Contention

[Scott Lloyd]

Didn't it used to be called an apologetics board, and now is not.

 

If I recall it would seem  purpose for the renaming of the board was to encourage more dialogue and discussion and less debate and apologetics.

In other words, let the critics and antagonists have their way while we decline to defend the Church of Jesus Christ? Was that the real intent of renaming the board?

[bluebell]

 

I think folks here are missing the obvious answer: "Contend for" in this context means to defend or protect.

 

 

 

Could be.  I don't see that it makes a difference whether it's 'struggle' for the gospel or defend the gospel.  

 

Just as it is perfectly justifiable to use force to defend oneself or others from physical attack, it is perfectly justifiable and praiseworthy to use the tools we have at our disposal -- logic, knowledge, information, understanding, eloquence -- to defend the faith against intellectual attack or sophistry.

 

 

Has any poster claimed that the BOM scripture is saying that it's not o.k. to use logic, knowledge, information, understanding, eloquence, etc. to defend the gospel?  I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with the statement above but i might have missed something.

[Scott Lloyd]

And btw, it is the moderator's job to tell people to "go away". Not yours.

I think that was his way of saying, "Don't engage me on this anymore."

 

I have another way of saying it: "This conversation is finished."

Edited October 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

In other words, let the critics and antagonists have their way while we decline to defend the Church of Jesus Christ? Was that the real intent of renaming the board?

 

That seems to be a zero-sum game approach to dialogue on theology as it relates to the Church.  Is that how you view these interactions?

[Scott Lloyd]

Could be.  I don't see that it makes a difference whether it's 'struggle' for the gospel or defend the gospel.  

 

 

 

Defend is more precise, but I agree that both words can convey the same meaning.

 

Has any poster claimed that the BOM scripture is saying that it's not o.k. to use logic, knowledge, information, understanding, eloquence, etc. to defend the gospel?  I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with the statement above but i might have missed something.

 

I think the thread started out by pointing out some apparent tension between the scripture that says contention is of the devil and the one that says to contend earnestly for the faith.

 

My way of resolving that tension is to interpret the latter as meaning to earnestly defend the faith; I see nothing wrong with doing that, any more than I see anything wrong with defending oneself or others from the infliction of physical harm or death.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

That seems to be a zero-sum game approach to dialogue on theology as it relates to the Church.  Is that how you view these interactions?

Speaking personally, my intent is as it has always been; to keep the field free of noxious weeds so that faith can flourish; to protect innocent onlookers who might be ill informed from succumbing to the effects of sophistry.

 

And no, that's not a "zero-sum game."

[ttribe]

Speaking personally, my intent is as it has always been; to keep the field free of noxious weeds so that faith can flourish; to protect innocent onlookers who might be ill informed from succumbing to the effects of sophistry.

 

And no, that's not a "zero-sum game."

 

Well, a zero-sum game is not a pejorative term; at least not how I was using it.  It's an actual tactical approach in game theory.  The gist, of course, is that every "win" for you (not you specifically) is a "loss" for your opponent.  There is no mutual benefit to the interaction. It's win-lose only.  Your description of "noxious weeds" sounds a little like the definition of a zero-sum game.  Are you willing to elaborate?  I ask because I think the psychology of apologetics as you are describing it is inextricably linked to the position you (and any who view apologetics similarly) might take on the question of resolving the perceived discrepancy on the use of the word "contend" in the two verses of scriptures as cited by the OP.  I think it's an interesting avenue of pursuit on the topic, IOW.

Edited October 12, 2015 by ttribe

[bluebell]

I think the thread started out by pointing out some apparent tension between the scripture that says contention is of the devil and the one that says to contend earnestly for the faith.

 

My way of resolving that tension is to interpret the latter as meaning to earnestly defend the faith; I see nothing wrong with doing that, any more than I see anything wrong with defending oneself or others from the infliction of physical harm or death.

 

I agree with you.  I think that that's how everyone has resolved the tension, unless there is a post that i have missed (which could be the case).

 

I have seen people (myself included) who suggest that there is no justification for earnestly defending the faith with anger, self righteousness, or pride (ie. ego), but that does not contradict your point.

[Senator]

I think that was his way of saying, "Don't engage me on this anymore."

 

I have another way of saying it: "This conversation is finished."

 

In other words it's his contentious way of saying it.

[mfbukowski]

Whoa there, fella.  No need to get so angry.  I'm trying to understand where you are coming from with stating that one of the members of this board is a bad influence simply by his or her presence.  That can be interpreted a number of ways.  Does this person post relatively innocuous statements, but has a secret agenda that you think will influence some innocent soul (which I can't imagine how the mods would ferret out)?  Is there something that this person has a habit of posting that you perceive as being damaging to people here (which, if it's borderline on the rules, would be something the mods could take action on and, indeed have, with other posters)?

 

Look, you brought this issue up, that there's someone on this board you feel compelled to confront because their mere "presence" is somehow harmful.  I'm just trying to understand where you are coming from with this.  Harmful how?  To whom?  In what way?  It's a serious charge and it seems to be one of your justifications for supporting the notion that "contention" is a worthy practice in apologetics (if I read you correctly).

I am not angry at all, just incredulous that you do not know how this board works. You have been here for years off and on. Mods do not determine who is a "bad influence".

This is what I posted. Perhaps you should read it again.

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.

This is clearly a post seeking advice. I felt, and still feel bad that this person has the affect on me that he does. I think he is a bad influence, yes, so what? We disagree about religion and I believe he has an adverse influence on people on the board, so I feel I must oppose him. That is what apologetics is for.

I take my faith seriously and feel I must oppose those who try to lead others from the church. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The reason for the post was to get advice on what I should do to change if necessary or not, and to discuss whether or not I should change my attitude.

I have asked some questions about contention and when it is warranted and when it is not. As far as I am concerned, that is what this whole discussion is about. So far, the question is still unresolved as far as I am concerned.

I was looking for advice and still am. Got any?

[mfbukowski]

I think the thread started out by pointing out some apparent tension between the scripture that says contention is of the devil and the one that says to contend earnestly for the faith.

 

My way of resolving that tension is to interpret the latter as meaning to earnestly defend the faith; I see nothing wrong with doing that, any more than I see anything wrong with defending oneself or others from the infliction of physical harm or death.

Agreed. That is exactly my point.

[ttribe]

I am not angry at all, just incredulous that you do not know how this board works. You have been here for years off and on. Mods do not determine who is a "bad influence".

This is what I posted. Perhaps you should read it again.

This is clearly a post seeking advice. I felt, and still feel bad that this person has the affect on me that he does. I think he is a bad influence, yes, so what? We disagree about religion and I believe he has an adverse influence on people on the board, so I feel I must oppose him. That is what apologetics is for.

I take my faith seriously and feel I must oppose those who try to lead others from the church. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The reason for the post was to get advice on what I should do to change if necessary or not, and to discuss whether or not I should change my attitude.

I have asked some questions about contention and when it is warranted and when it is not. As far as I am concerned, that is what this whole discussion is about. So far, the question is still unresolved as far as I am concerned.

I was looking for advice and still am. Got any?

 

Well, any advice I might have would be dependent upon answers to the questions I was trying to explore with you.  I guess it's still not clear to me that we can rule out that your feelings toward this person are rooted in some personal interaction that has universally colored your perception of what that person is saying.  Until you can remove that element of potential bias, I don't know that any advice is useful.  That's not on you, specifically, it's just human nature in conflict resolution.  It's why the world has judges, arbitrators and mediators.  We lose clarity of thought when everything we see and hear from a particular person is viewed through a lens of personal animosity.

[Rain2]

I don't understand what you are saying at all.  Should a policeman avoid contention at all costs?  At what point does it become a serious issue?

 

Does this apply in defending your children?

 

"It doesn't matter what the other person does"?

 

Is it more important to defend your children than the souls of immature adults who do not think clearly about faith issues because they have not been trained to do so?

 

 

I think you need to go back to my original post to understand what I was saying.  I said, "When being right becomes more important to you than understanding and loving the person " in answer to the question, " How do we know when we've stopped contending for the faith and developed the spirit of contention?"

 

This is hard for me to explain, but it is really clear to me.  

 

First of all when I answered the OP it didn't even occur to me to think of this physically, but it works, though a little differently.

 

My thought was when I love my fellow board members, my family, my friends and fellow church members then when I contend for the faith I am hoping they will feel of Christ's love for them through my words of defense.  When I care more about being right then I've lost track of contending for the faith.  Maybe it's just me, but I think it is very difficult to always keep that love in the front.  When I was on a non lds related board I found I needed to pray over each and every post I made about my religion to make sure I was posting out of love.  At some point I had to leave the board because the opposite was so contentious and mocking that I could no longer control which side of the contention line I was on.

 

Now physical stuff that policemen and other go through. Should a policeman avoid contention?  Yes.  We've all seen too many cases where the policeman let himself cross the line into contention.  When you get contentious then you start to lose your control, the Spirit.  You are basically letting Satan in and letting him control you.  Someone who is on the other side though, who contends for the right, will keep his cool.  He will recognize the criminal is human even if the criminal has done something awful.  He won't use excessive force.  He will know when to stop.  

 

You can see the difference in the two positions when you read about Shiz and about Mormon.    

 

Having read things from Mirkwood before I suspect he understands the difference and maybe he can explain it better.    

[Senator]

In other words, let the critics and antagonists have their way while we decline to defend the Church of Jesus Christ? Was that the real intent of renaming the board?

 

Ummm.....to try and create a less contentious place?

[mfbukowski]

I think that was his way of saying, "Don't engage me on this anymore."

 

I have another way of saying it: "This conversation is finished."

But it did not finish the conversation and it appears it is still not finished.

[mfbukowski]

I think you need to go back to my original post to understand what I was saying.  I said, "When being right becomes more important to you than understanding and loving the person " in answer to the question, " How do we know when we've stopped contending for the faith and developed the spirit of contention?"

 

This is hard for me to explain, but it is really clear to me.  

 

First of all when I answered the OP it didn't even occur to me to think of this physically, but it works, though a little differently.

 

My thought was when I love my fellow board members, my family, my friends and fellow church members then when I contend for the faith I am hoping they will feel of Christ's love for them through my words of defense.  When I care more about being right then I've lost track of contending for the faith.  Maybe it's just me, but I think it is very difficult to always keep that love in the front.  When I was on a non lds related board I found I needed to pray over each and every post I made about my religion to make sure I was posting out of love.  At some point I had to leave the board because the opposite was so contentious and mocking that I could no longer control which side of the contention line I was on.

 

Now physical stuff that policemen and other go through. Should a policeman avoid contention?  Yes.  We've all seen too many cases where the policeman let himself cross the line into contention.  When you get contentious then you start to lose your control, the Spirit.  You are basically letting Satan in and letting him control you.  Someone who is on the other side though, who contends for the right, will keep his cool.  He will recognize the criminal is human even if the criminal has done something awful.  He won't use excessive force.  He will know when to stop.  

 

You can see the difference in the two positions when you read about Shiz and about Mormon.    

 

Having read things from Mirkwood before I suspect he understands the difference and maybe he can explain it better.

Mirkwood?

Sorry- very confused

[mfbukowski]

Well, any advice I might have would be dependent upon answers to the questions I was trying to explore with you.  I guess it's still not clear to me that we can rule out that your feelings toward this person are rooted in some personal interaction that has universally colored your perception of what that person is saying.  Until you can remove that element of potential bias, I don't know that any advice is useful.  That's not on you, specifically, it's just human nature in conflict resolution.  It's why the world has judges, arbitrators and mediators.  We lose clarity of thought when everything we see and hear from a particular person is viewed through a lens of personal animosity.

Well I suppose I should thank you for the attempted psychoanalysis but I think I will pass since it points to no conclusion.

On one hand this, on the other hand that. Not too useful a point.

Edited October 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[ttribe]

Well I suppose I should thank you for the attempted psychoanalysis but I think I will pass since it points to no conclusion.

On one hand this, on the other hand that. Not too useful a point.

 

For the record, I'm not trying to engage in psychoanalysis.  I was trying to see if there was an external cause to how you felt about this person.  It doesn't seem you are interested in making that determination.  Your call, of course.

 

BTW, your borderline contempt toward me in this interaction is duly noted.

Edited October 13, 2015 by ttribe

[Rain2]

Mirkwood?Sorry- very confused

Mirkwood: http://www.mormondialogue.org/user/3498-mirkwood/

I don't know how to help your confusion without a question of the content of my post.

[mfbukowski]

For the record, I'm not trying to engage in psychoanalysis.  I was trying to see if there was an external cause to how you felt about this person.  It doesn't seem you are interested in making that determination.  Your call, of course.

 

BTW, your borderline contempt toward me in this interaction is duly noted.

Borderline contempt?

 

Not even close.   I guess I have some aversion to sharing my deepest feelings on the internet, with someone whose name I don't even know,  silly me.  Seemed quite intrusive frankly.

[ttribe]

Borderline contempt?

 

Not even close.   I guess I have some aversion to sharing my deepest feelings on the internet, with someone whose name I don't even know,  silly me.  Seemed quite intrusive frankly.

 

Um, okay.  Well, again, you are the one who brought this issue up in the first place.

[iWriteStuff]

Sometimes a time out can come in handy

[JLHPROF]

OK.

 

So let's plug in your word, "struggle" as we view the passage in its context.

 

This phrase is in the context of protecting the faith from and fending off the influences of adversaries and antagonists, i.e. "ungodly men" who are engaged in nefarious activity, "ravening wolves," as they are called in another passage of scripture.

 

I think folks here are missing the obvious answer: "Contend for" in this context means to defend or protect.

 

Just as it is perfectly justifiable to use force to defend oneself or others from physical attack, it is perfectly justifiable and praiseworthy to use the tools we have at our disposal -- logic, knowledge, information, understanding, eloquence -- to defend the faith against intellectual attack or sophistry.

 

I think this whole "context" thing might be being used to create a bigger division in meaning than is actually there.

So Jude uses "contend" to mean struggle against.  In 2 Nephi it is used to describe more of a spirit of fighting (perhaps disputing over doctrine).

 

But is there really that big of a difference between struggle and fight...kind of a full circle issue.

[HappyJackWagon]

Borderline contempt?

 

 

MF,

 

I usually really enjoy your posts but this weekend you've been quite hostile.

 

Whenever I'm in a bad mood my wife asks me if I need something to eat so I can get my blood sugar regulated. Need a sandwich?

[Meadowchik]

Contending for a principle and contending against another person are two very different things, to put it simply.