JLHPROF Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 I like some feedback on how we compare these two verses: Jude 1:33 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.and 3 Nephi 11:2929 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. I don't find them confusing, since I do understand the difference. My question is how do you personally determine how much contending is too much. Goodness knows we get a little contentious in these parts (myself included). How do we know when we've stopped contending for the faith and developed the spirit of contention? 2
bluebell Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 For me, when I become angry, when it becomes about the satisfaction of proving someone wrong, and when my ego gets involved, that's contention. 4
Ahab Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) For me the "spirit of contention" refers to an attitude of wanting to do nothing but argue back and forth with somebody while focusing primarily on trying to get my point across without really listening to their point of view because I already have the idea that they are WRONG!!! set in my mind, while "contending" for the faith Jude(?) was talking about refers to earnestly/sincerely trying to learn from God to find out what is true and what I should then argue with others about. Edited October 11, 2015 by Ahab 2
CV75 Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 How do we know when we've stopped contending for the faith and developed the spirit of contention?I think a good indicator is when we seek the personal downfall of another and not their repentance and unity with Zion, or when we cease to love them as a brother or sister. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 11, 2015 Posted October 11, 2015 Context is everything. As the Jude scripture illustrates, one can contend earnestly for good things without fear of offending God or His Spirit. However, a scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs, I'm-always-right-and-anyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-[fill in pejorative adjective here] attitude is a much different matter. I don't practice (so what would I know about this? ), but, in law, perhaps it's akin to the line between zealousness and incivility. Lawyers are ethically bound to represent their clients' interests zealously, but, as the current push toward civility illustrates, they need not do so uncivilly. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I like some feedback on how we compare these two verses: Jude 1:33 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.and 3 Nephi 11:2929 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. I don't find them confusing, since I do understand the difference. My question is how do you personally determine how much contending is too much. Goodness knows we get a little contentious in these parts (myself included). How do we know when we've stopped contending for the faith and developed the spirit of contention?Good questions. In Jude 3 the concept is “contend, struggle earnestly” (epagonizomai), which is a good thing. While there are a bunch of other Greek words in the NT meaning “contentious” ("quarrelsome, disputatious”) and “contention” (“strife, wrangling, fight”). It is a matter of semantic range and context. 1
Rain2 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 When being right becomes more important to you than understanding and loving the person. 1
hagoth7 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) I like some feedback on how we compare these two verses:Jude 1:33 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints....How do we know when we've stopped contending for the faith and developed the spirit of contention?I think the answer to your last question is: we've stopped contending for the faith and developed the spirit of contention the second we've lost our sense of charity for the one(s) we're talking with. (Charity never faileth.) I think the exhortation to earnestly contend for the faith that was previously delivered to the saints is not an invitation for external strife with others, but is instead an invitation for the internal struggle to seek the companionship of God, something which previous saintly people have hungered after and acquired. I imagine it also includes gaining an understanding of the teachings and covenants once delivered to them, which would all culminate with the above outcome. Edited October 12, 2015 by hagoth7 1
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Good question, and I obviously have a problem in this area which I freely admit. My goal is never personal though it may sound so. I want to render the person's arguments harmless, not the person. I do not want to allow the person to influence others, so I attempt to show how wrong the arguments are, and sometimes that sounds like I am attacking the person. There is one here who, to me, is consistently inconsistent and self-contradictory in nearly every post. He will say one thing then contradict in the next sentence. I don't know how to deal with that. To me it is a sign of a muddled mind and yet he tries to influence others with his negativity. And indeed he does influence others. So what is the proper way to deal with that?? Looking for suggestions!? I suppose I should just let go and ignore him, but I feel he is doing harm just by being here.
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 (edited) When being right becomes more important to you than understanding and loving the person.What if the person is harming others? Is the a point at which it becomes a duty to oppose them? Edited October 12, 2015 by mfbukowski
iWriteStuff Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Can anyone find an example in the scriptures of an inspired man or woman getting angrily defensive of their testimony? If so, how does that usually work out?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Daniel C. Peterson made a solid point on this subject a while back in a blog post. I quote: Obviously, the Saints are to avoid contention. And, just as obviously, there’s a persistent human temptation to fall into contentious argument. That temptation should be guarded against, and resisted. But disagreement, as such, isn’t evil. Standing up for what one believes, and opposing, where necessary, what one believes to be seriously misguided, is not only not wrong, it’s sometimes a duty. And not only a religious duty, but, in some cases, a secular one. It’s at the very heart of academic scholarship, too, for that matter. “I . . . exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,” says Jude 1:3. “Put up a real fight for the faith,” says J. B. Phillips’s translation of the same passage. “Be ready,” says 1 Peter 3:15, “always to give an answer [apologian; ἀπολογίαν] to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.” 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Can anyone find an example in the scriptures of an inspired man or woman getting angrily defensive of their testimony? If so, how does that usually work out?The only possibility that comes immediately to my mind is the incident in Exodus 32:26, wherein Moses said to the rebellious Israelites, "Who's on the Lord's side? Let him come to me." I can't say for certain that Moses was angry when he said it, but it did seem to me to be in the form of an ultimatum. And there definitely were dire consequences for those who refused.
hagoth7 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Can anyone find an example in the scriptures of an inspired man or woman getting angrily defensive of their testimony? If so, how does that usually work out?Well, for starters, Elijah and his encounter with the priests of Baal comes to mind...
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Well, for starters, Elijah and his encounter with the priests of Baal comes to mind...I thought of that one too. If he was not angry, he was at least taunting and sarcastic. Indicating, perhaps, that taunting and sarcasm aren't necessarily bad things.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 There is the incident in Alma where Moroni commands the Lamanites to make a covenant of peace or be destroyed. Was he angry when he gave that ultimatum? I don't know. He was firm, at least. 1
hagoth7 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 There is such a thing as righteous indignation. Scourging. Temple Court. Moneychangers. 1
iWriteStuff Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Let me try to rephrase my question a little bit. Is anyone aware of an exchange like the following in the scriptures?Believer: I believe in XYZ as revealed to me by the Spirit. I know these things to be true because I have tasted of the fruit and know it to be good. Non-Believer: You're wrong; it's folly to believe as you do. You follow the foolish traditions of your fathers. You and all your type are unwise and mistaken in all your beliefs. I'm glad I'm not as dumb as you. Believer: (insert angry and defensive response, personal attacks, etc) I think back to the occurrences in the B of M where a prophet is confronted with an anti-Christ. It happens a bit, so it's not hard to get a sense of what this would look like in modern days. In all cases, the prophets stand their ground without getting personal, without getting prideful, without feeling the need to get overly defensive. Typically what you'll see is the prophet (Jacob or Alma, for instance) state what they know to be true and leave it to God to decide what to do with the attacker. Or have I read it wrong? At any rate, that's what I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to do in cases of disagreement. I testify of what I know to be true, don't focus on personal attacks, don't parse words, don't engage in mortal combat. They can either accept my testimony or reject it. If they accept it, I've gained a brother. If they reject it, well, that should play out in the end regardless of whatever else happens in the exchange. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Let me try to rephrase my question a little bit. Is anyone aware of an exchange like the following in the scriptures? I think back to the occurrences in the B of M where a prophet is confronted with an anti-Christ. It happens a bit, so it's not hard to get a sense of what this would look like in modern days. In all cases, the prophets stand their ground without getting personal, without getting prideful, without feeling the need to get overly defensive. Typically what you'll see is the prophet (Jacob or Alma, for instance) state what they know to be true and leave it to God to decide what to do with the attacker. Or have I read it wrong? At any rate, that's what I try (sometimes unsuccessfully) to do in cases of disagreement. I testify of what I know to be true, don't focus on personal attacks, don't parse words, don't engage in mortal combat. They can either accept my testimony or reject it. If they accept it, I've gained a brother. If they reject it, well, that should play out in the end regardless of whatever else happens in the exchange.I dunno. It seems Amulek got pretty personal in his confrontation with Zeezrom: 23 Now Amulek said: O thou achild of hell, why btempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations? 24 Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay, thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that alucre more than him. 25 And now thou hast lied before God unto me. Thou saidst unto me—Behold these six onties, which are of great worth, I will give unto thee—when thou hadst it in thy heart to retain them from me; and it was only thy desire that I should deny the true and living God, that thou mightest have cause to destroy me. And now behold, for this great evil thou shalt have thy reward. 1
iWriteStuff Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I dunno. It seems Amulek got pretty personal in his confrontation with Zeezrom:Funny thing about that exchange is I can just as easily imagine Amulek saying that to Zeezrom with eyes full of tears as with the voice of anger. Good catch, though! 1
bluebell Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Funny thing about that exchange is I can just as easily imagine Amulek saying that to Zeezrom with eyes full of tears as with the voice of anger. Good catch, though! I was thinking of Zeezrom as well. Plus, doesn't one of the prophets get pretty handy calling someone an anti-christ and that like? That could be considered ad hominem I suppose (though when it's true, then it's really just a statement of fact. ) 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 I was thinking of Zeezrom as well. Plus, doesn't one of the prophets get pretty handy calling someone an anti-christ and that like? That could be considered ad hominem I suppose (though when it's true, then it's really just a statement of fact. )It's not an ad hom unless the attack has no bearing on the matter under discussion. 1
Ahab Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Good question, and I obviously have a problem in this area which I freely admit.My goal is never personal though it may sound so. I want to render the person's arguments harmless, not the person.I do not want to allow the person to influence others, so I attempt to show how wrong the arguments are, and sometimes that sounds like I am attacking the person.There is one here who, to me, is consistently inconsistent and self-contradictory in nearly every post. He will say one thing then contradict in the next sentence. I don't know how to deal with that. To me it is a sign of a muddled mind and yet he tries to influence others with his negativity. And indeed he does influence others.So what is the proper way to deal with that??Looking for suggestions!? I suppose I should just let go and ignore him, but I feel he is doing harm just by being here.Well regardless of what anyone else has to say I know you are certainly not talking about ME!Or maybe you are. I really don't know.I really don't ever intend to seem negative or self contradictory, at least not unless God influences me to change my mind about something.
Rain2 Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 What if the person is harming others?Is the a point at which it becomes a duty to oppose them?It doesn't matter what the other person does. It is internal. You can oppose someone without being contentious. You can be contentious and not say a thing. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2015 Posted October 12, 2015 Well regardless of what anyone else has to say I know you are certainly not talking about ME!Or maybe you are. I really don't know.I really don't ever intend to seem negative or self contradictory, at least not unless God influences me to change my mind about something.No, not you!
Recommended Posts