Judgement is a Choice

There is a great debate in the world today revolving around the individual's ability to make and act on deeply personal choices about morality.  This debate involves all aspects of the issues from what is right or wrong to whether or not we even have a right to make those distinctions.  Undoubtedly religion is thrown into this mix, predominantly because it is often considered a source of truth for all things moral to those who profess to adhere to the precepts of the faith.  

It is a very straightforward argument to defend the immoral, degrading, unjust, and uncivilized action of the thief, or the violent drunkard.  What may be less obvious are the implication of dishonesty, covetousness, lasciviousness, or self-aggrandizement.  In recent weeks, the Christian community (at large) has attacked and been attacked (verbally, etc.) regarding these very issues.  They have been very outspoken against certain lifestyles and personal choices.  Their opposition, in turn, retaliates by invoking certain principles of the professed faith that would render the aforementioned argument unjust; not in principle per se, but in implementation.

One side of the aisle states that we should not judge anyone.  That God loves (see other writings for discussion on the perspective of love) everyone regardless of the choices they make (and we should too), that we should love our neighbor with a good kindly love and that we should be accepting of others as we would want to be accepted (Luke 6:27-45).  

While the other side states emphatically that truth exists, is eternal and reigns supreme.  It is believed that righteousness exists and that those who continue to refuse to live in harmony with revealed truth are an offense to God who will, at His good pleasure, curse them in this life and cast them off forever in the life to come (Jude 1:10-13, Matt. 25:41 (41-46), Rom 13:1-2, etc.).

Each has a valid defense to a defenseless argument (paradox intended).  They circle around the truth yet never enter in.  Both sides are right and both sides are wrong as they dance around the doctrines, highlighting those that would establish their point and undermining those which would refute.  If we can truly come to terms with the implications of this debate and honestly, with sincere intent for justice, follow it's natural, implied course, we will elevate ourselves above what either originally sought.  Concessions must be had on either side though the exercise will make use stronger, more resilient, and infinitely more civilized.  If we are humble enough to see it.

It is given to us to judge.  We make judgements every day.  Our judgements guide us in many of our thoughts, our actions, beliefs, attitudes, etc..  These judgements are no more than personal interpretations of our various stimuli (verbal, visual, physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, social, political, etc.) which we are consistently subjected to and bombarded with.  They are our choices.  Our decisions.  Without these judgements, these decisions or choices, we would lose, in part, the great individuality and character which is ours to claim.

We are not to pass judgement.  It is not for man, to condemn man.  All consignment, for good or for bad, comes from above.  Mankind has the ability to judge based on behaviors, observable acts, which judgements may give us brief, limited insights into the situational individual though give no indication as to the origin or destination.  People change, including you.

We have been gifted a moral agency, divinely endowed (D&C 101:78), which is strengthened, weakened, confused, or neglected each time we encounter decisions of moral significance (John 7:24, Moro. 7:14-19).  These decisions, collectively, are the most intimate, personal aspects of our existence.  They truly are the only facet of life for which we have complete control, and likewise, they are the only facet of our existence for which we hold complete individual accountability.  That being said, it is requisite with the justice of God that mankind have the opportunity to exercise their moral agency, in the definition of their individual character, without impeding upon social justice or the just expression of conscience.

Each side of the aisle should be allowed to live their lives with these abilities firmly safeguarded.  Each living with love and kindness in their hearts (or not; that's moral agency), all the while holding firmly (or weakly) to truths they believe to be self-evident.  People disagree.  Disagreement, or a desire not to participate is not, in and of itself, an injustice; it's life.