activities as "evil" or "Satan inspired", or "Satanic", or "inherently evil." Cannot certain activities be inconsistent with the structure of the eternal universe as we understand it in the Church without being "inherently evil." It seems like there must have been an inconsistent passing down of the knowledge between good and evil that Adam and Eve obtained from the tree since there is such a wide variance in the understanding amongst humankind. Why is it that so many cultures for example only applied the fig leaves to the lower part of the anatomy and left the women topless? Is this need to determine something as "evil" inherent in our concept of "sin", is there a difference between this and "bad karma?"

Because some are evil.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe that people in and of themselves are evil, but certainly some of our actions are.

Nakedness isn't a sin, but immodesty is. Context is everything here. Is the intent to simply draw attention to our bodies; or is it to take a bath, or some other such purpose. Interestingly Fig leave have microneedles that when coming into contact with skin produce a intense itching reaction. I can't imagine anyone willingly putting them in that area of the body.

We don't believe in karma, good or bad. There are simply results from all behaviors.

[Sleeper Cell]

I have been puzzling of late about the seeming need to classify certain ideas, people, groups and activities as "evil" or "Satan inspired", or "Satanic", or "inherently evil." Cannot certain activities be inconsistent with the structure of the eternal universe as we understand it in the Church without being "inherently evil." It seems like there must have been an inconsistent passing down of the knowledge between good and evil that Adam and Eve obtained from the tree since there is such a wide variance in the understanding amongst humankind. Why is it that so many cultures for example only applied the fig leaves to the lower part of the anatomy and left the women topless? Is this need to determine something as "evil" inherent in our concept of "sin", is there a difference between this and "bad karma?"

The concept of “bad karma” (at least the popular version) seems to focus on the harm you ultimately do to yourself. Generally speaking, the concept of sin focus more on the harm you do to others. (And yes, I know there are obvious exceptions, such as suicide).

[Stroopwafel]

What does "evil" and "good" even mean for that matter?

Further, I find this interesting how in English there are two ways of describing an act that is reprovable: "evil" and "bad". I don't know for other languages, but in French those two terms are translated by only one word. Saying "evil" instead of "bad" has a different tone that may not be that distinctively present in other languages. We may have the concept, but having the words to actually make the particular distinction is something else.

For my part, looking at how hard it has been -- and still is -- to pinpoint an exact understanding of what is good, or what is "the good" (at least philosophically), I believe that we may encounter similar difficulties if we scrutinize the concept of evil.

In any case, I find it interesting that your interrogation at first asks about the need to classify certain things as evil. Yes indeed, what is this need? Where does it stem from?

[bluebell]

All Christian people, regardless of their denomination, believe that evil exists and that satan is capable of spreading evil ideas and concepts and getting humans to embrace them as 'good'. Some things are labeled as evil because that's exactly what they are.

So it seems obvious why people or groups designate certain things they really disagree with as being evil.

That doesn't mean, however, that every time someone claims something is of satan, or evil, that it actually is. Humans get that designation wrong all the time.

[Storm Rider]

Intrinsic evil exists just as completely as the existence of absolute righteousness. Do you think one exists without the other?

[Stone holm]

What does "evil" and "good" even mean for that matter?

Further, I find this interesting how in English there are two ways of describing an act that is reprovable: "evil" and "bad". I don't know for other languages, but in French those two terms are translated by only one word. Saying "evil" instead of "bad" has a different tone that may not be that distinctively present in other languages. We may have the concept, but having the words to actually make the particular distinction is something else.

For my part, looking at how hard it has been -- and still is -- to pinpoint an exact understanding of what is good, or what is "the good" (at least philosophically), I believe that we may encounter similar difficulties if we scrutinize the concept of evil.

In any case, I find it interesting that your interrogation at first asks about the need to classify certain things as evil. Yes indeed, what is this need? Where does it stem from?

In my mind "evil" has a malicious intention involved. It's more than doing a "bad" thing, its doing something intentionally harmful to someone else without any regard for self defense or defense of family or defense of your nation. Its not something that can be done accidentally or inadvertently.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have been puzzling of late about the seeming need to classify certain ideas, people, groups and activities as "evil" or "Satan inspired", or "Satanic", or "inherently evil." Cannot certain activities be inconsistent with the structure of the eternal universe as we understand it in the Church without being "inherently evil." It seems like there must have been an inconsistent passing down of the knowledge between good and evil that Adam and Eve obtained from the tree since there is such a wide variance in the understanding amongst humankind. Why is it that so many cultures for example only applied the fig leaves to the lower part of the anatomy and left the women topless? Is this need to determine something as "evil" inherent in our concept of "sin", is there a difference between this and "bad karma?"

Because many are "evil" surely you know of some.

[Stone holm]

Because many are "evil" surely you know of some.

Yes, but I doubt there is anywhere near unanimity on the list. Even where you would expect agreement, like genocide...and then you consider the OT.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Yes, but I doubt there is anywhere near unanimity on the list. Even where you would expect agreement, like genocide...and then you consider the OT.

Evil is evil, no matter where it appears.

[thesometimesaint]

Evil is evil, no matter where it appears.

That is known as a truism. We first have to decide if it is evil in order to call it evil. IE; Fred pushed Sam into a mudhole. vs; Fred pushed Sam into a mudhole out of the way of a speeding truck saving his life.

Edited August 7, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

I have been puzzling of late about the seeming need to classify certain ideas, people, groups and activities as "evil" or "Satan inspired", or "Satanic", or "inherently evil."

Is the problem the need to classify or how we classify?

Moroni Chapter 7 discusses one important aspect of how to classify; the need to classify is inherent in the reason we're here: "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

(Abraham 3;25-26)"

[Stone holm]

Evil is evil, no matter where it appears.

Really. So context doesn't matter?

[Stone holm]

Is the problem the need to classify or how we classify?

Moroni Chapter 7 discusses one important aspect of how to classify; the need to classify is inherent in the reason we're here: "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

(Abraham 3;25-26)"

And this aids in classification how?

[ERayR]

The question shouldn't be Why The Need To Classify Ideas, People, Groups, And Activities As "Evil". It really should be "Why the reluctance to call something what it is".

[Stone holm]

The question shouldn't be Why The Need To Classify Ideas, People, Groups, And Activities As "Evil". It really should be "Why the reluctance to call something what it is".

Really. So "it" just classifies itself?

[ERayR]

Really. So "it" just classifies itself?

Your question seems to show the predominate reluctance to classify anything.

[CV75]

And this aids in classification how?

What kind of assistance are you looking for?

[Stone holm]

I assume that you would say whatever the Lord say don't do, that is "evil"? Is that an incorrect assumption? What I am suggesting is that the Lord or the prophet may counsel not to do something, but that does not necessarily make doing it "evil". But some would say, no not only is all such activity evil, but it is Satanically inspired, etc. In addition, something that we would when taken out of context say is evil -- like for example killing someone -- in certain contexts is not necessarily "evil'. Others would say evil is evil, period. So whether some modern leader takes it upon himself to commit genocide, or the Lord orders his people in the OT to commit genocide both are evil. Thus under such circumstances Nephi slaying Laban would be evil.

I have in my lifetime which has been fairly long only encountered a handful of people whom I felt exuded evil to the extent that they made my skin crawl -- but because of those encounters, I do believe there is evil in this world. If I were a police officer, I am sure that it would probably have been more than just a handful of people. So I do believe in evil. I have also observed groups with leaders who I felf were evil doers because of the things they were doing -- although, I am not sure that everyone on this Board would agree with me. On the other hand, I have seen people do bad things, and I have seen leaders who caused people to do bad things. I think the real difference between the two, in my mind, are that in the latter case they were doing so out of ignorance, whereas in the former, the people and leaders knew what they were doing was not right, but they went ahead and did it anyway knowing that others were going to be hurt or being completely indifferent to the fact that others were going to be hurt.

[CV75]

I assume that you would say whatever the Lord say don't do, that is "evil"? Is that an incorrect assumption? What I am suggesting is that the Lord or the prophet may counsel not to do something, but that does not necessarily make doing it "evil". But some would say, no not only is all such activity evil, but it is Satanically inspired, etc. In addition, something that we would when taken out of context say is evil -- like for example killing someone -- in certain contexts is not necessarily "evil'. Others would say evil is evil, period. So whether some modern leader takes it upon himself to commit genocide, or the Lord orders his people in the OT to commit genocide both are evil. Thus under such circumstances Nephi slaying Laban would be evil.

I have in my lifetime which has been fairly long only encountered a handful of people whom I felt exuded evil to the extent that they made my skin crawl -- but because of those encounters, I do believe there is evil in this world. If I were a police officer, I am sure that it would probably have been more than just a handful of people. So I do believe in evil. I have also observed groups with leaders who I felf were evil doers because of the things they were doing -- although, I am not sure that everyone on this Board would agree with me. On the other hand, I have seen people do bad things, and I have seen leaders who caused people to do bad things. I think the real difference between the two, in my mind, are that in the latter case they were doing so out of ignorance, whereas in the former, the people and leaders knew what they were doing was not right, but they went ahead and did it anyway knowing that others were going to be hurt or being completely indifferent to the fact that others were going to be hurt.

This is an interesting article: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evil

"In ordinary discourse, the term "evil" has a very wide definition and, along with the term "bad," is used in English most often to refer to morally wrong intentions, choices, and actions of agents (moral evil); to the operations of nonhuman nature such as disease, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tornadoes (natural evil); and to the human and animal pain and suffering (psychological evil) that moral and natural evils may cause. In more technical philosophical discourse, it is applied also to inherent human limitations and defects (metaphysical evil).

"The term is used with additional meanings in LDS scripture and discourse. In the Old Testament, the term is translated from the Hebrew term, ra', and its cognates, whose applications range widely from (1) what tastes nasty or is ugly, displeasing, or sad, through (2) moral wickedness and the distress, misery, and tragedy that ensue from it, to (3) willful disobedience of God and his intentions for human beings. The latter two senses of the term predominate in the New Testament and in latter-day scriptures. Given its widely variant meanings, the precise meaning of evil must be ascertained from its context." (underline mine)

[Daniel Peterson]

On the whole, I feel no such "need," though I do think that some things (e.g., Pol Pot's "killing fields," Charles Manson's murders, and Jeffrey Dahmer's cannibalism) are, beyond reasonable dispute, evil.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Really. So context doesn't matter?

I can only judge context within the context of my own beliefs. So a reserved...yes.

[strappinglad]

If I sculpt a beautiful figure and decide to smash it, is that evil/bad ? If I sculpt a beautiful figure and a stranger decides to smash it, is that evil/bad ? Is it the smashing that is evil/bad? I think not.

[Erin15]

Part of the problem is that we often think of good and evil as being philisophical when they are actually spiritual.

Some of the best minds of all time have spent hundreds of years thinking and debating the subject, and have never been able to adequetely define what is good and what is evil.

Yet, when we are under the influence of the Holy Ghost, they are instantly recognizable for what they are in any specific situation.

My advice, therefore, would be to not try to understand them with the limited natural mind, but rather draw closer to the spirit and then you will see them clearly.