Black and White

[Ian]

we're subject to two opposing influences. one influence is good, and the other influence is bad. if we don't submit ourselves to the good influence, then we submit ourselves to the bad influence. the good influence leads to happiness, and the bad influence leads to sadness. as you can see, the doctrine is so simple that it confuses "the learned and those who think they are wise." little children seem to comprehend this better than we do (of course they have an unfair advantage because satan doesn't have power to tempt them):

[Ian]

president john taylor wrote:

There are two kinds of rule on the earth; one with which man has nothing directly to do, another in which he is intimately concerned. The first of these applies to the works of God alone, and His government and control of those works; the second, to the moral government, wherein man is made an agent. There is a very striking difference between the two, and the comparison is certainly not creditable to man; and however he may feel disposed to vaunt himself of his intelligence, when he reflects he will feel like Job did when he said, "I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

In God's government there is perfect order, harmony, beauty, magnificence, and grandeur; in the government of man, confusion, disorder, instability, misery, discord, and death. In the first, the most consummate wisdom and power are manifested; in the second, ignorance, imbecility, and weakness. The first displays the comprehension, light, glory, benificence, and intelligence of God; the second, the folly, littleness, darkness, and incompetency of man. The contemplation of the first elevates the mind, expands the capacity, produces grateful reflections, and fills the mind with wonder, admiration, and enlivening hopes; the contemplation of the second produces doubt, distrust, and uncertainty, and fills the mind with gloomy apprehensions. In a word, the one is the work of God, and the other that of man.

John Taylor, Government of God, Deseret Book 1852, p. 2

in God's government there is perfect harmony. the same can be said of God's prophets. all of the prophets are in perfect harmony with each other. prophetic counsel at any given time is perfectly consistent and harmonious with prophetic counsel given at another time. the words of any prophet are always consistent with the words of prophets that came before and that will come after. they never contradict each other. we will always be safe conforming to the counsel of the prophets.

elder perry delivered another excellent talk a while ago, i'm only including excerpts here:

I will declare my personal witness that the heavens are not closed. The Lord continues to guide and direct all of his children on earth if they will but heed his voice. I will teach my firm conviction that the foundation of any righteous government is the law that has been received from the Lord to guide and direct man’s efforts. Righteous government receives direction from the Lord....

I reaffirm before you here today of my faith that the Lord God continues to govern the affairs of his children. His law must be the foundation on which all law is based. We must be willing to support, defend, and live in harmony with his divine law....

As I examine the physical order in the Lord’s divine plan, I find no evidence that he has ever found it necessary to make a correction. The earth continues to rotate in the same direction. The angle of its axis is unchanged. The circulation of moisture continues from sea to cloud to earth to river to sea with its same beneficial effect without alteration.

I find the same consistency in the divine law he has established for mankind....

There has not been and never will be contradiction in the divine laws of God. Scripture after scripture in all ages of time declare his divine message that does not change and cannot be changed by man....

And so today, I sound the same words of warning as Paul the Apostle of old: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

“And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3–4.)

I leave you my witness that there is a consistency in the laws of God that will not change. When we conform our lives to his laws we will find a rewarding joy, a fulfillment, and a peace as we live here on earth. When we would pervert or change his laws or disregard them, we must stand the judgments of God, and as surely as that occurs, misery, sorrow, and heartache will be the result.

L. Tom Perry, For the Time Will Come When They Will Not Endure Sound Doctrine, October 1975 General Conference

[John]

I can't conceive of a reasonable argument to these two declarations without "creating God in our own image."

[Ian]

from the last lesson in "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith":

The parable the Lord taught of the Wheat and the Tares had reference to the last days. According to the story a sower planted good seed in his field, but while he slept the enemy came and sowed tares in the field. When the blades began to show, the servants desired to go and pluck up the tares but the Lord commanded them to let both the wheat and the tares grow up together until the harvest was ripe, lest they root up the tender wheat while destroying the tares. Then at the end of the harvest, they were to go forth and gather the wheat and bind the tares to be burned. In the explanation of this parable, the Lord said to his disciples that “the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.”

The tares and the wheat are growing together and have been growing in the same field for all these years, but the day is near at hand when the wheat will be garnered, and the tares likewise will be gathered to be burned, and there will come a separation, the righteous from the wicked, and it behooves each one of us to keep the commandments of the Lord, to repent of our sins, to turn unto righteousness, if there is need of repentance in our hearts.

Build up and strengthen the members of the Church in faith in God; goodness knows we need it. There are so many influences at work to divide us asunder, right among the members of the Church, and there is going to come, one of these days in the near future a separation of the wheat from the tares, and we are either wheat or tares. We are going to be on one side or the other.

[Steve]

and from Elder Oaks' most recent Oct. 2014 General Conference address:

Even as we seek to be meek and to avoid contention, we must not compromise or dilute our commitment to the truths we understand. We must not surrender our positions or our values. The gospel of Jesus Christ and the covenants we have made inevitably cast us as combatants in the eternal contest between truth and error. There is no middle ground in that contest.

The Savior showed the way when His adversaries confronted Him with the woman who had been “taken in adultery, in the very act” (John 8:4). When shamed with their own hypocrisy, the accusers withdrew and left Jesus alone with the woman. He treated her with kindness by declining to condemn her at that time. But He also firmly directed her to “sin no more” (John 8:11). Loving-kindness is required, but a follower of Christ—just like the Master—will be firm in the truth.

[Ian]

Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference to which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and a wrong to every question which requires our solution.

... We cannot well lay claim to being a grown-up, mature, civilized people until we have come to the point where morality is the determinant, and we ask simply what is, in good conscience, right. The conclusion seems inescapable that the confusion and distraction and conflicts and antagonisms and uncertainties and bewilderment which plague the world today present mankind with what is at bottom a purely moral issue—the issue between right and wrong. That, then, should be the final test of the propriety of all courses of action.

But there are difficulties thrown in the way of getting that simple test adopted. One is that there is current in the world today a school of thought which asserts that there is no such thing as universal principles of right as opposed to wrong. They say that for the individual, growth is a continuing "ongoing process" without direction. That is, that we are continually changing, growing but not toward any ultimate purpose. There are accordingly no fixed principles by reference to which we may determine what we ought to do. If confronted with a situation, all we can do is to experiment—try out the course we want to take, and if it works out to the advantage of the experimenter, then for him it is right. Each one finds out for himself according to his own interest. Of course this must inevitably result in confusion, and ultimate chaos.

This is a deadly paralyzing notion to plant in the minds of people and particularly the youthful and immature. It strikes down belief that man is a moral being with a purpose and a destiny and commensurate responsibilities. It releases one who accepts it from all restraints of conscience. It provides him with an allegedly scientific but basely false assurance that he is in no wise responsible for his actions however vile they may be since they are after all but in the course of nature.

Elder Albert E. Bowen, General Conference, October 1944

[Steve]

There are a great many people who do wrong because they have not the standard of right and wrong within them, but permit themselves to be governed by the prejudices and education they have received among the different nations and neighbourhoods where they have been trained. You may find some persons who have within them the standard of right and wrong: they can tell when they do right—what is right, and judge themselves as easily as they can others; but of this class there are but a very few. And were I to say that there are none who are entirely free from the prejudices and prepossessed ideas gathered in their youthful days from their parents, teachers, and friends, I should say what is strictly true. Still, we are studying and trying to learn how to discern between the evil and the good, the right and the wrong,—between that which is of God and that which is not of him.

President Brigham Young, delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, November 22, 1857.

[Steve]

This is the need of America! This is the need of the world! In the face of such urgency, it is timely to ask, how shall we face this problem? First, there is necessity for a changed attitude in recognizing the difference between right and wrong. If we cannot recognize this difference, then we cannot know what to repent of. To live in a society that does not recognize the volitional right of choice in two opposites, of choosing right over wrong, can only bring the masses to a state of decay. There seems no question that it is the will of the "evil one" that our choices in life or the exercise of agency shall be in behalf of one of two evils, rather than in right over wrong. I quote from a challenging editorial of a leading weekly magazine:

... "In America today, for instance, we are being told that, if the end sought is good, it is not unmoral to break the law." (By permission U.S. News and World Report, August 26, 1963, David Lawrence, p. 104.)

But Thomas Aquinas wrote that a good intention does not justify an evil. He said: "A man cannot rightly steal because he intends to use the money for a good purpose—to help the poor."

Exemplifying the modern trend, Canon Rhymes of England calls explicitly for a "new moral code" based upon sympathy for the different needs of individuals. These needs may require that individuals "may need to break all Ten Commandments." In turn, the old morality, as it is now being spoken of, would have condemned such needs; the new morality, says he, must respect in them its own essence.

From the classroom, from some Christian pulpits, and from the politician's platform we are hearing today—"all is right" or rather whatever is done must be right. We see the manifest evidence of this tirelessly endorsing whatever actually occurs. Lord Silkin, for instance, apparently distressed at the number of "Irregular marriages," recently sought to remedy the situation by calling them regular. A Ministry of Education's medical officer describes unchastity as not in his view "unchaste."

Thus this supposedly new-found morality in our modern day destroys the efficacy of good over bad or of right over wrong. The immutable law of God that man becomes like unto him in knowing the difference between right and wrong or good and evil is lost in the subterfuge of man's unwillingness to repent.

...To conclude my remarks let me say, what men need today is conviction—yes, conviction in a cause of truth. This we can attain through the doorway of repentance, which leads to the noble life. That person who cannot recognize right over wrong and then by agency choose the right will not see the face of God our Heavenly Father.

Elder Alvin R. Dyer, Conference Report, April 1964

[Ian]

A farmer "could not tell one of his horses from the other. They weighed the same, pulled the same load, ran at the same speed; from the looks of their teeth they were the same age. Finally, as a last resort, he measured them, and, sure enough, the white horse was six hands higher than the black one." Marion G. Romney, Look to God and Live, Deseret Book 1971, 221.

[Steve]

In this age of moral conflict and growing moral skepticism it is well to place emphasis again on certain moral standards which have withstood the erosion of time and the competition of man-made ideologies. Some maintain that right and wrong are merely matters of convention; that what is good or bad in one age may be the opposite in another; or that morality varies with race and country.

He who attempts to fix hard and fast distinctions between right and wrong or to point to absolute moral standards is liable to be accused of being old-fashioned, unliberated, unenlightened, etc., by those who profess special "open-mindedness."

The following questions are asked and analyzed by a recent author: "If there is any absolute moral standard, what is it? Custom? But there are all sorts of conflicting customs. Which of them is right? Laws of Nature? But even laws of nature change with man's knowledge; and besides, one cannot violate a law of nature even if he would. And where one can do no wrong no morals are at stake. Laws of Men? But legislators are fallible, they differ and men have never held much moral awe for them. Laws of God? But there are many supposed revelations of God's will, and each has its multitudinous interpretations. Conscience? But peoples' consciences differ surprisingly, and even the conscience of the same person is bafflingly uncertain and often inconsistent, at different times."

The hazardous results of moral skepticism may be found in the region of personal righteousness. We must have a tremendous regeneration of moral ideals if we are to have political or social regeneration. Moral skepticism must be replaced by moral faith. Our thinking must enable us to affirm great things; it is not enough to deny them.

Out of this uncertainty, this denial, this groping, there is beginning to emerge a desire for spiritual insight, spiritual regeneration, and reconstruction. But we must have a definite moral order; there must be faith in certain eternal verities. We must have faith in God, in man's freedom of choice, in immortality.

They who believe in God as the Father of the race, the Creator of all that is; and especially we who believe in the modern scripture which declares it to be God's work and his glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of men—these will accept his word as final in any discussion of what is right or wrong. For the task of bringing immortality and eternal life to men will require teaching men to choose the right and avoid the wrong. Wise choice involves understanding. Surely, the Creator knows what is good or bad for that which he has created. Also his appraisal will take into consideration the total life of the created one and not only a segment of it. He will view it in the light of eternity. Our problem then is to find his word on this subject of morality and ideals. Let us go to the original of his word and not depend on man's interpretation thereof, for on this most important subject we do not want a diluted or modified version of what he has said to guide his children.

Let us refer to an ancient document, written by the very finger of God on imperishable tablets, and see if what he there said is applicable to our time.

If they who would make the state supreme and submerge and depreciate the individual, if they who suppress the churches and banish God would but hear, with understanding hearts, his mandatory injunction "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3), they would free the countless millions who now are forced to place the god of the state above the God of heaven. If individuals who worship the god of pleasure and are willing to make any sacrifice to get money with which to allure this god, could be brought to change their allegiances and worship him, they would find not mere pleasure, but lasting joy.

What richness would be added to the lives of men if they would spend one day in seven in prayer and praise and meditation; if they would hear and obey his command "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy." (Ex. 20:8.)

In an age where the discipline of the home is being undermined by modern philosophies, where the authority of the parent is being replaced by the state, and where children are taught to disregard the teachings of parents, and in some instances not only to be disloyal to them but even to betray them, in such an age it would be well if someone could sound again with authority that commandment which carries a promise of long life, "Honour thy father and thy mother. . . ." (Ex. 20:12.) Disloyalty here will sap the roots of social life and political well-being, for this is the initial contact of the individual with authority. Let those who strike at this root be warned that they will witness the downfall of the tree of political authority.

Did ever the world so need to pause and hear again the voice of God declaring, "Thou shalt not kill"? (Ex. 20:13.) They who are responsible for the present strife, who think greed justifies aggression, must someday know there is a penalty attached to this law.

When one of the dominant evils of the age is undermining our civilization with preventable diseases and our social structure is shot through with shame, we call upon men and women to hearken to his unequivocal command, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." (Ex. 20:14.)

Let those leaders of nations who disregard all property and national rights, who in plundering weaker nations imagine a necessity and make it a law; to whom might alone determines right; who covet, misrepresent, and steal; who not only trample upon the rights of men but also seek to justify themselves by asserting that he who is "no respector of persons" has stamped them with a special favor; let them know that they are not exempt from the penalties of breaking the last three commandments, "Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. . . (propaganda in this age), and Thou shalt not covet that which is thy neighbour's. . . ." (Ex. 20:15-17.)

These great standards apply not alone to individuals but to groups of individuals called nations as well. Let all the world realize that national dishonesty, national selfishness, national sin are as reprehensible as individual sins of the same order.

These then are some of the standards by which men and nations may gauge their actions. When free agency was made a part of the great plan for man's redemption, there was emblazoned across the heavens the great imperative "Choose," and under it the warning, "You must take the consequences of such choice." Standards, yes! They are as imperative today as when they were first given. In fact, they were reissued and given new meaning when Jesus of Nazareth breathed into them the Spirit of Christ and carried them over into the realm of thinking.

They who now advocate the doctrine of force should be reminded that God himself rejected such philosophy when it was presented to him by the original would-be dictator. If men are forced to observe the law, they would not be entitled to praise or blame. This freedom of choice is a right for which men have ever fought and it is to preserve it and other freedoms which are being menaced, that the democracies are now embattled as were the hosts of heaven when there was war there.

In the darkness of present times let us not lose sight of our standards but hold them high with confidence that we have divine approval.

Elder Hugh B. Brown, Millennial Star (quoted in section III of his book Eternal Quest)

[Steve]

As we attain that position in life where we are permitted to choose, to decide for ourselves, it is essential that we understand the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. We come to know that we are children of God, that he knows us—knows why we are here, and expects something of us. We find that he too has established laws, rules, regulations governing life, and these we try to observe because we love and honor him and have confidence that his laws were instituted for our good and happiness.

Sometimes young people get the idea, and it is erroneous, that they are just a little different from the other fellow, that the rules that apply to the masses do not apply to them. Be assured that the author of this universe, the God of this world, our Father, is not capricious, he has no favorites—his laws are universal, eternal, inexorable, and anyone who violates the law must pay the penalty.

... Now sometimes very good students, loyal, honorable, virtuous students, get the mistaken idea that of all the sins of the world, tattling is the worst. This fallacious attitude is developed, no doubt, from picture shows, radio, and TV programs, where the gangster shoots the stool-pigeon.

In other words, there seems to have grown up among us a feeling that it is our duty to keep our mouths shut about what the other fellow does. Now to an extent that may be right. I am quite sure that I must be more concerned with my own life than with that of my brother. I am quite sure that I will never be called upon to confess his sins, but I am also sure that if there comes a time when there is a conflict between my loyalties, my loyalty to the institution, to civilization, to our society, if there is a conflict between these and my loyalty to a chum who doesn't have the stamina or good sense to observe the law, I am going to stand by the institutions.

Elder Hugh B. Brown, BYU Assembly (quoted in section III of his book Eternal Quest)

[Steve]

Most of us have been taught the gospel all our lives. We know the difference between good and evil, between right and wrong. Isn't it time then that we decide that we are going to do right? In so doing we are making a choice—not just a choice but the choice. Once we have decided that, with no fingers crossed, no counterfeiting, no reservations or hesitancy, the rest will fall into place.

Most people who come to stake presidents, bishops, branch presidents, General Authorities, and teachers for counsel don't come because they are confused and unable to see the difference between right and wrong. They come because they're tempted to do something that deep down they know is wrong, and they want that decision ratified.

President Boyd K. Packer, Teach Ye Diligently

[Steve]

 
Wow!

I submit that the modern testing which comes from the insidious boring-in of ideas which imitate truth, excuse deception, and discount both evil and its author, is a much more difficult one to encompass and to resist than the physical tests of the past. In the day when Brother Kimball spoke, there appeared to be more physical difficulties to encompass than those spiritual or mental. At that time we could protect our children. Life was simple. We could easily persuade them to see as we saw and do as we did, because a large part of communication was from parent to children. No one else had very much to do with them.

Now, however, the test is directed at the children. They are being deceived into believing that they can think and act with maturity long before they are mature. In this they are much deceived, and rebellious against parental restraint. They are ripe fruit for the plucking.

Today our test is with our families and the false ideals of the day. We need not succumb to it. Parents can protect their children if they will, but it takes time and effort; but parents are still the most potent and sure protection and defense, provided they are righteous parents, alert and informed.

I cannot believe, personally, that the Lord God compromises black and white into gray—if I might use a metaphor of color. If I read correctly, his constant admonition is to become white to purify one's self, to become perfect. I think the Lord draws sharp lines and declares that whatever leads to evil is evil. It is the evil in us which leads us to want to compromise a little and to be earthy as well as earthly.

May I present two points of view: If my normal outlook is that it is expected that my child will have the experiences of marriage without its responsibilities during adolescence, and that handling cocktails successfully without becoming obnoxious to my fellows is manly, or that cigarettes with coffee during and after meals is desirable, or that a trip to a gambling palace in a neighboring state is a legitimate recreation, or that viewing vulgar or exciting floor shows is not sin so long as I take no physical active part, then I am not going to be alarmed at the advice some people give my adolescent children about their actions, nor am I going to be concerned with their television fare nor with what type of pictures appear in their favorite weekly magazines, especially those which glamorize drunken and debauching night life in flaming color. Since under these circumstances I have no real reason to elevate my life, believing that old-fashioned morality is outdated, I shall then class as great literature some works such as Boccaccio, Casanova, Lawrence Fitzgerald, and others, to make certain that for a rounded-out life, my children should be exposed to the accounts of recreation of these loose and lewd men who happened to have unusual powers of sensual description.

And since my body is not sacred but a purely animal creation, an accident of some evolutionary urge without any particular pressure in any particular direction to bring me to what I am today, then I can laugh with great pleasure at jokes and sly references to its functions. If my children end up in need of psychiatric help when they discover the futility of life, I can also get cheap medical help by going to a moving picture in which an author of like mind and habit, combined with a director who understands, because this has been his experience also, portrays the agonies and frustrations of those whose mental equipment has broken down upon the indulgence in these evils, for an equally sadistic solution to the problem thus posed. Then I can take comfort from the thought that my children have had the same kind of experience and are not so abnormal after all.

Children echo the words and imitate the standards of the adults to whom they are exposed. If a child grows up in an environment where stealing hub caps and gasoline, or ganging up on innocents in the street, or breathing glue-fumes, is the normal expectation, it cannot be expected that his conception of moral integrity will make his word worth much or his actions trustworthy when he gets to be a mature adult. I can lull my conscience by thinking that his actions are the result of a disease which anyone knows, of course can strike anyone. Therefore he is not fundamentally accountable for what he does. He is to be pitied but not censured.

But if my understanding is to know my true place in the eternal purpose of God, that I am his son, that I may be come like him, and that his commandments are to be kept, that happiness is found only by being in harmony with his laws, and further, that Satan is determined to keep me from either practicing or thinking about these elevating truths, I say, if this is my knowledge and my belief, then I am going to be not only concerned, but I am also going to take action to protect my children from the designs of evil men in the last days, as the 89th section portrays. (See D&C 89:4.) I shall do my best to teach my child that he is a sacred person, that he is an eternal being of two parts, body and spirit, to be fused together in the resurrection, that this eternal joining will best be accomplished if each part has equal development, that the body must be trained and conditioned for eternal progress in its celestial abode as well as the spirit, that because it is of the earth it tends to become earthy as well as erthly, but that it can be made subject to the will of the spirit.

I shall give him enough of my time to guide him but not enough to overshadow him or to take away his agency, his practise in making decisions. But I shall make certain that he has the correct viewpoint of the malpractices of modern life and expose him to all that I can find that is good and true and right.

I shall show him the joy of righteous endeavor and the rewards of righteous thought and habit, and while in his formative years, I shall teach him to love truth and beauty and to abhor the sordid and the drab. I shall also protect him from evil influences that are beyond his understanding, but not beyond his imitating.

Above all, I shall do my best to teach him the basic difference between right and wrong and show him that his decisions must always be made on that basis rather than on the basis of convenience or advantage to himself. I shall teach him the wages of sin is death, that evil is sin which he is to resist with all his strength, that he is accountable and will have to answer for it. And I shall also teach him a true understanding of repentance and of the great sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that repentance will have meaning and purpose. I shall do my best to teach him the sacredness of life and of the family. He will be taught, too, the importance of the family relation in the eternal plan. Already he will have seen some practical examples of this in the conduct of my own life of which he has such a daily, intimate view.

I shall realize that I cannot deceive him if I will as to the kind of man I am, but I can fill him with the ideals of the kind of man I should be and desire him to become.

If I as a holder of the priesthood of the Son of God attempt to compromise by accepting some of the gray evils, saying they will do no harm because I am an adult and can control them, I have betrayed his generation which indeed must be taught to draw the sharp line if we are to survive.

Such I believe must be our course if we are to keep alive the testimony and the gospel in the next generation.

Let us with all our strength work to defeat the purposes of him who is the author of the first point of view, lest there be applied to our children the rebuke that Alma gave to Corianton when he reminded him of the great iniquity he brought upon the Zoramites for, said he, ". . . when they saw your conduct they would not believe my words." (Alma 39:11.)

But rather let us pledge our lives to truth and right and be alert to fulfil the vision and prophecy given to Nephi when he: ". . . beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory." (1 Nephi 14:14.)

Elder Seymour Dilworth Young, Conference Report April 1962

[Steve]

Oh, what a sad thing it is to see young men compromise their priesthood obligation through the dangerous practice of rationalization. The adversary is quick to help anyone develop the knack of convincing himself that almost anything is okay under certain conditions.

Bishop Robert L. Simpson, Conference Report, October 1964

[Steve]

PRESIDENT GEORGE ALBERT SMITH taught us to "stay on the Lord's side of the line." Which line? That which is drawn between good and evil, between obedience and its opposite. But is this a sharp line of cleavage, or is it indistinct, providing a "gray area" in which we may cross partly over, and still keep one foot on the Lord's side? Does it allow us in this way to serve two contrary masters in an effort to get gain from both? With the Lord there are no "gray areas." We are for Him or we are not. He asks us to serve Him with ALL our hearts, might and minds, and no one can give his all and still hold something back. But many nevertheless try to create "gray areas" to justify their compromises. This they do in many ways.

... It is so in all we do. We must serve God with our whole heart, remembering that He allows for no "gray areas" where we may compromise with sin.

Elder Mark E. Petersen, Way to Peace