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

[Stone holm]

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.

The problem there is that people rarely do bad things so efficiently as when they believe they are doing good, and never so passionately as when they believe the are doing god's will. We Mormons tend to be a little arrogant when it comes to the Holy Ghost.

[ERayR]

We Mormons tend to be a little arrogant when it comes to the Holy Ghost.

Not arrogant just sure.

[Calm]

We Mormons tend to be a little arrogant when it comes to the Holy Ghost.

Some...more than likely. Others are arrogant when it comes to condemning others for having confidence in the Holy Spirit.

[Storm Rider]

The problem there is that people rarely do bad things so efficiently as when they believe they are doing good, and never so passionately as when they believe the are doing god's will. We Mormons tend to be a little arrogant when it comes to the Holy Ghost.

How are we arrogant about a member of the Godhead?

[Stone holm]

We sometimes are arrogant as to our sureness that we have it right and others who also believe that the Spirit has confirmed something have it wrong.

[Storm Rider]

I believe that each of us can be mislead or misunderstand, but I also believe that when we have been given a confirmation of truth by the Spirit we have no reason to deny that truth. We have no need to repeat Peter's experience. Are you afraid of knowing the truth? Do you think that knowing the truth makes you intolerant of the beliefs of others?

[DBMormon]

Going off the OP - You are right. Faith like any other walk of life and learning is done in stages. In faith for instance look at Fowler's "stages of faith"

He came up with a theory that makes a lot of sense. It proposes 6 stages and we all must move forward from stage 1 through the stages progressively. Most people never make it to stage 6 and in fact Fowler assumed about only 40% move out of stage 3. Assuming most people get to and stay at stage three - your question makes perfect sense. Stage 3 is a very black and white stage (us vs them mentality). In stage 3 people are very likely to see others who are different then them, who subscribe to a different walk of life then them, to be evil or bad or at least unwelcomed. While Fowler's theory is not perfect and no one person is completely in one stage or another, it helps me to grasp why the majority of us choose to label people, events, experiences as evil or Good. And yes some things are good and some are evil, but those in stage 3 will over label beyond it real application. For them there is no gray area. Almost everything is a dichotomy.

P.S. Prophets and Apostles are not exempt from this process either. Stages are neither bad nor good though Stage 3 individuals are more likely to draw unnecessary lines in the sand.

[Ahab]

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?"

We’re in teaching mode when we point out what is good or what is evil, and when we’re teaching we sometimes need to point out what is evil to those who may not know or understand why it’s not good.

Just remember this: God inspires the good stuff, and Satan inspires the opposite of what is good while trying to give the impression that what isn’t good is as good as anything else that is good, as if it’s all good. Or sometimes as if what is good is actually evil.

[pmccombs1]

I believe that each of us can be mislead or misunderstand, but I also believe that when we have been given a confirmation of truth by the Spirit we have no reason to deny that truth.

Perhaps no reason to deny it, but I believe there is still reason to question it. There is less room for certainty than I once thought.

For instance, I once met a woman who had received a spiritual witness as a faithful Latter Day Saint. Through some friends, however, she became acquainted with another faith and experienced what she claimed was a far superior witness from God. She told me how she came to believe that her LDS experiences were only cheap counterfeits of the real thing, which became clearly recognizable to her by comparison once she found the honest "truth."

Mind you, I've heard pretty much the exact same story coming the other direction too. The Mormon convert may have had some level of spiritual witness as a Baptist, or Catholic, or what-have-you. Then they encounter the LDS faith, and what do you know? The sun and the moon and everything! it's night and day!

Well, who here has done much study on the comparative nature of spiritual witnesses? Because I'd like to know how to calibrate the benchmark measure for my Holy-Ghost-O-Meter. I want to know if that lady I met really does have a superior witness to my own varied and sometimes contradictory witnesses. Which of my experiences were real, and which of them counterfeit? They all felt very much the same to me; as if God were speaking to me and giving me light and knowledge. And how much credibility ought I give to the witnesses of others to whom God has revealed the "truth" that my spiritually-confirmed beliefs are in fact anathema? Who is really justified in exercising authority over my conscience? Is there really an earthly institution that merits my loyalty and obedience?

Such an instrument might help me get a handle on this whole business of evil too, to see if the working models I'm currently entertaining merit any further consideration.

Edited August 8, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Ahab]

Perhaps no reason to deny it, but I believe there is still reason to question it. There is less room for certainty than I once thought.

For instance, I once met a woman who had received a spiritual witness as a faithful Latter Day Saint. Through some friends, however, she became acquainted with another faith and experienced what she claimed was a far superior witness from God. She told me how she came to believe that her LDS experiences were only cheap counterfeits of the real thing, which became clearly recognizable to her by comparison once she found the honest "truth."

Mind you, I've heard pretty much the exact same story coming the other direction too. The Mormon convert may have had some level of spiritual witness as a Baptist, or Catholic, or what-have-you. Then they encounter the LDS faith, and what do you know? The sun and the moon and everything! it's night and day!

Well, who here has done much study on the comparative nature of spiritual witnesses? Because I'd like to know how to calibrate the benchmark measure for my Holy-Ghost-O-Meter. I want to know if that lady I met really does have a superior witness to my own varied and sometimes contradictory witnesses. Which of my experiences were real, and which of them counterfeit? They all felt very much the same to me; as if God were speaking to me and giving me light and knowledge. And how much credibility ought I give to the witnesses of others to whom God has revealed the "truth" that my spiritually-confirmed beliefs are in fact anathema? Who is really justified in exercising authority over my conscience? Is there really an earthly institution that merits my loyalty and obedience?

Such an instrument might help me get a handle on this whole business of evil too, to see if the working models I'm currently entertaining merit any further consideration.

For some reason some people seem to be more comfortable accepting what anyone other than God says to them, personally. That woman you were talking about, for example. She says... blah blah blah... and that puts you in a tizzy?

My advice: Get your own witness from God and believe what he tells you regardless of what anyone else says about anything.

[CV75]

Stages are neither bad nor good though Stage 3 individuals are more likely to draw unnecessary lines in the sand.

How can a person operating in stage 3 be good? Or evil?

Edited August 8, 2013 by CV75

[pmccombs1]

My advice: Get your own witness from God and believe what he tells you regardless of what anyone else says about anything.

O ho! We're not reading now, are we? Or just not comprehending? Hmm? What is it about the phrase, "my own varied and sometimes contradictory witnesses" that you don't seem to understand?

I see the problem here. Let us examine your words, "from God." The witness isn't the problem at all, you see. It's the proposition that the witness actually came from God.

I have a number of witnesses, including:

1. That Joseph Smith was a prophet
   
2. That the Church is true
   
3. That the Church is not true
   
4. That really the Catholic church is definitely true
   
5. Actually, that the gospel, which is not the Church, is really the true thing
   
6. But surely, it's nihilism that is clearly most beautiful and true at the same time as these other things, somehow
   
7. And that God, embodied in a can of cooked sausages, once delivered me from harm
   
8. That Sam Keen is also a prophet
   
9. As was Will Campbell
   
10. And Tripp York
    
11. And the pope!
    

Do you have any idea how my bosom has burned over these things? Oh, I have heard the voice of God and been in His presence. Which of these holy ghosts shall I deny, pray tell? Which of them is from God as you say, and which are not? They all seemed qualitatively the same to me at the time.

And if what's-her-name, who witnessed through the Holy Ghost same as me, could later discover that it was actually Not-of-God, might I not also discover the same thing about my own experience? That what I thought was "from God" (as you say) really wasn't? You mean I shouldn't investigate that? I shouldn't question my own experiences? I shouldn't seek for some measure to measure my own experience by in order to determine if it is from God? I'm looking for the ground truth here. Tell me: How is it that I know God is talking to me when I witness these things? What is the benchmark? That's all I ask of you.

Without a reliable benchmark (ha!), there is absolutely no justification at all for any religious authority outside of one's own self.

Do people who think they have something "from God" get to march about, telling the whole world what is evil and what is not? Do they get to tell us who is authorized to stand in for God and who is not?

[thesometimesaint]

We don't but God does.

[CV75]

Do people who think they have something "from God" get to march about, telling the whole world what is evil and what is not? Do they get to tell us who is authorized to stand in for God and who is not?

They do get to do those things; happens all the time.

But I have found in the Church, the best approach is to invite and integrate, and not to reject and contend. And offer clarification if asked.

[pmccombs1]

We don't but God does.

Where is God doing this?

[pmccombs1]

They do get to do those things; happens all the time.

But I have found in the Church, the best approach is to invite and integrate, and not to reject and contend. And offer clarification if asked.

Yes, I agree with your approach. But I also add that it must be accompanied with a measure of humility in the apparent fact that one can never be quite truly certain of one's own perception of reality.

[Ahab]

O ho! We're not reading now, are we? Or just not comprehending? Hmm? What is it about the phrase, "my own varied and sometimes contradictory witnesses" that you don't seem to understand?

I see the problem here. Let us examine your words, "from God." The witness isn't the problem at all, you see. It's the proposition that the witness actually came from God.

I understood you just find and I also understand the problem, and I was suggesting that rather than accept their witness of God's witness to them you instead get your own witness from God, personally.

I have a number of witnesses, including:

1. That Joseph Smith was a prophet
   
2. That the Church is true
   
3. That the Church is not true
   
4. That really the Catholic church is definitely true
   
5. Actually, that the gospel, which is not the Church, is really the true thing
   
6. But surely, it's nihilism that is clearly most beautiful and true at the same time as these other things, somehow
   
7. And that God, embodied in a can of cooked sausages, once delivered me from harm
   
8. That Sam Keen is also a prophet
   
9. As was Will Campbell
   
10. And Tripp York
    
11. And the pope!
    

Yes, I know. People, in general, say all kinds of things, don't they. Now ask God what he has to say and accept what he says.

Do you have any idea how my bosom has burned over these things? Oh, I have heard the voice of God and been in His presence. Which of these holy ghosts shall I deny, pray tell? Which of them is from God as you say, and which are not? They all seemed qualitatively the same to me at the time.

Why would you ever want to deny anything God has told you? Seems to me like what others tell you has put you in a tizzy.

And if what's-her-name, who witnessed through the Holy Ghost same as me, could later discover that it was actually Not-of-God, might I not also discover the same thing about my own experience?

Same as you? And you say that on what basis? Because she said so? Because you think so? What does God think?

That what I thought was "from God" (as you say) really wasn't? You mean I shouldn't investigate that? I shouldn't question my own experiences? I shouldn't seek for some measure to measure my own experience by in order to determine if it is from God? I'm looking for the ground truth here. Tell me: How is it that I know God is talking to me when I witness these things? What is the benchmark? That's all I ask of you.

Why are you asking me to tell you when you are getting a witness from God? Why does what I have to say matter to you?

You need to get to know God for yourself, without being dependent on other people to point him out to you. It could be that what others tell you might help you to know more about God, but then again they could be giving you some false information, so why figure that into it as anything more than food for thought? You shouldn't be going into a tizzy about what everyone tells you, though, as if everyone is speaking for God when they're giving you conflicting information. Go to the source, for yourself. That's what I do, and by comparing what God has told me to what other people are saying I can tell who is right and who is giving conflicting information to what God has told me.

Without a reliable benchmark (ha!), there is absolutely no justification at all for any religious authority outside of one's own self.

God is the benchmark. If you want to know what he says, ask him and then listen to what he tells you.

Do people who think they have something "from God" get to march about, telling the whole world what is evil and what is not? Do they get to tell us who is authorized to stand in for God and who is not?

Yes, they get to, just as anyone gets to say whatever they want to say. Just don't believe everything people tell you as if what they say is from God's own mouth, even if they tell you it is.

[Stone holm]

I understood you just find and I also understand the problem, and I was suggesting that rather than accept their witness of God's witness to them you instead get your own witness from God, personally.

Yes, I know. People, in general, say all kinds of things, don't they. Now ask God what he has to say and accept what he says.

Why would you ever want to deny anything God has told you? Seems to me like what others tell you has put you in a tizzy.

Same as you? And you say that on what basis? Because she said so? Because you think so? What does God think?

Why are you asking me to tell you when you are getting a witness from God? Why does what I have to say matter to you?

You need to get to know God for yourself, without being dependent on other people to point him out to you. It could be that what others tell you might help you to know more about God, but then again they could be giving you some false information, so why figure that into it as anything more than food for thought? You shouldn't be going into a tizzy about what everyone tells you, though, as if everyone is speaking for God when they're giving you conflicting information. Go to the source, for yourself. That's what I do, and by comparing what God has told me to what other people are saying I can tell who is right and who is giving conflicting information to what God has told me.

God is the benchmark. If you want to know what he says, ask him and then listen to what he tells you.

Yes, they get to, just as anyone gets to say whatever they want to say. Just don't believe everything people tell you as if what they say is from God's own mouth, even if they tell you it is.

Yeah, it appears that there are various channels because so many people are getting conflicting messages. I suspect that other than completely abdicating your free will to whatever a GA is currently saying, that you have to apply a certain amount of logic, reason, and research to the whole subject rather than simply going on your spiritual impressions after prayer -- given the fact that people have been going on their spiritual impressions after prayer which has made Christian doctrine appear something like herding cats.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, it appears that there are various channels because so many people are getting conflicting messages. I suspect that other than completely abdicating your free will to whatever a GA is currently saying, that you have to apply a certain amount of logic, reason, and research to the whole subject rather than simply going on your spiritual impressions after prayer -- given the fact that people have been going on their spiritual impressions after prayer which has made Christian doctrine appear something like herding cats.

We are required to study it out in our own minds, and then ask God. Doing either one exclusively doesn't produce the correct answer.

[DBMormon]

How can a person operating in stage 3 be good? Or evil?

That's my point. They are not evil or good, but many in stage 3, not understanding the process, see evil in those who question or balk at the community's story, and those in stage 4 see those in stage three as sinister and forcing them to not explore their faith.

[Ahab]

Yeah, it appears that there are various channels because so many people are getting conflicting messages. I suspect that other than completely abdicating your free will to whatever a GA is currently saying, that you have to apply a certain amount of logic, reason, and research to the whole subject rather than simply going on your spiritual impressions after prayer -- given the fact that people have been going on their spiritual impressions after prayer which has made Christian doctrine appear something like herding cats.

Spiritual impressions both during and after prayer should be our primary means of obtaining information from God, though, including the impressions God gives us to help us arrive at logical and reasonable ideas about the research we're doing or have already done.

Ideas are all we need to start with, and if we have trouble getting ideas on our own we can always find someone willing to chime in with something or other to get the wheels turning. And at any time if any of us lack wisdom, we should seek it from God who will give it to us liberally and without upbraiding us for asking him for his help. (James 1:5 ring any bells?)

[CV75]

Yes, I agree with your approach. But I also add that it must be accompanied with a measure of humility in the apparent fact that one can never be quite truly certain of one's own perception of reality.

If we are humble, does it matter at all whether we are certain or our perceptions or just certain enough? Both represent the interplay betwen faith and knowledge, and humility is what makes these two work so well together.

[Ahab]

If we are humble, does it matter at all whether we are certain or our perceptions or just certain enough? Both represent the interplay betwen faith and knowledge, and humility is what makes these two work so well together.

Humility is all about having the right attitude in our relationship to God. It doesn't mean we're not sure about what he tells us.

And while our goal should be to arrive at some level of certainty about something, that certainty should be based on what God has told us, rather than being sure of ourselves or our own ideas while having no assurance from God.

[CV75]

That's my point. They are not evil or good, but many in stage 3, not understanding the process, see evil in those who question or balk at the community's story, and those in stage 4 see those in stage three as sinister and forcing them to not explore their faith.

How can anyone in either stage 3 or 4, having the power of such discernment, be neither evil nor good (in this case, in his asessment of others)?

[CV75]

...while having no assurance from God.

Well, I did use the word "faith."