I’ve been quite busy recently and unfortunately haven’t had the time to blog, but this question has been getting quite a bit of air time lately, so I thought I’d chime in. Normally I keep things focused on a purely academic look at ancient Judaism and Christianity, but I think this can be approached academically, and it has bearing on questions of religious identity in antiquity and today. Jim West addressed the question most recently among bibliobloggers. He had this to say:
Viewed from the perspective of historic, orthodox Christianity, the answer is an irrefutable yes, it is. But why is it so deemed? Two reasons, primarily:
1- It devalues the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. He is not, for Mormons, THE Unique Son of God- he is merely one of many sons and daughters of God. For orthodox Christians, Jesus is the Son of God in a particular and profound way. And while all those who have faith are the children of God, they are not ‘in the same league’ as Jesus.
And
2- It asserts a secondary revelation, absent from Scripture, claimed to be equal to Scripture (the so called ‘Book of Mormon’). For orthodox Christians Scripture is ‘complete’ and secondary accretions are both unnecessary and unwarranted and therefore illegitimate. Further, numerous claims in the book of Mormon contravene the teaching of Scripture. That fact alone is sufficient reason to disregard its views.
Now, that said, it must also be said that there are certainly adherents of the Mormon faith who are authentic Christians. But how can this be? Simply put, there are Mormons as unfamiliar with the intricacies of Mormon doctrine as there are Baptists and Catholics and Methodists utterly bereft of any comprehension of the doctrinal views of their particular denominations. We are not saved, however, by our doctrine- we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ.
So, yes, there are Mormons who are authentic Christians even though their particular faith perspective on the whole fails to measure up to Christian orthodoxy. And there are Baptists and Catholics and even Methodists and Presbyterians and Anglicans and Episcopalians (!) in the fold of Christ as well. Just as there are members of those denominations outside the faith because they don’t truly trust Christ for salvation.
We should all give thanks to God that our purity of doctrinal comprehension isn’t the basis for our salvation. Were that the case, salvation would itself be lost because then it would depend on us (and on our views) and not on Christ, who died for us.
Now, while I understand where Jim is coming from with his two points, I have concerns with it. Obviously we’re not going to arrive at a consensus about this, and I mean Jim no disrespect, but I don’t think his position here is well thought out.
First, what is his definition of the word “cult” and whence does it come? Normally with this kind of question I find that the definition is secondary to the compartmentalization effected by whatever sectarian concerns an individual might prioritize. In other words, I don’t like groups X, Y, and Z, for any given reason associated with my idea of orthodoxy, so I group them, find a common denominator, and label them a cult. What is a cult? Whatever common denominator I find. Jim gives a broad definition in one of the comments that fits into this observation:
‘cult’ in the present context merely means ‘deviation from the norm’ – the norm being orthodox christianity.
This is about as broad as it gets, and it leaves the door open for any deviation from an artificial “norm” to qualify a group as a cult. You’re a covenant theologian? Well, orthodox Christianity is dispensationalist. You’re in a cult. Catholicism is sometimes accused of being a cult along these lines. Each person gets to decide on what does and does not define orthodox Christianity, and what is and is not critical enough to merit the “cult” designation, and those criteria usually just align with the ideologies of whatever group a person isn’t supposed to like.
Additionally, this paints any “deviation from the norm” with a quite pejorative and loaded brush. The word “cult” is very clearly associated in the minds of modern English speakers with social deviancy, violence, etc. The term arose in modern parlance (etymologically it just refers to any religious system) in reference to ostensibly socially deviant religious and quasi-religious groups that stole middle and upper class young adults from conservative friends and family members in the sixties and seventies. It became popularized in the seventies and eighties through the pseudo-scientific research carried out by a number of different “counter-cult” organizations (made up of those friends and family members). That research led in the eighties and nineties to lots of illegal and otherwise morally questionable activities on the part of counter-cultists that eventually led to numerous lawsuits. The widespread collapse of that movement occurred when government approbation was pulled after it was conclusively shown that the psychological and social detriments for which the movement said these groups were responsible were really not there. Some people still try to keep the movement going, but there’s a reason modern publications within the movement have a hard time finding research from after the mid-nineties to support their claims. I don’t believe it’s very responsible to use the word “cult” and pretend one does not mean to make associations with things like Jonestown and the Branch Davidians. If one doesn’t intend to make them then they should make that explicit if they insist on the word.
Jim’s concerns vis-à-vis historic, orthodox Christianity deal with additional scripture and the idea that Mormons don’t believe Christ is the “Son of God in a particular and profound way.” The value of the first point disintegrates the closer we get to first century Christianity, since the New Testament was not considered a closed canon for quite some time (it wasn’t part of the canon at all in the first century CE), and many books considered canonical by the early church were subsequently ejected (for instance, 1 Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, First Clement). Some books considered spurious in the early years were later added, as well (for instance, Revelation was first asserted to be canonical by Valentinus [Eusebius rejects it but says some accept it]. Clement of Alexandria was the first to recognize Jude. Sinaiticus was the first to include 2 Peter or James!). Jim is going from a perspective of a limited “historic, orthodox Christianity” in his first point. By this measure, the Christians of the first century might well call modern Christianity a cult.
His concern about the Latter-day Saint view of Jesus is a bit off-target, in my opinion. Latter-day Saints believe all human beings are spiritually begotten by divine parents and physically begotten by human parents. Jesus Christ, in Latter-day Saint ideology, is the Son of God in a “particular and profound way” in that he is the only person to have his spiritual father as his physical father. He was, and remains, literally the Son of God. That is very particular and profound in the LDS worldview and I don’t know any Latter-day Saint who would not be more than a bit surprised to hear someone insist otherwise. In fact, they might argue that their view is quite a bit more aligned with the meaning of the phrase “Son of God” than the idea of an eternal generation of a second person within a single being. That’s particular and profound in a way I don’t think existed prior to around the middle of the second century CE. This is a different view than that of our limited historic, orthodox Christian view, but were we to press the question of the nature of Christ’s sonship to first century Christians, we’d find just as much variation as we do between contemporary Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints. (The question of the manner in which God is Jesus’ physical father was once a popular speculation within Mormonism, but isn’t much anymore, despite the best efforts of anti-Mormons to canonize that speculation on the behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)
For these reasons, I don’t think it’s helpful to say Mormonism is a “cult.” I think it’s sectarian rhetoric that isn’t well reasoned, even if some people think it’s necessary. I have no problem with people believing Mormonism isn’t true or isn’t aligned with historic or orthodox Christianity. I do take issue with insisting it’s not Christian or that it’s a cult. I find it the result of sectarianism rather than insightful consideration.
Another take that I think falls along what I believe to be more thoughtful lines was provided today by Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary.
Daniel O. McClellan 
October 10th, 2011 at 9:10 am
danny thanks for you point of view. i really appreciate it. posting accordingly
October 10th, 2011 at 10:47 am
What happened to the sociological definition of a cult? Who gave these Protestants the authority to reject that definition and create their own? The proper definition of a cult “includes consideration of such factors as authoritarian leadership patterns, loyalty and commitment mechanisms, lifestyle characteristics, [and] conformity patterns (including the use of various sanctions in connection with those members who deviate).” (Enroth, Guide to Cults and New Religions, pg. 14). I am not a Mormon but am part of a small Christian group who are also falsely accused of being a cult. I’ve always found it quite odd when those outside of a religious movement claim to understand its doctrines and practices better than its members or leadership. Granted, not everyone who follows a certain belief system understand every nuance, but they should be given credit for understanding its foundational doctrines better than non-members. Those who adhere to what I’ll call the “true faith” have been the minority from the very beginning. Jesus himself made this point many times. (Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 13:24-29 and 36-43; Luke 18:8). As for “orthodoxy”, well, just because something is part of orthodoxy does not make it divine truth. It simply means that a consensus was reached by ballot or hand vote in accepting it as such, usually in some Roman Catholic church council. A few of those orthodox views were adopted by arm-twisting, cajoling or even through the influence of a king. Most Protestants are unaware that the Roman Catholic Church still considers them to be heretics (even though they now chose to use the politically correct phrase “separated brethren”) and destined for Hell. As I see it, the Evangelical movement has in recent years become the very image of the Roman Church – seeking supreme political power or ways to create a virtual theocracy or “Christian nation”, creating their own definition and rules of a “real” Christian or Christianity, condemning and passing final judgment upon those with whom they disagree particularly fellow believers, seeking to weaken, undermine or overthrow those with whom they disagree believing such to be consistent with God’s commands, not to mention self-righteousness and worldliness. Paul in 2 Tim 3:1-5 outlines the _global_ conditions of the “last days”. In verse 5 he is clearly referring to the majority (“orthodox believers”), not the minority (those with limited influence) otherwise it would not be seen as one of the defining characteristics throughout the earth during these “last days”. This is why so many non-believers are increasingly opposing them. They have become their own worst enemy, and I would argue have done more to turn non-believers away from Christ than any other group.
October 10th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Cult isn’t simply a sociological word. While Mormons can make a case that they’re not a cult based on an Evangelical’s claim of Christian provenance (this is merely semantics anyway), it can hardly be argued that it isn’t a “cult” by the social definition of the term. Sure, one could say all religions are a cult by definition, and that would be technically true. However, words change meanings all the time, and in our modern time the word cult tends to denote a fringe religious group engage in secrecy. This is where Mormonism breaks away and earns the label. I can’t tell you how many times I tried to get a Mormon to answer questions regarding the temple, only to be told it is too sacred to talk about. Further investigation leads me to testimonies of those who describe an extremely weird ritual where participants watch the same movie over and over and then rehearse a supposed soteriological event where those who earn exaltation get to pass through the “veil”, entering the highest heaven, but only after using the secret handshakes learned during their time on earth. Further investigation leads to information about how the required participants to swear to cut their own throat before speaking of the things in the temple – this was changed in the 1980’s.
So yes, I don’t see how anyone could realistically argue the Church isn’t a cult, or would be considered a cult by any reasonable American who came across this information. No wonder the Church tries its best to keep it secret. It probably realizes that if it were discussed openly then no one would ever join. Converts have to be gradually coaxed into the world of weirdness that is Mormonism. And the fact that Mormons are not permitted to even discuss these things openly, lends further credence to the charge of cultism.
October 10th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Really? “Secrecy?” What kind of definition of a cult is that? Who said respectable religious groups have to have everything open to the public? And isn’t “weirdness” subjective? These seem to be pretty arbitrary value statements. How can you assume they are standard enough to be definitive?
October 10th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I’ve never heard any of those claims and seriously doubt that they are true. It’s almost like the ridiculous claim that Freemasons are devil worshipers or that Jews put the blood of children in their pascal matzo. These theories only come from one segment of Protestant Christianity who have become enamored, almost mesmerized, with conspiracy theories. These kinds of stories say more about the teller than anything else.
October 12th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Alexander-
Thanks for the reply. I’m curious where you get your social definition. That’s not a definition found in Merriam-Webster or in the OED, nor have I seen it so defined, and I’ve read quite a bit of the associated scholarship. Additionally, this definition would render first century Christianity a cult. Christ insisted on secrecy in multiple places in the New Testament, and early Christians met and conversed in secret for quite some time. As far as weird goes, a flying and teleporting guy who tells his followers to symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood is also pretty weird.
October 10th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Interesting conversation 🙂 So Mormon beliefs can be untrue but (not least because they don’t fit the sociological definitions) are not a “cult”. For me this position raises the question of naming… should Jim have said that they are an “deviant Christian” group? Or what? What does one call people who claim to follow Christ, but do not accept key doctrines that have been hammered out (by whatever processes) in orthodox Christianity?
October 10th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
My answer is that he shouldn’t have condemned them at all. It’s not our place to judge our brother. God does not give us that authority, in fact Jesus forbids it. It is disturbing that Evangelical leaders have gotten into the habit of throwing around certain scriptures or interpretations as practically infallible. They are quick to call a certain group a cult but don’t seem to recognize that they are themselves behaving like a cult by claiming to have the only true interpretations and the authority to judge others as unfit to bear the name of Christ when there is still much debate over the authority of church councils and questions over how doctrines and creeds were formed. It’s not a settled question. What has happened is that judgment and condemnation has superseded love, forgiveness and acceptance. If one disagrees with doctrine then address the doctrine only. The Protestant movement was founded around the principles of sola scriptura and sola fide and as a result many of the founders of Protestant denominations chose to reject the authority of church councils – some rejected all of them while others rejected only some. This resulted in a variety of Protestant groups, from those who are nearly identical to Rome to those who have returned to the simplicity of first-century doctrine and practice rejecting all or nearly all of the creeds. Critical thought was encouraged, but once these groups formed their own creeds they fell back into doing the same thing they had earlier rejected by hedging themselves in and condemning anyone outside their circle – “us four and no more.” Some years ago I read the book “Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?” by David Bercot. It is very eye-opening. I would encourage you to find a copy.
October 12th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Thanks for the comments Tim. Your first sentence seems to imply that if a religious tradition is untrue, that qualifies it as a cult. Is that how you define the word “cult”? If so, doesn’t it then just come down to sectarianism? Everyone thinks they’re right, so everyone else is a cult? I don’t see how that’s helpful. As far as what Jim “should have said,” I don’t really see why Mormonism should be brought up at all, but why can’t they just be Latter-day Saint Christians? Why is it necessary to label them as “other” at all? Does that really make a worthwhile point? It just seems to be petty sectarianism to me. I really don’t care what my political candidates believe about Jesus or the end of the world, and I don’t understand why someone would.
Regarding orthodoxy, Orthodox Christians don’t accept key doctrines that have been hammered out by more mainstream Christian groups. Evangelical Christians don’t accept key doctrines that have been hammered out by Catholic Christians. Shoot, even within Evangelicalism there is quite a bit of disagreement regarding key doctrines that have been hammered out by others. None of them agree with key doctrines of the Christian groups of the first century. Why is it important for Evangelicals to marginalize Latter-day Saints for not being Evangelical enough?
October 25th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
[Disclosure: I was raised Mormon]
“What does one call people who claim to follow Christ, but do not accept key doctrines that have been hammered out (by whatever processes) in orthodox Christianity?”
As far as I know, they would be called “heretics.” (As for how the defining doctrines or creeds were hammered out, that would involve the several ecumenical councils… Nicaea being two of the most notable.)
“Heresy: Belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine. Opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted.”
Unfortunately, many make little distinction between “heresy” and “blasphemy.” In the strictest sense, only one necessarily carries with it a negative connotation.
All religions, by definition, are cults.
“Cult: system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.”
Christianity, in the plainest sense, is the cult of Christ.
More narrow definitions would include:
“• a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.”
Their member exceeds 13 million so I don’t know how relative they are intending “small group” to be. I’m not aware of any “sinister” element in Mormonism. At least no more so than any other highly conservative organized religious movement. However, depending on the extent of your understanding, “strange” might be an excusable adjective. It’s certainly subjective enough.
“• a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.”
I don’t believe Mormons are any more fanatical about their leadership than many other religious movements. The Mormon hierarchy is, in essence, a centralized theocracy. In form and function, it is very similar to Catholicism but contrary to outside belief, there is a measure of interpretive freedom among the general membership.
Honestly, I find this whole argument questioning the cult status of Mormonism meaningless if not self-defeating. If anything, they are heretical and compromise just one of many Christian heterodoxies. Variance has always defined the Christian movement. The founding creeds were an attempt to unify a diverse movement… a movement far more homogeneous today than it ever was in the few centuries leading up to Nicaea.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
I think it is silly to say Mormonism is a cult. Unless, of course, one’s definition of cult is any religious group that deviates from the Christology of Nicaea and Chalcedon (which seems to be the definition that many evangelicals use).
One of the above commenters was correct in saying that a cult is classically defined as a group exhibiting factors such extreme authoritarian leadership, loyalty and commitment mechanisms, lifestyle characteristics, and conformity patterns. From what I understand about mainstream Mormonism, it definitely can not be classified as a cult.
October 11th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
So, it’s not a cult, just a non-Christian religion?
October 11th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
A cult is a religious group with an authoritarian leader, who claims that eternal salvation is restricted to their group, often claiming some kind of divine inspiration, and makes excessive demands of the members while the leader lives in luxury. If any religion claims that they believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God and our savior that alone gives them the right to call themselves a Christian denomination, period. Full stop. The divinity of Christ is the only requisite here, not the dogmas, creeds, or confessions that the church has been arguing about for 1500 years. I have never seen any evidence that Mormonism is a cult (as previously defined), but if you insist on applying some kind of label, try something like “non-orthodox Christian fellowship.” In the end, only Jesus is the one who has the authority to say “I never knew you”, not us.
October 12th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
No, it’s a Christian religion. It’s not an Evangelical or a Nicean religion, but it’s certainly Christian. What leads you to believe it’s a non-Christian religion?
October 13th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
I’m happy with the oxymoron “non-orthodox Christian”, though I wonder a bit about the need to generate such monstrosities 😉
October 13th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Tim-
I’m curious what you find oxymoronic about “non-orthodox Christian.” It seems to me that one would have to import quite a bit of sectarianism into the word “Christian” to assert that it conflicts with the adjective “non-orthodox.” It was Christ, after all, who chided the apostles when they rebuked people who did good works in Jesus’ name but did not belong to their clique. In the New Testament Christ unequivocally emphasized the need for orthopraxy over orthodoxy when it came to following him.
October 13th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Tim, I concur – there _shouldn’t_ be a need to generate any such terms. But they have been generated for centuries. “If you don’t believe what I believe then you aren’t a Christian” or “if you don’t follow the X creed then you are not a Christian.” As Dan has pointed out in his other comments each segment of Christianity has their own beliefs of what is or is not “orthodox”, and it’s even more pronounced within Protestantism. It is wrong to insist that if someone does not agree with “my denomination” or creed X or dogma Y or confession Z they are unworthy of being called Christian. Must you believe in the Immaculate Conception to be a Christian? Of course not. Must you believe that the Pope is the visible head of the church? Of course not. Must you believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? Of course not. Must you believe in Hellfire to be a Christian? Of course not. Must you believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, the savior of mankind and actively seek to follow his example? Yes, absolutely! Disagreement over doctrine is another matter. But what makes someone – or some group – Christian is incredibly easy to define because there is only requirement.
October 15th, 2011 at 9:01 am
[…] (8) Richard Mouw says Mormonism is not a cult. Daniel O. McClellan addresses the same subject. […]
October 17th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Hmm, there are some of your “of courses” there that I find puzzling, how did you select them and their direction?
October 17th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Those listed were merely examples that came to mind when writing the reply. My main point is that one’s Christianity is not defined by his doctrine nor to his assent or dissent of any creed or confession nor even membership or rejection of any particular denomination. It is based solely upon his belief in the role of Jesus Christ as the incarnate son of God, the savior of mankind and attempts to follow his example, no matter how said group interprets such example. Why? Because the church has been arguing about doctrine for over 1500 years. While there is some consensus it is by no means universal. There is very little that all agree upon. It is not our responsibility to call anyone a cult and judge them as unworthy of claiming the name Christian. After all, most churches hold views that would have been foreign to first century Christians yet by current definitions even they would have been called a cult. Perhaps the best example of what defines a Christian would be outlined in the Didache. It doesn’t really deal with doctrine per se as much as it does the way of life and what Paul called the “elementary teachings”. Its contents are agreed upon by virtually every Christian group, Catholic, Orthodox, and the many and varied Protestant denominations, including those groups often called by the majority as a “cult.” But understand that I’m not talking about what one might debate as “truth” or which interpretations have the most scriptural and historical support, merely what is required to be addressed by the name Christian. If you believe in Jesus as the son of God and savior you’re a Christian regardless of your doctrinal position.
October 17th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
My problems are (a) that outside of doctrinal systems phrases like your “incarnate son of God” are very difficult to understand, and (b) that if we except such doctrinal definitions of what is “Christian” (as you seem to want to) then as someone who respected and sought to follow Jesus Ghandi was “Christian” an “honour” he would probably not have wanted!
My conclusion is that for the term “Christian” to mean anything useful it must include some doctrinal definitions, whether your “incarnate son of God” or something more widely used like the great creeds.
October 17th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
But you seem to be missing my point – not even all of the “mainstream” churches agree completely on what you term the “great creeds.” The issue comes down to which church council you personally choose to accept as authoritative, or which denomination you believe properly represents Christian doctrine. But this is a completely different matter and has nothing at all to do with what makes somebody a Christian. As for your statement about Ghandi I can only again assume that you have missed my point. Ghandi did not believe that Jesus was the son of God and that his death was in some manner efficacious for our eternal salvation. Ghandi would not have agreed with any of the soteriological views represented within Christianity, therefore he was not a Christian.
October 17th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
I may well be misunderstanding, humans do that a lot 😦 Though I am less than convinced that there are many churches that most people would call Christian that would deny the standard creeds (though I certainly accept that there are huge differences in interpretation).
October 23rd, 2011 at 1:36 pm
The fellow above speaking of the sociological aspects of a cult, and his listing of characteristics of the control found in cults, might as well have been describing Mormonism which demands conformity, has an authoritarian ruling class, and uses coercive techniques should a person decide to depart from the cult – guilt trips, constant visits, a form of shunning in some cases.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
[…] West asks if Mormonism is a cult, and so Dan McClellan discusses Mormonism and why it should not be called a […]
November 8th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Mormonism is a new religion, and has nothing to do with Christianity. Many Christian theologians have studied it, and your pathetic attempt to spin it as being Christian, is biased and not based on any facts. You have another God, another Jesus and another Spirit. What more does any group need to be identified as non-Christian?
November 8th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Is this Carol? This sounds an awful lot like Carol.
November 8th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
I am not a Mormon but I do support the arguments made by the owner of this blog who is Mormon. Having studied Christian history for nearly 25 years, having read dozens of volumes on the topic and majored in it, it is quite clear that any group which claims to believe that Jesus is the son of God, the savior of mankind and seek to follow his example as they understand it is in fact Christian. That is the ONLY requisite. Belief in any or even none of the creeds is completely irrelevant to such self-identification. Membership in any denomination is irrelevant to such self-identification. The sad fact is though that most Christian denominations do not follow the Christianity practiced by those living in the days of the Apostles. New traditions, creeds, dogmas, and superstitions were invented and promulgated in church councils. Do you know by what means they became official doctrine? Not from analysis of the Biblical texts nor by careful topical outlines, but rather with vote of the hand and reference to extra-Biblical sources. Because of this, many votes were bought in order to guarantee the acceptance of a certain doctrine and some political leaders were influential in calling certain councils thus having an enormous influence on the same. Many Popes involved in these proceedings were corrupt to the core and were easily bought off. One of the founding principles of Protestantism was the belief that anyone has the right to disagree with another Christian on doctrine and to reject the authority of church councils. But oh how times have changed! Once denominations formed, often huddling around but one key doctrine important to them, they shut out everyone else and began to fall into the same trap of condemning those outside their circle. You are yourself falling into this trap, dear sir or madam. Your mind should be wide, not narrow in accepting the confession of your Christian brother regardless of whether or not he agrees with you on any doctrine, creed or tradition that you hold dear. Exegetical arguments are of course excepted here – the debate in this thread is not about arguing the merits or legitimacy of any doctrine, nor who has “the truth”, nor who most closely follows the early Christian church, but merely who have the right to self-identify, and be recognized as, Christian.
November 10th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
“Pathetic” is such an unfortunate choice of wording. So un-Christlike. No one is asking for your endorsement, just your mutual respect and common decency.
epatt77 makes a good case why “fundamentalist” christian attitudes are not worthy of consideration in our modern age. Embrace compassion. It really does lighten the load and make life a little bit more enjoyable. It’s alright to leave the judgment to God. He’d prefer it that way anyways.