Blogger of Jared

27 Responses to “What is Evil: A Response to J. Stapley”

Interesting thoughts.

I have a bit of a problem wrapping this all up. Part of this is because I have a hard time thinking in such striking absolutes. Th me life is just simply not black and white, good and evil. It seems that there are perhaps 5 or 6 things that are purely good, and maybe 7 or 8 things that are purely eveil, and everything else is some shade of gray. Perhaps I am wrong in this.

Might this be the reason that there will be degrees of glory?

Might this be the reason we are cautioned from being judgmental?

I would just be careful about going through life trying to define every little thing as either good or evil. Perhaps I am grossly overstating what you are saying here.

Comment # 1 left by Eric Nielson on July 20th, 2006

To me life is just simply not black and white, good and evil.

All things are either good or evil: “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.” (DC 93:24-25).

The differing degrees of glory have nothing to do with shades of gray, they have to do with the extent to which a person has aligned themself with eternal and absolute truth.

We are cautioned not to judge because we don’t have all truth and therefore cannot be just in our judgments; and because we ourselves seek mercy and should not seek to put others in the grasp of justice. (See Matthew 18:23-35).

Comment # 2 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

Well, I guess I must appologize for accusing you of being hyperbolic. Instead, you are simply wrong.
Example: We live in a pluralistic society where a diversity of religious belief is supported as a definate good. Joseph Smith was a huge supporter of the pluralistic society.

All things are either good or evil.

This is demonstrably false.

Comment # 3 left by J. Stapley on July 20th, 2006

J. I’m not going to say anything on one side or another because I’m not sure what I think about all of this, but if you are going to label something “demonstrably false” could you please demonstrate how your statement is true? I have seen you use this tactic before…you say something is wrong without giving reasoning for it. Not exactly helpful, if you know what I mean.

Comment # 4 left by mullingandmusing on July 20th, 2006

Well, I guess I must appologize for accusing you of being hyperbolic. Instead, you are simply wrong.

Classic.

Comment # 5 left by Ryan on July 20th, 2006

Wade,

You get yourself in trouble when you use imprecise language. For instance Stapley is right that your claming that “All things are either good or evil” is demonstrably false.

People are things. Societies are things. Yet people and societies are always some mixture of good and evil.

Grey is a real thing. It is acheived in printing by combining tiny black and white spaces. It is true that if you get granular enough there is no grey — only black and white. But when you step back and get less granular grey exists. That applies to good and evil too. It is true that everything can be called good or evil at a highly granular level, but people and their choices are always a mixture of both.

Comment # 6 left by Geoff J on July 20th, 2006

Like eric and m&m, I have come to no certain conclusion on Wade’s hypothesis….but:

Joseph Smith was a huge supporter of the pluralistic society

Do you think this was mostly a symptom of his hardline support of the free-agency principle or do you think it was because he felt that it was righteous to believe something other than the Gospel he was restoring?

You’ll recall that Joseph’s introduction to the restoration was, slightly paraphrased, “all other religions are an abomination (I take the word “abomination” here to mean “wicked”) before me”

How then could he label those same religions good?

Comment # 7 left by Ryan on July 20th, 2006

Geoff:

It is true that if you get granular enough there is no grey — only black and white. But when you step back and get less granular grey exists.

I agree with you! If fact, in the post, I even admitted my own life is a mixture of good and evil.

However, I was atttempting to discuss a definition of what evil in and of itself is as a concept or reality. In effect, I guess I was getting “granular”.

I acknowledge that grey exists, but that partitioned out, its component parts are either black or white.

Comment # 8 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

Diversity as an end, is evil because it does not allow for unity in truth.

Comment # 9 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

J:

Do you think Joseph believed that it was good for people not to be baptized by the proper authority??? After all, a religiously pluralistic society necessitates this.

I disagree. I think he would say the only real good would be for all to be of “one faith and one baptism”; or he would probably cite Ephesians wherein the purpose of the organization of the Church is to bring people to the “unity of the faith, no more tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine and cunning craftiness wherein they lie and wait to deceive.” etc.

Comment # 10 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

I love absolutes…
I like things clearly defined. I like knowing where I stand with whatever situation I face. Maybe it’s the satisfaction of accomplishment or the rush of the challenge that appeals so much to me. Heavenly Father is all about absolutes.
Jesus however, grades on a curve.
I know, I know this is the Man who said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” and many other scriptures that speak of one way and only one way of doing things. This sounds like I’m treading on dangerous, contradictory ground here.

Thankfully the fall of Adam helps me out.

The Garden of Eden must have been a wonderful place. A place where birds and butterflies danced to good music that was never off key. A place where the Father would walk. A place where everything was GOOD, as Wade put it, because it obeyed the Father. It must have been like Celestial Kingdom South. Can good be defined by something that has the power to do evil? If it’s good, its good right?

Not necessarily. It depends on its future actions.

Justice must rest on absolutes. The law is black and white. The rules governing the Kingdom are clearly defined. It’s at this moment that truth shines its most bright.
But it’s mercy where the glory of Him shines the most.
I have a hard time coming to terms with… “Simply stated, it is my belief that something is evil if it detracts from, or in any way thwarts the purpose of another thing’s existence.”
That kind of absolute labeling is incorrect because of its lack of definition. I, by my actions can act evilly. But my next action can label me as not evil, therefore good.
‘All things are either good or evil: “And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.” (DC 93:24-25).’
All things are either good or evil? Or are we talking about the truth about the gospel and the nature of God himself.

The truth about Okie is simple. I was created good. I learned the truth that shaped my eternal spirit to make a choice that brought me here. I am advancing faster than some and slower than some. I do good. I do evil. I fall short. I continue to advance to a heavenly reward that only varies because of my decisions here on earth and my relationship with Christ. I am Good, unless I decide to be evil I believe.

“Thus, a person is not all good until he is like God — or at least in harmony with God through Christ.” No unclean thing may enter right?
If we are enrolled into Exaltation 101 after judgment and are once again learning at the foot of our Father, who knows how long it will take to learn all that he knows are become all that he is. It’s eternity after all. But no “Not quite good yet” people will be there, only good ones. I get what your saying Wade, I just think it’s worded a little to cut and dry.

Maybe I don’t like absolutes all that much.

Comment # 11 left by OKIE on July 20th, 2006

if you are going to label something “demonstrably false” could you please demonstrate how your statement is true?

Ok. The statement was:

All things are either good or evil.

To demonstrate that this is false we can look at examples. Uranium. Uranium exists. It can be used for good purposes like making power and or armor piercing artillery shells. This can be also bad (evil? I am not sure) as it creates toxic waste. Uranium can also be used to make nuclear missles. Are nuclear missles evil? What if they prevent war?

Example: Money. Is money good or evil? Or is it neither? I use money to elleviate the suffering of an individual. If it is not evident that money, in this case was good then I likely cannot demonstrate any moral judgement. What if I use the money for crack? Is the money evil?

Ryan: How then could he label those same religions good?

Perhaps the same way Gordon B. Hinckley does.

wade: I think he would say the only real good would be for all to be of “one faith and one baptism”;

So is a pluralistic society not a real good?

It seems to me that you are talking about “ends” instead of reality. In reality, Zion is fled. Zion is good. Really good. But, you seem to be saying that anything less than Zion is evil. In the absence of Zion I am quite certain that there are concepts of “good” government that will not be seen in Zion. You say that diversity as an end is evil. I say that it is pretty good, becasue if it were not, then our faith would be destroyed. Is there better stuff. Sure, Zion is better.
If it is so much better, why don’t we have it?

Comment # 12 left by J. Stapley on July 20th, 2006

Okay, let me amend “the statement”:

I should say all things that act are either good or evil in any specific action. So, those who love diversity for diversity’s sake are engaging in an evil act.

Sure, Zion is better.
If it is so much better, why don’t we have it?

Because we are evil.

Comment # 13 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

I think the quote is “Carnal, sensual, and devilish.”

Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

Comment # 14 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

I should say all things that act are either good or evil in any specific action. So, those who love diversity for diversity’s sake are engaging in an evil act.

So, now we have a definition that says only (sensient?) actions are good or evil. I think that there are many actions that are neither, but this is at least something closer to reality.

Accordingly, diversity itself is not evil. Wanting diversity more than Zion is. If this is all you are saying then your position is supportable. But if it is your position it is not very perspicuous.

Comment # 15 left by J. Stapley on July 20th, 2006

Joseph Smith’s conception of the kingdom of God actually included religious diversity. His ruling council, the Council of 50 (which was to take government of the Earth under the authority of Jesus Christ), was designed to specifically include non-Mormons. This wasn’t an institution designed as a compromise with the current world; it was, instead, conceived of as the first organizational trace of the next stage in this world’s history.

If the millenial kingdom of God can include people of diverse religious perspectives in its government, then it seems to me that diversity is not an evil goal. Without diversity, there can be no choice or agency.

Comment # 16 left by RoastedTomatoes on July 20th, 2006

Wanting diversity more than Zion is [evil]. If this is all you are saying then your position is supportable. But if it is your position it is not very perspicuous.

Of course this is what I was saying. My exact statement was: Diversity as an end (i.e. those who love diversity and seek to promote it for its own sake) is evil because unity in truth can never be achieved.

But again, I take full credit for not making my point clearly. One of my motives for blogging is practicing to make my point/arguments more clear.

Thanks for being willing to engage me.

Comment # 17 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

And alas, because my point is supportable, I was not being hyperbolic.
Even though I may have been a bit unclear.

Comment # 18 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

Hey, J. thanks for the clarifications. I’m still mulling, so I have nothing to add, but just wanted to thank you.

Comment # 19 left by mullingandmusing on July 20th, 2006

I think maybe it would be beneficial to come back to a common understanding of the definition of good evil, yes?

Wade says:

Good = Filling the measure of creation (and helping others to do the same?)
Evil = Not filling the measure of creation and preventing others from filling theirs.

If this is the case, a difficulty in determining what is exactly evil (besides the obvious ones) is the fact that we don’t really know what the measure of everyone’s creation is. Right? We don’t know precisely what the Father’s plan for each person is.

The effects of diversity may or may not aid in filling the measure of the Nigerian bushman Mikembe Ditombo’s creation.

I think this may help toward finding the balance between Wade’s position and J.’s

Yes, there are absolutes in good and evil. For us to try and define these (as Geoff says) on the granular level, is to deceive ourselves into believing that we have the remotest idea of what God has planned for each of his children. We can only afford to take the macro view and realize that the gray areas are a symptom of our mortal idiocy.

God has/does give us all the black&whites we need to concern ourselves with.

Comment # 20 left by Ryan on July 20th, 2006

My two cents:

While, on a societal level, it is useful and appropriate to label certain actions as good and certain actions as evil I have noticed a paradox common to the most Christlike people I have known: they focus with extraordinary devotion and precision on allowing the Spirit to sanctify them–and they care very little about the good and evil in others. Love, not judgment, toward others defines the Saints. That being said, classification of agents (”all things that act”) seems to me beside the point.

Comment # 21 left by tyler on July 20th, 2006

a difficulty in determining what is exactly evil (besides the obvious ones) is the fact that we don’t really know what the measure of everyone’s creation is. Right?

Wrong. The measure of all human beings is eternal life (i.e. Godhood).

God has said: “And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe“. (DC 29:43).

It would be unjust for God to have differing plans for each of his children (e.g. to assign them to different destinies or fates).

We don’t know precisely what the Father’s plan for each person is.

Of course we do.

Yes, there are absolutes in good and evil. For us to try and define these (as Geoff says) on the granular level, is to deceive ourselves into believing that we have the remotest idea of what God has planned for each of his children.

We don’t have the remotest idea of what God has planned for us? Then, why be motivated to receive it? It could be hell itself. Sure, we might not comprehend the complexities and ultimate realities, but we do know it will be spiritual fulfillment (pieces of which we have experienced in this life).

Should we just give up in our quest to understand the granular? I think not! Indeed, “it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.”

Comment # 22 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

That being said, classification of agents (”all things that act”) seems to me beside the point.

But isn’t the purpose of life to learn to be able to discern between good and evil? And to judge accordingly so that we may know how to sanctify ourselves?

Alma said to his son Corianton: “Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again.”

So I would disagree; I think it’s fundamentally important to constantly judge the agents about us (not to condemn them as actors, but to discern their acts as good or evil). This is why Moroni taught us to “seek diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil” (Moroni 7:19).

He taught us to be diligent so we don’t make errors of judgment. “see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.” (Id. verse 18).

Comment # 23 left by Wade on July 20th, 2006

Are we to judge acts or actors? Actors cannot be categorized, it seems to me, since we nearly all sometimes act like angels and sometimes as devils. As far as judging acts, it is is always so difficult to knoe whether a person had acted correctly or not because we do not know what is within the person’s heart; we do not know the action’s antecedents; we do not know the whole story–or, usually, even close. Jacod teaches, “The Keeper of the Gate is the Holy One of Israel and He employeth no servant there.”

It just seems to me that love, not judgment, ought to define our relations with others. The Spirit, meanwhile, will impel our own actions and, on those occasions where judgment is necessary, make the necessary distinctions clear.

Comment # 24 left by tyler on July 21st, 2006

I agree with you Tyler. This is why I said we shouldn’t “condemn them as actors, but [should] discern their acts as good or evil. This is why Moroni taught us to ’seek diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil’” (Moroni 7:19).

It is absurd to think that anyone but God can accurately judge a person’s motives or heart.

But I think a close read into what Moroni teaches reveals that we are to discern what is good and evil. And, according to my definition of good and evil, this necessitates judging the actions of others.

There is a distinct difference between condemning someone for their actions and making a personal note about whether their actions are good or evil.

Often I teach my oldest daughter about right and wrong based upon what others do. When someone acts out in a good way, I praise their actions in front of my daughter; when someone acts out in an evil way, I (privately) explain to my daughter that the action was wrong.

The Church does this with its membership as well. For example, last week the sunday school lesson was about Solomon (at least in my ward). The manual states: “Suggest that class members look for incidents that show the gradual decline of Solomon.” In other words, the purpose of the lesson was to learn how to discern evil by studying the life of Solomon and his eventual fall. The manual states further: “Emphasize that we should look for his flaws not to judge him, but to learn from his mistakes.” (Emphasis added)

True, we shouldn’t be judging people’s hearts and standing before God! I fully agree! But, we clearly are to judge the actions of others.

Comment # 25 left by Wade on July 22nd, 2006

Wade–

I ceratinly agree judgment had a place. In the end, I suppose, the questions is one of emphasis. AS long as love permeates our appraisal of others–even when that appraisal includes judgment–I think such analysis is appropriate.

Comment # 26 left by tyler on July 22nd, 2006

Tyler:

I couldn’t have said it better; I’m in complete agreement. Thanks for your insight.

Love is definitely the most important factor/characteristic we could ever aspire to obtain.

Comment # 27 left by Wade on July 22nd, 2006

Post a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail