Contention

[bluebell]

 

Come on guys- face up to the fact that the savior himself contended against evil and it is our duty to do so.  The question becomes how to do it righteously.

 

No answers yet.

 

I thought i said this before but maybe i just thought it my head so i'll say it now.  

 

Just my opinion, but If you can contend without getting angry, without getting self-righteous, without it being about ego or being right, and without having any hard feelings for the person you are contending against then you are following the example of Jesus and have no worries.

 

In short, if you can contend while at the same time have charity and trying to maintain the pure love of Christ, then you're good.  Very few of us are able to do that for very long  but it's not impossible, and a good goal. 

 

Once we have a 'spirit of contention' and begin to 'contend with anger' then we've lost the battle and need to withdraw before we do any real damage, to ourselves, others, or our cause.  It's just that, at that point, it's really hard to do. Anger is like alcohol, it impairs our abilities without us being aware of it.  You can't see your drunk with it, but everyone watching knows.  That's why, in my opinion, contention is so dangerous.  We can do a lot of harm in the name of a good cause when it takes over. 

[Gray]

I am not in favor of contention.  I like bluebell too.

 

But I was hoping to get some answers here about the clear behavior of Jesus when he was confronted by evil and his lack of fear of "contention".

 

I know the church condemns contention.  Yes, I have read all those quotes a hundred times, but none of them confront the question I am pondering, and neither has anyone else come up with even an attempt to answer the question.

 

I have it seems been criticized for even even discussing it, but no one has any answers.

 

If we are to avoid contention, why did the savior himself contend against evil even physically on several occasions?

 

More importantly why won't we even face the issue??   I can sing Kumbaya all day as well, but that does not answer the question.  In the '60's the answer was "all you need is love".

 

Were the 60's hippies right?  

 

I came all this way to not advance in my understanding of this issue? 

 

Come on guys- face up to the fact that the savior himself contended against evil and it is our duty to do so.  The question becomes how to do it righteously.

 

No answers yet.

 

8 pages- no reasoned discourse on this issue.

 

We have Ammon chopping arms and all we have in answer is Kumbaya.

 

You're right, of course. The famous 3 Nephi passage is pretty clearly against contention, and the Church tends to lean that way. But there are plenty of other scriptures that seem to support contention under some circumstances. It should be no surprise that there are different/contradictory messages about this in scripture.

 

The current orthodox interpretive framework tends to discount your examples, but that doesn't mean another framework couldn't be developed to identify when conflict/contention can be appropriate. We'll never get rid of contention as long as we have egos, and we'll never get rid of egos. As long as the consequences of contention are creative and productive rather than violent or destructive, I don't think there is a problem with it per se. When things start getting heated, I think contention ceases to be productive. 

[jkwilliams]

You're right, of course. The famous 3 Nephi passage is pretty clearly against contention, and the Church tends to lean that way. But there are plenty of other scriptures that seem to support contention under some circumstances. It should be no surprise that there are different/contradictory messages about this in scripture.

 

The current orthodox interpretive framework tends to discount your examples, but that doesn't mean another framework couldn't be developed to identify when conflict/contention can be appropriate. We'll never get rid of contention as long as we have egos, and we'll never get rid of egos. As long as the consequences of contention are creative and productive rather than violent or destructive, I don't think there is a problem with it per se. When things start getting heated, I think contention ceases to be productive. 

 

Well said. We shouldn't have a problem combating ideas, but it's when we start attacking each other personally that it ceases to be productive or positive. We should stand up against those ideas and beliefs we disagree with, but we can do that without getting personal. 

[ALarson]

Well said. We shouldn't have a problem combating ideas, but it's when we start attacking each other personally that it ceases to be productive or positive. We should stand up against those ideas and beliefs we disagree with, but we can do that without getting personal. 

Yes, the personal attacks are wrong.  Also, calling others "evil" is a bit extreme, IMO.

[ALarson]

Just my opinion, but If you can contend without getting angry, without getting self-righteous, without it being about ego or being right, and without having any hard feelings for the person you are contending against then you are following the example of Jesus and have no worries.

 

In short, if you can contend while at the same time have charity and trying to maintain the pure love of Christ, then you're good.  

Very well stated.  It becomes quite obvious when someone steps over the line and starts being ugly and personal.

 

(And I second all that was said about you earlier on this thread, I enjoy reading all your posts even if I don't always agree )

[Senator]

I am not in favor of contention.  I like bluebell too.

 

But I was hoping to get some answers here about the clear behavior of Jesus when he was confronted by evil and his lack of fear of "contention".

 

I know the church condemns contention.  Yes, I have read all those quotes a hundred times, but none of them confront the question I am pondering, and neither has anyone else come up with even an attempt to answer the question.

 

I have it seems been criticized for even even discussing it, but no one has any answers.

 

If we are to avoid contention, why did the savior himself contend against evil even physically on several occasions?

 

More importantly why won't we even face the issue??   I can sing Kumbaya all day as well, but that does not answer the question.  In the '60's the answer was "all you need is love".

 

Were the 60's hippies right?  

 

I came all this way to not advance in my understanding of this issue? 

 

Come on guys- face up to the fact that the savior himself contended against evil and it is our duty to do so.  The question becomes how to do it righteously.

 

No answers yet.

 

8 pages- no reasoned discourse on this issue.

 

We have Ammon chopping arms and all we have in answer is Kumbaya.

Was there no answer in Elder Nelson's address quoted above?

 

Is there anything to be said to the fact that he offered no treatment to the "justified contention" idea?

 

As far as I could detect, his only mention of a responsive reaction to a contentious person was, "from such withdraw thyself".

[bluebell]

Very well stated.  It becomes quite obvious when someone steps over the line and starts being ugly and personal.

 

(And I second all that was said about you earlier on this thread, I enjoy reading all your posts even if I don't always agree )

 

Thank you.  

[jkwilliams]

Was there no answer in Elder Nelson's address quoted above?

 

Is there anything to be said to the fact that he offered no treatment to the "justified contention" idea?

 

As far as I could detect, his only mention of a responsive reaction to a contentious person was, "from such withdraw thyself".

 

Yep. I'm taking that advice.

[Senator]

Yep. I'm taking that advice.

I'm going to hold you to that.

[jkwilliams]

I'm going to hold you to that.

 

At some point you have to acknowledge reality: some people are just not capable of having a productive discussion with you, so you have to walk away. So, please do hold me to that if I'm ever tempted.

[mfbukowski]

I thought i said this before but maybe i just thought it my head so i'll say it now.

Just my opinion, but If you can contend without getting angry, without getting self-righteous, without it being about ego or being right, and without having any hard feelings for the person you are contending against then you are following the example of Jesus and have no worries.

In short, if you can contend while at the same time have charity and trying to maintain the pure love of Christ, then you're good. Very few of us are able to do that for very long but it's not impossible, and a good goal.

Once we have a 'spirit of contention' and begin to 'contend with anger' then we've lost the battle and need to withdraw before we do any real damage, to ourselves, others, or our cause. It's just that, at that point, it's really hard to do. Anger is like alcohol, it impairs our abilities without us being aware of it. You can't see your drunk with it, but everyone watching knows. That's why, in my opinion, contention is so dangerous. We can do a lot of harm in the name of a good cause when it takes over.

Excellent answer thanks

So when Christ whipped the money changers, he had no anger?

[JLHPROF]

Excellent answer thanks

So when Christ whipped the money changers, he had no anger?

 

Of course he did.  But is there a difference between anger and righteous indignation?

God is referred to as angry in scripture.  It's not a sin to be angry about sin.

[mfbukowski]

Well said. We shouldn't have a problem combating ideas, but it's when we start attacking each other personally that it ceases to be productive or positive. We should stand up against those ideas and beliefs we disagree with, but we can do that without getting personal.

So chop off arms without getting personal?

[mfbukowski]

Yes, the personal attacks are wrong. Also, calling others "evil" is a bit extreme, IMO.

How about "whitened sepulchers"?

 

(corrected spelling)

Edited October 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Was there no answer in Elder Nelson's address quoted above?

Is there anything to be said to the fact that he offered no treatment to the "justified contention" idea?

As far as I could detect, his only mention of a responsive reaction to a contentious person was, "from such withdraw thyself".

So no military we are now all conscientious objectors?

[ALarson]

How about "whitened seplechurs"?

An evil person who pretends to be good?  I don't see anyone on here fitting that description.  I see members expressing their opinions or beliefs and most are able to remain civil and keep the personal insults out of their discussions.  It still happens at times though.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, the personal attacks are wrong.  Also, calling others "evil" is a bit extreme, IMO.

How about "internet tyrant"?

[mfbukowski]

What about manipulation and passive aggressive behavior?

Careful, you might hurt my feelings.

I will cry all over you.

[mfbukowski]

An evil person who pretends to be good? I don't see anyone on here fitting that description. I see members expressing their opinions or beliefs and most are able to remain civil and keep the personal insults out of their discussions. It still happens at times though.

Answer the question

[ALarson]

How about "internet tyrant"?

 

Well, that's ok.

[bluebell]

Excellent answer thanks

So when Christ whipped the money changers, he had no anger?

 

I think in that instance we have to remember that He wasn't contending with someone about doctrine-He was literally cleansing His Father's holy house from iniquity.  The two experiences are apples and oranges in my opinion.  He had authority to do that, being who He was and His mission.  I believe in the existence of righteous anger, but i don't believe it exists when two people are disagreeing about a theological issue.

 

It's the same thing with Jesus's labels (such as calling people hypocrites or 'white sepulchers, etc.).  He had the ability to literally know what was going on in people's hearts.  He also had the authority to judge other people and to call them to repentance.  None of us posters here have either.

 

Jesus is our perfect example, but we can't forget that He has abilities and authority that we don't.  We have to be careful not to overstep our bounds.

[ALarson]

Answer the question

I think I answered the question in my post that you quoted (if you read my entire quote) and I was pretty clear as to what I've seen on this board.

[mfbukowski]

I think I answered the question in my post that you quoted (if you read my entire quote) and I was pretty clear as to what I've seen on this board.

The question was not about what you have seen on this board.  That is irrelevant.

 

What you see and what others see might be different.  I know for a fact that others disagree with you.

 

So what about an evil person masquerading as good?

[mfbukowski]

I think in that instance we have to remember that He wasn't contending with someone about doctrine-He was literally cleansing His Father's holy house from iniquity.  The two experiences are apples and oranges in my opinion.  He had authority to do that, being who He was and His mission.  I believe in the existence of righteous anger, but i don't believe it exists when two people are disagreeing about a theological issue.

 

It's the same thing with Jesus's labels (such as calling people hypocrites or 'white sepulchers, etc.).  He had the ability to literally know what was going on in people's hearts.  He also had the authority to judge other people and to call them to repentance.  None of us posters here have either.

 

Jesus is our perfect example, but we can't forget that He has abilities and authority that we don't.  We have to be careful not to overstep our bounds.

I think that is an excellent answer, and I also liked your previous post about "ego".

 

So what do we do about a two-faced person who posts one way on one board and has a totally different personality on another board?  What about those who "lie in wait to deceive"?

 

Do we call them out, or sit by passively and let them work their wiles?

[Mars]

i have strong suspicions about people sometimes.  but people used to have those strong suspicions about me.  i didn't think joseph smith's story or the book of mormon lined up and i was an impudent little snot about it.  (i was 15, so the impudence kinda came with the territory...)

 

were it not for the infinite patience of an early morning seminary teacher - patience the rest of the class was in short supply of, i might add - i might not be here today.

 

so yeah, sometimes people can come across as passive aggressive clowns who are just trying to pretend to be mormon to sow doubt and discord by having an unending series of questions.  or who, in the absence of strong facts, use suggestive language and leading questions to conjure up the imagery of an overtly fallible and patently godless leadership in church hierarchy.  i get really annoyed with it. 

 

but i think there are ways to deal with it without resorting to labeling them as what my suspicions tell me they are.  deal with what they say, not what they are.  eventually what they are will come out.  some kinds of apologetics turn the audience off.  that doesn't mean anyone who engages criticism in defense of the Gospel is cut from the same cloth, tho.

 

just my two cents.