Contention is of The Devil

[Mordecai]

This has been a subject of debate for a long time and, ironically, many suggest you shouldn't debate, because it's "of the devil." I've been listening to--like seemingly everyone else--Jordan Peterson; he argues for, among other things, evolutionary biology, where human instincts for hierarchy are directly analogous to those of chimpanzee instincts. This, to me, suggests that, "the natural man," may be natural in the sense that, in part, our animal instincts drive us to contend for position in a hierarchy, one against another. A debate or argument can be a means of climbing a hierarchy, either as an authority on doctrine or as an intellectual elite.

Conversely, the book of Jude suggests we should contend (Greek: struggle) for the faith against those that would corrupt it. How do you do that without "contending with anger, one against another?" If we want to take our desire to climb the hierarchy out of the equation, I think you contend without the idea of your own position or status in mind, but the status of God. God, being all powerful and a permanent fixture, hopefully at the top of our emotional hierarchy, isn't someone who needs us to be angry, as God can't be harmed by man in any way. So we can argue for other people's good, without anger, by thinking about God and arguing loyally for Him.

If you don't get angry, and you have no thought for your own ego, I think you are keeping with what Jude recommends, which is to contend for the faith, as opposed to contending with anger with others for a higher intellectual or religious status. So contend in the context in which Jesus uses it, doesn't mean to not debate, in my hypothesis; it means that you are competing for position, a higher status in a natural, instinctual hierarchy. The debate per se isn't the contention, in itself; it only can be, if you are going "one against another" in pursuit of a higher position. Alma 1:9:

              

Quote

9 Now, because Gideon withstood him with the words of God he was wroth with Gideon, and drew his sword and began to smite him. Now Gideon being stricken with many years, therefore he was not able to withstand his blows, therefore he was slain by the sword.

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Mordecai

[changed]

Contention vs discussion - I think discussions are wonderful. The purpose of discussions is to know others better, involves mutual respect,  listening to understand.

Contention involves agendas and trying to control and change others, no respect,  not really listening, not wanting to understand another viewpoint.

No one contends for God, only their personal interpretation of God.  Anything anyone argues is from ego - thinking some personal belief is better than another's.

Edited December 28, 2018 by changed

[pogi]

I think it is important to distinguish between debate and contention. 

But if our goal is conversion, both are less effective.

[Mordecai]

57 minutes ago, changed said:

Contention vs discussion - I think discussions are wonderful. The purpose of discussions is to know others better, involves mutual respect,  listening to understand.

Contention involves agendas and trying to control and change others, no respect,  not really listening, not wanting to understand another viewpoint.

No one contends for God, only their personal interpretation of God.  Anything anyone argues is from ego - thinking some personal belief is better than another's.

So what does it mean when "Gideon withstood him with the words of God?" I think he was clearly countering the claims that there was no God and no Savior, using the scriptures and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Maybe he was using the scriptures, speaking on God's behalf instead of his own behalf. But I don't think this was a friendly discussion! Gideon, I suspect, was calm and composed, using the scriptures rationally, without anger, but what he was saying was probably rather bold and straightforward. We read other examples of this with Abinidi, explaining the meaning of the scriptures in what many would describe as a "contentious fashion."

Saying, "Ye have not understood [the scriptures]," was not going to make the priests of Noah happy! That was a "contentious"  thing to say, but you can't really say that was of the devil, can you? Jesus went as far as to call the Pharisees, "vipers," to their faces, suggesting that they were subhuman killers. Not too nice! Of course, that's pretty much what they were, murderous and beyond feeling. Speaking the truth boldly to the wicked, I think, is righteous, as long as your ego isn't in it; easier said than done, of course, trying to counter evil without your ego involved. But I think the righteous can and should do it.

Edited December 28, 2018 by Mordecai

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Mordecai said:

This has been a subject of debate for a long time and, ironically, many suggest you shouldn't debate, because it's "of the devil." I've been listening to--like seemingly everyone else--Jordan Peterson; he argues for, among other things, evolutionary biology, where human instincts for hierarchy are directly analogous to those of chimpanzee instincts. This, to me, suggests that, "the natural man," may be natural in the sense that, in part, our animal instincts drive us to contend for position in a hierarchy, one against another. A debate or argument can be a means of climbing a hierarchy, either as an authority on doctrine or as an intellectual elite.

Anyone who thinks there are not hierarchies in every single human institution has not been paying attention.

[CA Steve]

No, it's not!

👿

Edited December 29, 2018 by CA Steve

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, Mordecai said:

Contention is of The Devil

I'm going to have to do a call for references there.  When I look through the scriptures on the topic, I see something a bit more nuanced:

3 Nephi doesn't talk about contention, it talks about the "spirit of contention".    It says "the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another."
But then my almost favorite scripture in Jude 1 has an apostle exhorting us "that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
Job 3 mentions "contending for God"
Micah: "the Lord saith; Arise, contend thou before the mountains, and let the hills hear thy voice."

It seems to be a bit of a mixed bag.  Maybe having something to do with why you are contending, where your heart is pointed, what exactly your eye is single to, the goal, etc.  

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Mordecai said:

This has been a subject of debate for a long time and, ironically, many suggest you shouldn't debate, because it's "of the devil." I've been listening to--like seemingly everyone else--Jordan Peterson; he argues for, among other things, evolutionary biology, where human instincts for hierarchy are directly analogous to those of chimpanzee instincts. This, to me, suggests that, "the natural man," may be natural in the sense that, in part, our animal instincts drive us to contend for position in a hierarchy, one against another. A debate or argument can be a means of climbing a hierarchy, either as an authority on doctrine or as an intellectual elite.

Jordan Peterson argues for hierarchies of competence and cooperation among humans.  The other kind don't end well.  For all their human-like characteristics, chimps, on the other hand, seem to be engaged in a constant jihad.  For them the Patriarchy myth is true.

8 hours ago, Mordecai said:

Conversely, the book of Jude suggests we should contend (Greek: struggle) for the faith against those that would corrupt it. How do you do that without "contending with anger, one against another?" If we want to take our desire to climb the hierarchy out of the equation, I think you contend without the idea of your own position or status in mind, but the status of God. God, being all powerful and a permanent fixture, hopefully at the top of our emotional hierarchy, isn't someone who needs us to be angry, as God can't be harmed by man in any way. So we can argue for other people's good, without anger, by thinking about God and arguing loyally for Him.

If you don't get angry, and you have no thought for your own ego, I think you are keeping with what Jude recommends, which is to contend for the faith, as opposed to contending with anger with others for a higher intellectual or religious status. So contend in the context in which Jesus uses it, doesn't mean to not debate, in my hypothesis; it means that you are competing for position, a higher status in a natural, instinctual hierarchy. The debate per se isn't the contention, in itself; it only can be, if you are going "one against another" in pursuit of a higher position. Alma 1:9:..............         

That's the natural man alright.

[changed]

18 hours ago, Mordecai said:

So what does it mean when "Gideon withstood him with the words of God?" I think he was clearly countering the claims that there was no God and no Savior, using the scriptures and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Maybe he was using the scriptures, speaking on God's behalf instead of his own behalf. But I don't think this was a friendly discussion! Gideon, I suspect, was calm and composed, using the scriptures rationally, without anger, but what he was saying was probably rather bold and straightforward. We read other examples of this with Abinidi, explaining the meaning of the scriptures in what many would describe as a "contentious fashion."

Saying, "Ye have not understood [the scriptures]," was not going to make the priests of Noah happy! That was a "contentious"  thing to say, but you can't really say that was of the devil, can you? Jesus went as far as to call the Pharisees, "vipers," to their faces, suggesting that they were subhuman killers. Not too nice! Of course, that's pretty much what they were, murderous and beyond feeling. Speaking the truth boldly to the wicked, I think, is righteous, as long as your ego isn't in it; easier said than done, of course, trying to counter evil without your ego involved. But I think the righteous can and should do it.

Just because someone did something in the scriptures does not mean it was the right thing to do - Did Gideon do the right thing?  Perhaps if Gideon was more respectful, listened, communicated in love rather than through contention - perhaps if he had done it differently, he would have actually converted - rather than angered, who he was talking with.  I think it is a bad example - not a good one - of how to communicate.  

Many examples that end with no conversions, no love, no understanding, that end with people being killed etc. - I take all of those stories to be bad examples.  Those are examples of how NOT to communicate with people.  

It takes two to tango - I would call them a bad prophet to have communicated as such.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, changed said:

takes two to tango - I would call them a bad prophet to have communicated as such

I disagree because contention does not have to be a couples’ dance, but can be a solo with an audience. I have seen very mild people making good arguments or explanations attacked viciously because the other wants to attack them. Since it is impossible to control someone else, to force them to respond a certain way no matter how talented one is at speaker is an impossibility.  A person may be the most inspired speaker and yet the other rejects the argument (Satan choosing to reject God’s argument, for example).

If someone comes to a discussion with a strong enough agenda or a closed mind or both, the most eloquent persuader will fail. 

Edited December 29, 2018 by Calm

[changed]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I disagree because contention does not have to be a couples’ dance, but can be a solo with an audience. I have seen very mild people making good arguments or explanations attacked viciously because the other wants to attack them. Since it is impossible to control someone else, to force them to respond a certain way no matter how talented one is at speaker is an impossibility.  A person may be the most inspired speaker and yet the other rejects the argument (Satan choosing to reject God’s argument, for example).

If someone comes to a discussion with a strong enough agenda or a closed mind or both, the most eloquent persuader will fail. 

I think it is the Socratic method - 

http://changingminds.org/techniques/questioning/socratic_questions.htm

 The best way to convert is 

1. Establish similarities (I have  been there, we both experienced xyz, we both like abc) not my tribe vs your tribe - find something that puts you in the same tribe as the person you are talking to.

2. Ask questions, let them answer the questions themselves.

Other suggestions- use "I" statements, come into the conversation with the intent to listen with an open mind - willing to change your viewpoint with new information, not set in your ways (close minded)

Above all, love.  Love needs to be there - eye contact, focus, caring, kind, willing to mourn with them - love.. patience, respect, love.

 

Edited December 29, 2018 by changed

[The Nehor]

Contention is a great evil and anyone participating it will be struck by lightning.

Uh-oh......ummmmm.....yeah.

Wait.....

Okay, I am good.

[mfbukowski]

Opposition  in all things!!

Joseph taught that truth comes through opposition.  I have quotes somewhere- Givens makes the point in "Wrestling the Angel"- which itself is about the story of Jacob contending with the "Angel" or perhaps Jehovah himself.

Quote

 

Givens cites figuratively the task of Jacob in the Old Testament, who wrestles with the balance between the philosophies of men and revealed scripture.

The account of this struggle is one of the most cryptic chapters in all scripture, in which Jacob receives his new name from God, “Israel,” or “he who prevails,” after wrestling all night long with the angel, interpreted to be the Lord himself.

Scripture tells us that in this struggle, Jacob “prevailed.” But how can man prevail against God?

The only way is through consistent, diligent, humble obedience, which shows worthiness. Ultimately, this is the way Israel “prevailed” against the angel — by persisting in seeking a blessing despite being completely humbled.

The story tells us that Jacob held fast to the angel and would not allow him to escape, leaving the angel no alternative but to dislocate Jacob’s hip. Jacob/Israel had lost the fight, yet Jacob still would not release the angel, insisting that the Lord give him a blessing. The angel ultimately agreed and gave him his blessing. So in the long run, Israel “prevailed” through surrender to God and an unwavering commitment to do what was necessary to receive God’s blessings. By any objective measure, he limped away from the battle a defeated man, yet God pronounced that Jacob, now “Israel,” had prevailed by his persistence and ultimate surrender to God’s will. By struggling well to do what God ultimately desired of him, Jacob was blessed and became favored of God. The endowment of blessings resulted in God’s changing Jacob’s name to “Israel,” “He who prevails with God.”

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

And so at least metaphorically our personal "struggles with God" is what often forges testimonies in the "crucible of truth".

And then we have this great conference talk :

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-prophet-joseph-smith?lang=eng

Quote

 

Opposition

Joseph said that when he was 17, an angel told him that his “name [would] be had for good and evil among all nations, … among all people.”4 This amazing prophecy is continuing to be fulfilled today as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has spread throughout the world.

Opposition, criticism, and antagonism are companions to the truth. Whenever the truth with regard to the purpose and destiny of man is revealed, there will always be a force to oppose it. Beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, down to the ministry of Christ, and on down to our day, there has always been and will ever be an effort to deceive, derail, oppose, and frustrate the plan of life.

Look for the biggest dust cloud billowing above the most dirt that is kicked at One who was most opposed, challenged, and rejected, beaten, abandoned, and crucified, One who descended below all things, and there you will find the truth, the Son of God, the Savior of all mankind. Why did they not leave Him alone?

Why? Because He is the truth, and the truth will always be opposed.

And then look for one who brought forth another testament of Jesus Christ and other scripture, look for one who was the instrument by which the fulness of the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ were restored to the earth, look for him and expect to find the dirt flying. Why not leave him alone?

Why? Because he taught the truth, and the truth will always be opposed.

And then this from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism- bolding added:

https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Intellectual_History

Quote

One of the divinely ordained purposes of life is to gain spiritual and intellectual experience in mind and spirit (see Reason and Revelation). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "by proving contraries, truth is made manifest" (HC 6:248). To "study it out in your mind" is often a prerequisite to heavenly assistance (D&C 9:8), and communication from God may sometimes be recognized by its effect on the mind. Latter-day Saints were enjoined early to seek knowledge out of the best books (D&C 88:118) and to establish schools (see Schools of the Prophets) for instruction in both sacred and secular matters.

This of course carries on the great principle of dialectic- which goes back at least to Socrates.

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Mordecai said:

This has been a subject of debate for a long time and, ironically, many suggest you shouldn't debate, because it's "of the devil." I've been listening to--like seemingly everyone else--Jordan Peterson; he argues for, among other things, evolutionary biology, where human instincts for hierarchy are directly analogous to those of chimpanzee instincts. This, to me, suggests that, "the natural man," may be natural in the sense that, in part, our animal instincts drive us to contend for position in a hierarchy, one against another. A debate or argument can be a means of climbing a hierarchy, either as an authority on doctrine or as an intellectual elite.

Conversely, the book of Jude suggests we should contend (Greek: struggle) for the faith against those that would corrupt it. How do you do that without "contending with anger, one against another?" If we want to take our desire to climb the hierarchy out of the equation, I think you contend without the idea of your own position or status in mind, but the status of God. God, being all powerful and a permanent fixture, hopefully at the top of our emotional hierarchy, isn't someone who needs us to be angry, as God can't be harmed by man in any way. So we can argue for other people's good, without anger, by thinking about God and arguing loyally for Him.

If you don't get angry, and you have no thought for your own ego, I think you are keeping with what Jude recommends, which is to contend for the faith, as opposed to contending with anger with others for a higher intellectual or religious status. So contend in the context in which Jesus uses it, doesn't mean to not debate, in my hypothesis; it means that you are competing for position, a higher status in a natural, instinctual hierarchy. The debate per se isn't the contention, in itself; it only can be, if you are going "one against another" in pursuit of a higher position. Alma 1:9:

              

There is a distinction between the "spirit of contention" and "contending." 

[2BizE]

I don’t believe an actual devil exists. I believe this is just symbolic.

[HappyJackWagon]

I shared this recently on another thread but I'll repeat it here because I think it applies.

My wife was recently in a RS meeting when the teacher stated that every member of the church should be vigilant in removing "Mormon" and "LDS" from their lexicon until those words are just as offensive to the ears as the N word. But she said the actual N word in class. There was an uncomfortable silence. One woman spoke up and said that it should not be our goal to be offended by a word AND that the N word (did not actually say it) truly is offensive. Comparing the two is offensive.

There was another silence and then the teacher moved on, stating that she didn't want contention to run the spirit off.

My wife felt badly that she didn't also speak up but it seemed clear through our conversation that she didn't because she didn't want to be "contentious". She didn't even want to challenge something so blatantly wrong out of fear that she would cause contention. In my view, the teacher making her ridiculous statement and using inappropriate language brought contention to the class but because she was first, anyone that followed could be viewed as contending against her, chasing off the spirit, and giving a victory to Satan. IMO- contention against something that is wrong is not of the devil. Quite the opposite actually.

Quote

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (& women)  to do nothing.”― Edmund Burke

 

[Mordecai]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IMO- contention against something that is wrong is not of the devil. Quite the opposite actually. 

 

I'd say that depends. You can contend against evil by having the spirit of contention yourself, contending with anger "one against another," as opposed to contending for what's right.

[The Nehor]

[HappyJackWagon]

23 hours ago, Mordecai said:

I'd say that depends. You can contend against evil by having the spirit of contention yourself, contending with anger "one against another," as opposed to contending for what's right.

Notice I said, "contention against something that is wrong" and not "someone that is wrong".