There’s a scripture you are probably familiar with: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). From the Wayment translation: “Do not judge so that you may not be judged.” Seems pretty straightforward. It defines a clear position in Christian ethics, distinguishing one aspect of the Christian approach to living from the stereotypical depiction of Pharisees in the New Testament as judgmental hypocrites. (That’s probably unfair to the actual historical Pharisees, but that’s not the point of my post.) You might think Mormons would have no problem getting on board with this clear ethical imperative from Jesus. Well, you would be wrong.
Here is the paragraph in the current Come Follow Me — Individuals and Families manual for Matthew 6-7 (Feb. 25 – Mar. 3) commenting on this passage from Matthew. The paragraph is titled “I should judge righteously”:
In Matthew 7:1, the Savior may seem to be saying we should not judge, but in other scriptures (including other verses in this chapter), He gives us instructions about how to judge. If that seems puzzling, the Joseph Smith Translation of this verse might help: “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment” (in Matthew 7:1, footnote a). What do you find in Matthew 7:1–5, along with the rest of the chapter, that helps you know how to “judge righteous judgment”?
Jesus seems to be saying we should not judge? No, that’s exactly what he said. The exegetical misreading here is so brazen it boggles the mind. It’s as if the manual were to take the clear statement in Exodus 20:13, “Thou shalt not kill,” and say: In this scripture, God seems to be telling us not to kill, but clearly there’s a lot of killing going on in the Old Testament, so what God is really saying is the we should not kill unrighteously. We should kill righteous killing. That’s what God really meant. We should kill righteously.
Just to show how far off center LDS moral thinking is, there are probably a lot of LDS who would nod their head at this and say, “Yes, that makes sense. That’s why it was such a good thing that Nephi killed Laban. That was a righteous killing, with the Holy Ghost whispering in his ear and all that.” That was more or less the response I got last week on a recent thread at BCC, a relatively progressive LDS blog that doesn’t generally leap to the defense of, say, murderers. This LDS fingers-crossed-behind-my-back approach to obedience, the idea that there’s always an exception that applies to Mormon flaunting of clear ethical directives, is just so hypocritical.
Guess what? The whole flaw with this “I’m so righteous so it’s okay for me to judge others” approach is spelled our right in the same text in Matthew: “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matt. 7:3). Here’s the Wayment translation: “Why do you look at the splinter in the eye of your brother or sister and do not consider the log in your own eye?” The point here is that if you think you are judging righteously, that’s because there is a log in your eye confounding your vision. Our moral vision just isn’t good enough most of the time to pull that off. That’s why you ought to do as Jesus suggests and just stop judging others.
So a couple of questions for discussion. First, what is wrong with LDS moral thinking? How is it that all the talk about choosing the right and keeping the commandments never really penetrates the Mormon psyche? It just flies out the window whenever it conflicts with an institutional imperative (here, the need to impose boundary maintenance through judging your neighbor). And no one bats an eye.
Second, and here is the real problem, how does bad exegesis and worse thinking still get into our brand new, just-published-this-year curriculum manual? Who is writing this crap? A freshman who wrote that paragraph in an essay in Philosophy 101 would get a D. It’s like a teenager explaining to his parents that he stole something from the store “because he really needed it,” as if that makes it okay. I’m hoping most parents, even most LDS parents, can see through that sort of argument. Whoever wrote the manual can’t. I thought putting President Uchtdorf in charge of curriculum was going to induce some positive change. If Uchtdorf can’t do it, no one can. The curriculum — and the whole LDS teaching apparatus that goes with it — just seems hopelessly misguided at this point. One is better off not reading anything the Church publishes these days. This manual takes away from, rather than adds to, one’s understanding of the scriptures.
Wheat & Tares 
This is another example of the old advice that if the scriptures conflict with modern day prophets, you choose modern day prophets. of course that is very convenient.
Probably a lot of this has to do with the JST for the passage: “Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.” Which makes sense given that Jesus is a rather judgmental sort – particularly to the Pharisees – in the NT. Given Wayment’s work on the JST and Clarke’s Bible Commentary it’s worth quoting it here as well.
“Judge not, that ye be not judged – These exhortations are pointed against rash, harsh, and uncharitable judgments, the thinking evil, where no evil seems, and speaking of it accordingly. The Jews were highly criminal here, and yet had very excellent maxims against it, as may be seen in Schoettgen. This is one of the most important exhortations in the whole of this excellent sermon. By a secret and criminal disposition of nature, man endeavors to elevate himself above others, and, to do it more effectually, depresses them. His jealous and envious heart wishes that there may be no good quality found but in himself, that he alone may be esteemed. Such is the state of every unconverted man; and it is from this criminal disposition, that evil surmises, rash judgments, precipitate decisions, and all other unjust procedures against our neighbor, flow.
For with what judgment – He who is severe on others will naturally excite their severity against himself. The censures and calumnies which we have suffered are probably the just reward of those which we have dealt out to others.”
Note how the JST follows Clarke here for the most part. I’d add that I believe this is also one of those places where many see an echo between Christ and Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Gamaliel’s teachings. (You can see Gamaliel in action in Acts 5:38-9) In particular Rabbi Hillel taught, “judge not your neighbor until you are in his place.” (Avot 2:5) This was an implication of Hillel’s Golden Rule which Christ appropriated. So in Shaar HaAvnavah 5:10 there’s a commentary on Hillel’s rule to judge not saying, “This is an important principle to follow for the continuance of peace and love between people, since most disputes result from people judging themselves one way and others a different way. So [Hillel] cautioned: ‘Judge not your fellowman until you come into his place,’ until you put yourself in his place. For example, if someone verbally abused you, because of something you did to him, do not answer back until you consider how you would act if places were reversed. Would you have yelled at him even worse than he did at you?” (The Life and Teachings of Hillel, 320)
So I’m not sure I buy your exegesis, especially given how similar Christ’s sayings are to Hillel here.
So Clark, you are endorsing the statement in the manual that in Matthew 7 Jesus is giving us instruction on how to judge our neighbor rather than telling us not to judge our neighbor?
As someone who has been looking into other Christian theological interpretations, I have to say: the re-reading of this scripture to being about judging “righteously” is not just an LDS move…That Come Follow Me exegesis could have come from any conservative Protestant source.
Clearly, there are a lot of scriptures that certainly seem to be advocating for doing actions that could be considered judging…to correct, chastise, etc., Either the term ‘judge’ must be used in a limited sense here, or other scriptures kinda fall apart. It’s not just a Mormon move to say that “judge” is defined in Matthew 7:1 in a more limited sense…
Dave, I think Jesus is mostly just following the wisdom of Hillel and Gamaliel here, as he does in many of his more ethical pronouncements (as opposed to apocalyptic pronouncements) Many things that people take as somehow unique to Jesus are simply part and parcel of the strain of less zealous Pharisee ethical teaching. Most books on Jesus’ Jewish background will go through this. Although I would strongly urge reading up on Hillel, particularly some of his approaches to ethics and exegesis which Jesus frequently follows. Now some argue that Jesus does go more radically extreme than Hillel on some matters. (This is frequently brought up in the discussion of the hard sayings of Jesus on topics like divorce) So the debate over Matt 7 on judgment is usually the debate about whether Jesus is following Hillel (which is how the JST takes it) or whether this is one of the radical hard sayings of Jesus.
The traditional problem of taking this as a hard saying and thus an extreme saying is that it would be contradicted by a statement a few sentences later. There Jesus says, “Beware of false prophets…ye shall know them by their fruits.” (7:15-16) So he’s demanding that people judge. How do you deal with the contradiction? The second contextual clue is that in the allegory he gives after giving the directive the focus is on hypocrisy – exactly like the discussion in Hillel. We also know that the Talmud uses pretty similar examples. This strongly indicates that Jesus is quoting a common bit of wisdom from the Pharisee tradition.
When viewed through the admonitions that with whatever judgement we meet out, we will be in turn judged; as well as the Lord’s Prayer asking that our trespasses be forgiven as we forgive others their trespasses; and that we forgive others 70×7 times; I think it is safe to say that those who think they can judge righteously will find that, when they are judged, they weren’t quite as precise as they supposed they were.
It’s pretty obvious that Jesus tells us not to judge others, and then later in the same chapter, how to judge others. So what’s with the overly dramatic anti-LDS hyperbole? Do you have some grudge against the LDS or are you just being a judgmental ass?
Dave, your post strikes me as rather judgy itself. Also, not only is there a lot of scholarly and non-scholarly discussion complicating the command to not judge, there is probably more on discussion complicating the command to not kill. Neither are LDS only discussions.
So, what else did Jesus say in that very moment?
Matthew 76 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
And then in John 7;24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
So here is this same Jesus telling us to judge, but to make sure that it is a righteous judgment. He surely seems to be telling us again to not be fooled by appearances, though.
Doctrine and Covenants 88:124 says in part “cease to find fault one with another;”
This adds a bit of nuance to the blog. We should not be going out looking to find fault one with another. We should get that beam out of our eyes. We should look for the good in others and promote that good. yet, there are times when we must make a judgment. Life is filled with choices that we need to make, to choose good path and eschew the evil path. Choices are necessary. Choices are judgments.
But we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves. But I did not wait until I was perfect to try to teach my children not to judge a person by the color of their skin, the outward appearance. And things like that.
Glenn
I found this address by Dallin H Oaks on the subject of judging very interesting.
Click to access Oaks_Dallin_1998_03.pdf
Wow. You are scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to be critical about. Any close reading of Matthew 7 reveals the apparent contradiction within the chapter between the instruction not to judge and (a) the mote and the beam and (b) knowing false prophets by their fruits. Clark has already covered (b), but the manual is also obviously referring to (a). If casting the mote out of your brother’s eye is symbolic of judging, then the last statement of the parable seems to contradict the first, since it seems to approve of a person, newly liberated from the plank sticking out of their eye, helping his brother get the speck out of his eye (ie, judging).
So the new questions are:
1) Did Dave B even read the passage in question before casting dispersions on the Church for addressing an apparent contradiction in Jesus’ teachings?
2) How big a problem is it for Wheat & Tares, whose less thoughtful contributors tarnish the reputations of its more scholarly contributors, that Dave B has published this pretentious criticism without apparently consulting any other scholar or expert on the passage in question?
3) Does Dave B even recognize the irony of writing such a highly judgmental rant on how we should, categorically and without exception, not be judgmental.
Maybe it’s humor? “Judge not that ye be not judged” seems impossible to the point of silliness. It’s not a compliment to say someone “lacks judgment.” Can you imagine even trying to never judge anyone? You’d be lucky to survive a week. Of course, by saying it’s silly, I don’t mean it’s unimportant. Trying to squint past the lumber in your own eye to take a speck out of someone else’s eye is also a deeply silly image. And this from the same Jesus who gave us the images of mustard shrubs as “trees” so big that all the birds nest in them, and of trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle. In the context of the teaching that follows, that you’ll be judged the same way you judge others, maybe this is silliness for emphasis. It’s the absurd extreme of the idea that if you judge others generously, God will judge you generously: in fact, the loophole if you don’t want to be judged at all is simply to do no judging yourself!
An example of when one might need to judge is when hiring someone to watch/babysit your children. You obviously need to determine if a candidate is competent, safe etc. But we ought not judge from afar whether someone is headed toward the telestial or celestial kingdom etc.
Dsc, I think it inappropriate to question someones sincerity. And we can all be nice – remembering the council in the chapter we’re talking about. Motes, beams and so forth.
This admonition not to judge is clearly referring to functioning as a judge who separates, condemns, assigns punishment, etc., and not to something like discernment or judging whether or not an MLM is a scam. We have to step back and take the text (Matthew) as a whole, and the consistent theme is that if we seek forgiveness and mercy, we had better not condemn others. If we seek to sit in the seat of judgement, we will find it already occupied, and He who sits there would, I assume, not easily relinquish it to a usurper.
The letter of James utilizes many of the themes contained in Matthew’s Gospel. I think it would be beneficial to consider his comments in James 2:1-13. They aren’t ambiguous and are in the spirit of Matthew 7:1, I think.
While I agree that the manuals could be improved (and I have long complained at their poor quality), I did think Dave’s last paragraph was rather harsh. Daniel Peterson was on the Correlation Committee and complained how difficult it was to improve the manuals: https://mormonheretic.org/2011/11/26/daniel-peterson-talks-candidly-about-correlation/
DSC, “2) How big a problem is it for Wheat & Tares, whose less thoughtful contributors tarnish the reputations of its more scholarly contributors, that Dave B has published this pretentious criticism without apparently consulting any other scholar or expert on the passage in question?” Not a problem at all. As our “About” section states, we are an eclectic group, and we blog about random stuff. Believe it or not, us permabloggers still generally like and respect each other, even when we disagree or critique each other’s arguments. That’s why I like blogging at Wheat and Tares.
What think ye of this?
I bought and lived in a house on the east bench in Salt Lake for a few years. We had more folks on the ward missionary committee than non-LDS people in the ward boundaries. My next door neighbor was one of the prime targets for missionary work and I was assigned to share the gospel message with him.
Some of the periwinkle from my side yard had invaded his flower garden. I offered to dig it all out if he could wait until fall since I wanted to transplant it to another place . He showed no interest in gardening and agreed. One late but still hot August Sunday I noticed his new, hot, young live-in girl friend was out digging in the flower garden when I came home from church. She was wearing a pair of cheeky shorts and a tank top shirt. I put on a pair of long levis and t-shirt. I went out armed with a shovel to rescue the periwinkle and give her some help. Hey, the ox was in the mire. Her boyfriend sat laughing and sipping beer in the shade.
I think they were surprised to see me work on the Sabbath, it was the kind of neighborhood where most people didn’t do that sort of thing. The sweat soaked her cloths. Then she pulled her shirt off and continued to work topless. I sensed this was a test of some kind. I looked at her boyfriend and then pointing to the mighty Wasatch mountains, I said to him: there sure is some mighty fine scenery around here. He choked on his beer and almost fell off his chair laughing so hard.
Many neighbors happened by and gawked at us. They couldn’t see him from the street. I ignored them and chatted with her while we worked as if everything was entirely normal. I stayed until the job was done, she helped me plant the rescued periwinkle and we went into our respective houses.
I was released from the assignment to share the gospel with him the next week. He seemed much more friendly towards me after that. Eventually he told me he had been raised LDS and left the faith when he was about 15. He wanted to be deeply inactive and I honored that. I did not get his name moved from the missionary committee to the perfect committee.I treated his girlfriend as if she was his wife or partner.
So how does this scripture apply to me in this event?
Perhaps it comes down to semantics and the definition of judge. If we presuppose that judging is indicative of unnecessarily forming an opinion, then the directive may mean as Dave suggested. If, however, we use the term to mean “ judicious thinking” regarding necessary choices, then it seems the contextual definition of knowing who is prophet vs wolf etc. is the better rendition.
What strikes me is the obvious nature of the meaning, yet the manual places such high emphasis on the JST, as if trying to strengthen our faith and testimonies of the Prophet (never mind that we now know the commentary which JS used to give the “inspired translations”) because for some, the emphasis on the greatness of this (and other) inspired JSTs belie the validity of “ The most correct book on earth”, which quotes verbatim this verse of the non-altered KJV without the “inspired change”. Wouldn’t this type of emphasis lead one to ask basic questions of the production of the BofM, which questions would likely be counter to the goal the writers of the curriculum had in mind?
Last time I taught this, my take was similar to Cody Hatch: being told to never judge is a nearly impossible command, but we’re also told the measure that we in turn will be judged by. So as we fallen mortals execute imperfect judgment, we have to try to remember that the Perfect Judge will hold us to a high standard.
Mike: are we talking topless like TOPLESS, or did she have a sports bra or something on? This is very important to my reading of the scripture at hand.
Cody,
While I agree with the general sentiment that we are not to sit in final judgment of others or unnecessarily presume a position to mete out punishment or condemnation, even that admonition is not categorical. Jesus told the Twelve that they would sit with him on thrones and judge the tribes of Israel. There are also times that some are called on to punish others. Judges, jurors, arbitrators, teachers, coaches, parents, HR directors, etc., all have a duty to pass judgment. If we take this counsel as a categorical “do not pass judgment”, the we cannot act in these right and proper functions. If, however, we take this to mean we must be careful and exercise righteous judgment, and then only in the time, place and context that we are called on to do so, then we can follow this command even when we must act as judges.
Onandagus, I’d disagree with your characterization of the JST. While I think it clear that Joseph consulted Clarke’s Commentary as part of studying to receive revelation, the JST doesn’t simply follow the commentary. In many places it breaks from it. It’s somewhat ironic you say that’s the real source in a thread discussing in part how Jesus is largely following Hillel for a place people assume Jesus is just giving inspired teaching. If Jesus can do it, why can’t Joseph?
Thanks for the comments, almost everyone.
To all: Plainly “judge not” does not mean think not, or make no decisions, or teach no guiding principles to your children. It’s asking us to elevate our dealings with others by being kinder, not assuming the worst of people, and withholding judgment. Why is that directive so threatening to some people? Immanuel Kant gave the following formulation to his similar ethical imperative: Treat others as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. All humans have intrinsic moral worth and should be treated with some measure of decency. In most situations of daily life, that’s an attainable standard of conduct, not some pie-in-the-sky ideal. Would that we all acted this way.
Clark, thanks for your comments. If Jesus was really borrowing material from contemporaneous Pharisee teachers, that makes it doubly unfair that he (or more likely those who took certain liberties crafting their narratives two generations later) made the Pharisees out to be stereotypical moral bad guys.
Cody, I agree that those who think they can “judge righteously” are generally overestimating their ability in this regard. That seems like the whole import of the motes and beams metaphor.
Dsc, a wide variety of opinions and even snarky criticism is allowed, but not personal attacks on other commenters or on the poster. Sorry you can’t figure that out after multiple warnings.
Glenn, thanks for offering Doctrine and Covenants 88:124 that says in part “cease to find fault one with another.” That seems to be right up the same alley.
Mormon Heretic, I often reflect on Dan Peterson’s inability to get good historical background or context — which he is eminently qualified to author and contribute — past the Correlation censors who edited his lesson drafts. (This direct from him in an early Mormon Stories interview.) It epitomizes the failure of the LDS curriculum process to produce helpful or even informative curriculum materials.
Mike, what do I think? I think you probably have a lot of entertaining stories to share. I lead a dull and boring life by comparison.
Onandagus, I too have noticed how frequently the new CFM manual lessons are quoting the JST to make this or that point in a lesson. That is in line with the LDS article of faith that reads, “If the Bible and us have two different opinions, the Bible is wrong and we are right.”
There’s an exasperating ambiguity to certain concepts in Christianity such as “love” that create theological tensions down the road. For example, take a socially liberal/progressive’s take on “love” vs a socially conservative’s…for the former, it generally implies permissiveness, while for the latter, it implies discipline.
Thus, for any popular controversial subject (let’s say: same sex relationship), you get drastically different outcomes on what love looks like…to the liberal, it’s supporting same-sex marriage, tearing down societal and institutional discrimination, and challenging individual animus.
But for the conservative, love means something radically different. The expression I hear from so many conservative Christians in particular is “speaking the truth in love” — there is this idea that if the traditional ways are best/ordained by God/what have you, then the most loving thing you can do for your neighbor is to bring them to that truth — even if they don’t like it.
So, Dave, when you say:
Again, it’s a fundamental divide in how people see things. You don’t have to *see the worst in people* to interpret that the *kindest* thing you can do to and for them is to be strict, call out what you think is their error, and expect/demand them to change.
You say “All humans have intrinsic moral worth and should be treated with some measure of decency.”
I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. The thing is, “treat…with some measure of decency” is one of those exasperatingly ambiguous concepts. A non-Christian silver rule (“Do not do unto others…”) or platinum rules (“Do unto others what THEY would have done unto them”) either places a negative demand or focuses on the desires of others…but the Christian golden rule places a positive demand on treating others as *you*, the saved Christian, want to be treated. SO, if your Christianity happens to involve being reformed in Christ through your continual correction, repentance, etc., and this is part of what you see as the “Good News,” then it is not surprising that this is what you will share with others AS (and not in opposition to) “some measure of decency.”
Dave, in an essay about not judging others, skillfully demonstrates several techniques for that very thing:
“First, what is wrong with LDS moral thinking? “
Nothing. Moral thinking “just is”, neither right nor wrong. It becomes right or wrong in the eyes of a judge, which, as you explain, we are not to be.
“Just to show how far off center LDS moral thinking is”
There is no center in the absence of a judge. There is only your morality, which defines the center, or my morality, which defines the true center.
“How is it that all the talk about choosing the right and keeping the commandments never really penetrates the Mormon psyche?”
It penetrated mine just fine. I suppose that means I do not have whatever is a “Mormon psyche”.
“And no one bats an eye.”
Except you.
“Who is writing this crap?”
Susan, although I could be mistaken.
“One is better off not reading anything the Church publishes these days.”
Feel free to not read anything the Church publishes these days.
On the topic of judgement, i have encountered a great many times in my life persons who “weaponize” the “judge not” against their opponents.
The spirit of it is easy to understand; the LESS I judge you, reciprocated by you not judging me, the less friction we will have and the better we will get along. It has the same theme as turning the other cheek; but you have only two cheeks and once you’ve used them up you don’t have to continue endlessly turning the other cheek. Or so it seems to me. Your mileage appears to vary.
Dave it’s worth noting that our common treatment of the Pharisees as a unitary movement is wrong. Back when Hillel was the major figure his main opponent was Shammai. In certain ways they represented two very different strains of Pharisism. Hillel tended to worry about the poor and was more liberal in how he viewed adherence. Shammai tended to be more from the richer more trade oriented part of society yet was also much more strict in how he interpreted various requirements. Jesus as I mentioned tends in his ethical views to follow Hillel – although there are places where he didn’t. In a certain sense many of the pejorative presentations of Pharisaical views in the NT can be seen as arising out of Hillel’s difference from Shammai.
One should always be careful not to see the opposition as too absolute though. Paul for instance was a follower of Hillel’s grandson Gamaliel. You’d expect him to have that more charitable liberal view. Yet in practice, by his own words, he’s a zealot and thus more akin to the Shammai faction of things.
Anyway, I suspect that the NT writers were mostly writing to people familiar with the Pharisees. Much of their structure is now lost. We largely have echos from major figures due to their being quoted in the Talmud along with a few other things. But there’s also a lot we don’t know. We end up with a caricature of the Pharisees due to not having the full context to read the NT. Once you have that context, then how you read it really changes a great deal. There’s just a lot of the NT context we don’t know. We don’t know much about John’s movement for instance. We don’t know the relationship of John’s baptism, Jesus’ baptism and general merkvah traditions in Judaism. We don’t know how many significant movements there were at the time. We’re not sure if gnosticism pre-dates Christianity and becomes Christianized or not. There’s tons of questions that can change how we view the NT.
the other Mike asks “So how does this scripture apply to me in this event?”
It seems to me that you judged the situation in the totality of it, or near as can be known by anyone, rather than merely by appearances, although in your story it seems appearances were an important part .
The Apostle Paul writes about this in his counsel on the liberty of saints. 1 Corinthians 8
With some commentary here: https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/SNTS2002/garland.htm
The idea is that appearances sometimes matter.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865591437/Mormon-bishop-disguises-himself-as-homeless-man-to-teach-congregation-about-compassion.html
Mary Ann: My compliments on your comment re: this eclectic group. I couldn’t agree more. This too, is one of the reasons I read (and find solace) in the candid – sometimes wacky – things we mull over here. Long, slow clapping!!
Topless as in topless as when she was born. Topless as I was worried this part might get moderated.
It is hard to appreciate what it was like growing up in a predominant Mormon community in the last part of the 20th century and rejecting the church. The pressure was intense and anger could build to the bursting point. People so treated are capable of outrageous behavior if they think it will cause discomfort to the righteous.
I think I live a dull life except I tend to draw colorfulness out of situations.