again I ask...

[Guest missingsomething]

Please do not close this as it is NOT personal against anyone here...but INFACT in reference to a comment made during Sunday school..... (an address made by Pres Kimbell in which many argued over its "meaning") I didnt want to GIVE this particulars... as I didnt want replies solely about this topic, but yes it also applies to a general theme here... so I am geniunely curious.

Do the prophets provoke us to think (as in outside the box) intend us to question... if it brings the spirit of contention. Or do they want us to just ponder and pray about something.

One gentleman today said that they do want us to debate... and a sister said discuss not debate.

Im asking your thoughts.

POSITIVE PLEASE... NO PERSONAL ATTACKS as I do want answers to this.

[prospectmom]

A debate is a good thing , a learning experience........ to talk and exchange ideas and beliefs.. the problem comes when one party gets offended then acts defensive.....AI debate is an exchange of Ideas and we should take what we can use , the good and leave the rest. When we let our emotions get involved then contention sets in.

[Palerider]

It will be closed if we see that its being argumentive....lets keep it civil...

[Guest missingsomething]

A debate is a good thing , a learning experience........ to talk and exchange ideas and beliefs.. the problem comes when one party gets offended then acts defensive.....AI debate is an exchange of Ideas and we should take what we can use , the good and leave the rest. When we let our emotions get involved then contention sets in.

Well then what the difference btwn a debate vs discussion then?

Because btw - our bishop said... debate lends to contention (I think he said strife) that we are to prayerfully discuss.

[Guest missingsomething]

It will be closed if we see that its being argumentive....lets keep it civil...

Pale,

you know me... I dont want to argue... I want a sincere answer... when I start a post that is what I *expect* to get... not always what you get.

[beefche]

Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

Discussion: consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.

So, if debate leads to contention or strife, then all those debate teams in high school and college can be renamed "Strife teams." (can you tell I disagree with your bishop?)

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, in today's society debate is not welcome, and is considered contentious. It used to be that debate, or a good theological or political argument, was seen as good sport, and people didn't get their feelings hurt. Don't know why the world is so sensitive. The result is that we no longer share our thoughts and feelings with each other. We tolerate our neighbors, and thus never offend, but rarely have any true human connection either.

I cannot pretend to read the minds of LDS leaders, but most of them would be mature enough to remember when healthy debate was intellectually invigorating, and not a friendship-buster. Perhaps they yearn somewhat for those days?

[prospectmom]

Missing ok then we can take away the word debate and discuss even so people sometimes do not understand anothers opinion and get offended then the discussion becomes anything but. I think both words mean the same pretty much but am happy to use discuss. We are not all going to agree on everything so the ability to agree to disagree is very important to me.

And sometimes walking away and thinking and praying about it is emensly helpful.

[kpatrey]

i think with a debate you are trying to win a party, or person, over. you are trying to convince them of your viewpoint and get them to see it your way. again, this is my interpretation of it. i think with a discussion you are basically talking amongst a group of people, not necessarily trying to change their ideas or view point. discussions are just talking about the topic at hand. However, i have seen many discussions turn into a debate :)

I can agree with keeping posts civil. It's really hard when you add a thread with good intentions and then all of a sudden it gets all crazy!

[Connie]

Here are some good articles to consider:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Christian Courage: The Price of Discipleship

LDS.org - New Era Article - Q&A: Questions and Answers

[Moksha]

For what it is worth, Socrates said an unexamined life is hardy worth living. One could imagine the Universe awaiting our inquiries and examinations.

If we never discuss things then how can we ever clarify our values or expand upon them?

.

[Gatorman]

You have stated my opinion exactly. The Debate Teams are a perfect example. The purpose of a debate is to win the other side over or to over come them. Ergo, contention and strife. It is a contest, where one has to be right and the other wrong.

A discussion is the sharing of ideas and opinions in an effort to learn more about a topic or each other. It does not involve an attempt to attack or question or tear down anothers position. Yes, there will be questioning for understanding, but not to remove the pillars of belief in the topic at hand.

i think with a debate you are trying to win a party, or person, over. you are trying to convince them of your viewpoint and get them to see it your way. again, this is my interpretation of it. i think with a discussion you are basically talking amongst a group of people, not necessarily trying to change their ideas or view point. discussions are just talking about the topic at hand. However, i have seen many discussions turn into a debate :)

I can agree with keeping posts civil. It's really hard when you add a thread with good intentions and then all of a sudden it gets all crazy!

[Guest missingsomething]

i think with a debate you are trying to win a party, or person, over. you are trying to convince them of your viewpoint and get them to see it your way. again, this is my interpretation of it. i think with a discussion you are basically talking amongst a group of people, not necessarily trying to change their ideas or view point. discussions are just talking about the topic at hand. However, i have seen many discussions turn into a debate :)

I can agree with keeping posts civil. It's really hard when you add a thread with good intentions and then all of a sudden it gets all crazy!

GREAT POINT... I agree... you debate with the intention to persuade... you discuss with the intention of expressing your thoughts/feelings to others. Thanks... i'd give you 5X the thanks if I could.

[Moksha]

IMHO, in today's society debate is not welcome, and is considered contentious. It used to be that debate, or a good theological or political argument, was seen as good sport, and people didn't get their feelings hurt.

If I remember right, a "Devil's advocate" was appointed (everyone got a turn) so even touchy questions could be looked at from both sides.

At least that is how I remember it. Maybe Pam would know.

:)

[Snow]

Well we all know what happens with debate, especially contentious debate and dissent, is stifled.

In the 4th century the church was declared the state religion, the Greek intellectual tradition (including debate and dissent) was quashed and BAM! The Dark Ages ensued.

Had those early demagogues been as enlightened as the LDS leaders below, think what a different course of history we would have had:

I have been very grateful that the freedom, dignity, and integrity of the individual are basic in church doctrine. We are free to think and express our opinions in the church. Fear will not stifle thought. ...we should also be unafraid to dissent -- if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression. President Hugh B. Brown, An Abundant Life.

President Joseph F. Smith said, "We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never." (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;" (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: "President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when 'Thus saith the Lord', comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill." (Millennial Star 54:191)

"And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God... would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves." (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

Edited July 27, 2009 by Snow

[Moksha]

You have stated my opinion exactly. The Debate Teams are a perfect example. The purpose of a debate is to win the other side over or to over come them. Ergo, contention and strife.

Back in school, debate was for educational purposes, so we would know there are at least two sides to every question. Much more strife at a Utes/BYU game.

[Snow]

Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences.

Hugh B. Brown

[beefche]

GREAT POINT... I agree... you debate with the intention to persuade... you discuss with the intention of expressing your thoughts/feelings to others. Thanks... i'd give you 5X the thanks if I could.

Missing, are you saying then that debate is wrong? If so, why?

[john doe]

I think that debate and discussion both have their place in the Gospel. However, it should be acknowledged that debate generally tends to polarize people, while discussion is more conducive to unifying people. At least in my personal definition of the two. I see debate as more of a right/wrong conversation and discussion as more of an agreed-on position to be clarified or where action is disagreed upon. For instance, this site is expressly set up to discuss the gospel according to LDS, not to debate whether the LDS church is true or not. There are, however, websites set up for debating the truthfulness of the LDS Church, and they are great resources for those inclined to join that debate.

[prospectmom]

I have seen many a discussion in Gospel Doctrine become a debate and then total contention as neither side can agree or backdown

[bytor2112]

I think the Prophet and.....the Savior want us to pray and be guided by the Spirit. "Sharing" the gospel leads to Spiritual confirmation and testimony and conversion, debate leads to more debate and disagreement and often hurt feelings.

That being said....I am all for debate with regard to most things, even the Gospel in certain settings like....forums or among members who consent and are friendly and enjoy a bit of intellectual jousting. (rarely does that happen for Bytor.....he's not too intellectual;)).

[Snow]

I think the Prophet and.....the Savior want us to pray and be guided by the Spirit. "Sharing" the gospel leads to Spiritual confirmation and testimony and conversion, debate leads to more debate and disagreement and often hurt feelings.

Not for me. Debate leads to passion and passion leads to learning. Learning leads to praying and both lead to more light and knowledge which is a godly pursuit.

I have great respect for a superior argument, even if I initially disagree with it.

[bytor2112]

Not for me. Debate leads to passion and passion leads to learning. Learning leads to praying and both lead to more light and knowledge which is a godly pursuit.

I have great respect for a superior argument, even if I initially disagree with it.

Depends on the setting, don't you think ? Debate leads to passion and passion .......may lead to anger and an end to a conversation. But, ultimately, it depends upon the participants.

Edited July 27, 2009 by bytor2112

[Gatorman]

Snow - What about this argument? When a debate causes someone distress or anguish, is it worth partaking in anymore or should real apologies be made?

[Guest missingsomething]

Missing, are you saying then that debate is wrong? If so, why?

Im saying that I am siding with the discussion we had in church ... :)

That when you talk with someone it should be done in the spirit of prayer and bearing testimony... not in challenging people with a negativity or contentious matter. In reality, people will say its all in how a person reacts to what is said... but I think we should avoid conversations like the hmmm was it the sagisees who would ask people questions with the intent to proof them wrong ... I think we should avoid that. I also think that instead of always trying to persuade people we are right... that the prophets meant we should prayerfully consider and discuss and study/ponder what they say - rather than debate it.