again I ask...

[Guest missingsomething]

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;)).

I agree completely!

[bytor2112]

I agree completely!

Of course you do......cuz your smart;)

[Snow]

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?

If I have wronged you, harmed you, made up untrue things about you, etc, it would be in both our best interests if I apologized for doing so.

If, on the other hand, you have chosen to get bent because I have an opinion different than your's or because you can't stand some harmless ribbing - uayh - it's America, free country - feel free to get bent if you like.

[Gatorman]

Irrefutable proof. Thank you snow. Now, to go find the ignore option.

If I have wronged you, harmed you, made up untrue things about you, etc, it would be in both our best interests if I apologized for doing so.

If, on the other hand, you have chosen to get bent because I have an opinion different than your's or because you can't stand some harmless ribbing - uayh - it's America, free country - feel free to get bent if you like.

[Snow]

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.

How do you reconcile what you say you believe (above) and what you actually do in practice - making up things about people, comparing their actions to the anti-Christ, calling them quintessential sinners, etc?

Is it important to align your behavior with your actions or can the two stand apart?

[Snow]

Irrefutable proof. Thank you snow. Now, to go find the ignore option.

Ahhh - the ignore button. You can always rest assured that when people publicly claim that they are ignoring you - they do anything but... kinda like posters who loudly claim that they are leaving the board but then continue to lurk and lurk.

[beefche]

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.

Can one be challenged without negativity or contention? And how do you know people's intent? Christ knew the Sadducee's thoughts and intents--I suspect because he's God. As much as I want that power and pretend to have it, I don't.

I try to persuade people:

2 Nephi 26 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his asalvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath bgiven it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to crepentance.

D&C 121 41 No apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the bpriesthood, only by cpersuasion, by dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

[Guest missingsomething]

Can one be challenged without negativity or contention? And how do you know people's intent? Christ knew the Sadducee's thoughts and intents--I suspect because he's God. As much as I want that power and pretend to have it, I don't.

I try to persuade people:

2 Nephi 26 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his asalvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath bgiven it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to crepentance.

D&C 121 41 No apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the bpriesthood, only by cpersuasion, by dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

Yes persuasion with GENTLENESS AND MEEKNESS AND LOVE UNFEIGNED...

[beefche]

Yes persuasion with GENTLENESS AND MEEKNESS AND LOVE UNFEIGNED...

Do you think that gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned can be demonstrated in a manner to which one is unaccustomed? What may be a kind way for me to persuade may not be to someone else. How does one determine the intents of another?

[WmLee]

I was once asked by a sister, the difference between an Elders Quorum and I high Priest meeting. I told her the Elders were either boring as all get or like a Laurel and Hardy Comedy Hour. Her husband wasn’t happy with that one. But, my point was I found the high Priest would discuss and at times be quit “enthusiastic” with their points. I recall one meeting when a gentleman was throwing scripture at me left and right. I am NOT strong in the “scripture chase” game, but I presented my side with common sense.

That gentleman is still my “brother” and we still have our moments. We still say hello with a handshake and a hug. He is from the Islands and when he calls me his brother, I know he loves me. But, as PrisonChaplain wrote, we do have some good discussions. No contention, no bad feelings, no matter who has the stronger point.

[Guest Godless]

Personally, I much prefer discussions because there's a much greater opportunity to learn a thing or two when argumentativeness isn't a factor. As Snow said though, passionate debate can easily lead to learning as well. Though I think it's safe to say that you're usually taking a pretty big risk of heightening tensions when passions come into play.

Debates can be interesting and fun, but there's usually an "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality that emanates from both sides of a debate (I am certainly guilty of this). If you have that mindset, then it's hard to see the other side.

[Ezequiel]

I think that in sunday school and other similar church meetings, its better to have discussions. I feel like they are more conductive to the Spirit, because we see a pool of ideas and perspectives. We can find inspiration, and learn from many different insights. If everyone has something of worth to contribute, debates become rich and valuable!

Whereas, in a debate, aside from causing contention, it usually leads to nothing, as everyone wants to be right, and other opinions are not expressed. Debates usually explore only opposing or conflicting sides of a topic, usually ignoring that there could be other possibilities. I feel debates are somewhat limited where thoughts and ideas either get narrowed down to two black and white issues, or blown up to the point it has litle relevance at all.

to the OP: I think that sister was right, we should seek to discuss and explore, and not debate - there is another time and place for that.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Ezequiel

[prisonchaplain]

Personally, I much prefer discussions because there's a much greater opportunity to learn a thing or two when argumentativeness isn't a factor. As Snow said though, passionate debate can easily lead to learning as well. Though I think it's safe to say that you're usually taking a pretty big risk of heightening tensions when passions come into play.

Debates can be interesting and fun, but there's usually an "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality that emanates from both sides of a debate (I am certainly guilty of this). If you have that mindset, then it's hard to see the other side.

I hope this is not seen as a sidetrack, but Godless brings up a point that may explain the disfavor "debate" has fallen into. The postmodern worldview that folk under 40 (well, to some extend even up to the mid-40s) have grown up with, suggests that truth is fluid, and never absolute (will, not absolutely never, as that would be an absolute). Thus, for those who embrace the thinking, the right/wrong affirmative/negative win/lose that permeate debating are offensive. The very posture of the debater seems arrogant. Worse, since truth is so vague, to even suggest one side is correct and the other is not seems ignorant. So, far better to discuss and learn from each other.

So...here's a thought further...LDS theology, with it's three heavens, almost non-existent hell, and the teaching that everyone will go to the level of the heavenly kingdom that is most appropriate and satisfying for them--well, it all seems rather postmodern, doesn't it???

[Guest Godless]

I hope this is not seen as a sidetrack, but Godless brings up a point that may explain the disfavor "debate" has fallen into. The postmodern worldview that folk under 40 (well, to some extend even up to the mid-40s) have grown up with, suggests that truth is fluid, and never absolute (will, not absolutely never, as that would be an absolute). Thus, for those who embrace the thinking, the right/wrong affirmative/negative win/lose that permeate debating are offensive. The very posture of the debater seems arrogant. Worse, since truth is so vague, to even suggest one side is correct and the other is not seems ignorant. So, far better to discuss and learn from each other.

I'm not quite sure that I agree with you. You're right about the rejection of absolute truths. We've reached a scientific mindset where evidence is far more valuable than definitive proof, and this is the root of my disagreement with your stance. There's no arrogance in saying that I'm right and you're wrong if the evidence points to me being right. I may not be able to prove that I'm right, but if the evidence is in my favor, then I have a higher probability of being right than you do.

When it comes to gospel matters, it becomes much more difficult. People can quote scripture until they're blue in the face, but the fact remains that no one has any knowledge whatsoever about any sort of alternative plane of existence outside of this one. You have evidence in the form of scripture and personal experience, and each carry fallacies.

1. Scripture can be interpreted multiple ways, and translations may be flawed. And ultimately, you're still taking the word of someone else as truth without necessarily experiencing the things that are written about.

2. Personal experience is subjective and, well, personal, and therefore is generally meaningless to everyone except the individual who had the experience. A classic example is missionary work. Your missionaries tell people to pray about the Book of Mormon in hopes that they will receive a spiritual confirmation of its truth. What if they don't receive that confirmation? What if they pray about it and they still feel that the Book of Mormon is not true? Who are you to argue with what they experienced?

Point being, there is virtually no standard of truth for gospel matters. The only standard lies in common ground. If Pam and Palerider are discussing a gospel doctrine and it turns out that the issue was addressed plainly and clearly by President Monson in a General Conference talk, then the standard of truth has been met because they both believe that he is a prophet of God. However, that standard wouldn't work if the discussion were between Pam and myself because I don't believe that President Monson is divinely inspired.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Godless

[Danite]

I personally believe that debate has no place at all in a gospel discussion because often the focus changes ,from what is right, to who is right.If we are trying honestly to seek the mind and will of Heavenly Father on the matter , then pondering and praying seem to me as the road to follow. I can not see what purpose is served by debate other than to prove a point.

What is right is always more important then, who is right

[rameumptom]

We are told to "contend with no church, save it be the church of the devil" (D&C 18:20). Regardless of some people's views on other Christian faiths, none of them are the church of the devil.

And given we are considering discussions within Church meetings, contention definitely does not belong there.

We are taught how Church meetings should be conducted:

Appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege. (D&C 88:122).

IOW, each member should be given the opportunity to share their ideas on a concept. But the teacher is to guide the discussion, and others should not try and force their views on others, but simply share them. In this way, each individual gets the opportunity to consider different concepts for him/herself, and decide whether to accept that concept.

[rameumptom]

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.

There is a time and place for debate. And I also employ it in the correct places. However, Church meetings are not the time nor place for debate. While it can bring an increase in knowledge, debate also tends to bring contention, and most people in Church are there to attend to the Spirit of God, not the spirit of contention.

It almost never fails that most quorums have one guy who feels it is his duty to debate, thinking his steadying of the ark will improve upon the quorum. There are ways to share concepts without placing them in debate language. We do not need to attack another with whom we disagree. We can simply say, "I understand this concept in this way...." and share it. We can then let the Spirit help those in the room to determine what is most correct.

There are ways to share concepts without bringing out the big guns. And we can help ensure our Church meetings are spiritual refuges from the world, rather than bringing the world's methods and politics into the mix.

[Misshalfway]

I think what happens is not a debate. I think people start "right fighting" and that is what get's people all up in each others faces. And this is never Christlike.

This is an interesting thing because I do think that God wants us to use our brains. And it is very rare that I don't see that each truth is multifaceted and even multilayered. So if we don't stretch ourselves and explore a bit, how will we gain wisdom and understanding?

So why aren't we more successful at attempting this process with other people? I don't know. People have lots of fears and even pride about being challenged...and being challenged publicly. Perhaps we need to learn the art of sharing our views without attacking anothers. Perhaps we need to listen more and "prove" less. So many times when I see people fight with one another it is usually because one or more parties stopped listening and starting reacting. I don't think these kind of reactions ever use the best of ones intellect or come to any greater understanding.

Missing.....Wouldn't it be great if we could find a balance? If we could allow each other space to share opposing views? Maybe the church would be a better community if we could. It is an interesting thing to think about. But there is this thing called reality and I don't think we will get there anytime soon. Too many factors at play.

[beefche]

What I don't understand is why people think disagreeing is contentious or hateful. I see this on forums (not just this one) and in real life.

Recently, I was given an apology note from a lady at church. She felt that harsh words were said between us when she was teaching. I don't remember the particulars of what she was talking about, but I do remember giving an opposing view. At no point did it ever cross my mind that our opposing views were said harshly. I was absolutely shocked when she thought I was offended by her view. I assured her that I don't take offense easily and felt she gave a great lesson. Especially because she invites thoughts and opinions.

Can't people assume that the other person has good intentions? Why do we always have to think the worst of others? If I read a statement (or hear one) that appears to be mean or hateful, I always ask what they mean by it. We are not always the best at expressing our thoughts and sometimes it may come across as harsh when we are far from that feeling or meaning.

[Guest missingsomething]

Missing.....Wouldn't it be great if we could find a balance? If we could allow each other space to share opposing views? Maybe the church would be a better community if we could. It is an interesting thing to think about. But there is this thing called reality and I don't think we will get there anytime soon. Too many factors at play.

I dont always think with the crowd, so I am for opposing views so long as they are not done in an negative argumentative, tear down the other person's view...way... which I think that the majority of us feel, yes?!

Ram made great points about when it is appropriate...

[Guest missingsomething]

What I don't understand is why people think disagreeing is contentious or hateful. I see this on forums (not just this one) and in real life.

Recently, I was given an apology note from a lady at church. She felt that harsh words were said between us when she was teaching. I don't remember the particulars of what she was talking about, but I do remember giving an opposing view. At no point did it ever cross my mind that our opposing views were said harshly. I was absolutely shocked when she thought I was offended by her view. I assured her that I don't take offense easily and felt she gave a great lesson. Especially because she invites thoughts and opinions.

Can't people assume that the other person has good intentions? Why do we always have to think the worst of others? If I read a statement (or hear one) that appears to be mean or hateful, I always ask what they mean by it. We are not always the best at expressing our thoughts and sometimes it may come across as harsh when we are far from that feeling or meaning.

I can't speak as to your particular situation (although it sounds like she was making sure she didn’t offend you…not the other way around… and that is commendable and Christ-like.) I was once taught that if you didn’t intend to offend, but someone expresses that you have offended them (even though it MAY be their jaded view of what happened or that they are thin skinned) that it is our responsibility to apologize for offending them and inform them that was not our intent. After all, when it comes down to it… are you ever going to be in the wrong for doing so…even if your pride has to be swallowed sometimes..? But Beef, don't read too much into her note - I write people notes/call them if I even think I offended – because I don't want it to escalate… doesn’t mean I think they said/did anything wrong.

I believe a person’s tone and body language speak volumes about their intentions. And when a topic becomes argumentative (when you actually can FEEL THE SPIRIT LEAVE) then I believe you can say the intentions are not in accordance to what the prophets have spoken.

I do not believe that what the prophets tell us is “up for debate”—I trust my Heavenly Father to only leave a prophet in place if they are in accordance to his plan….but I do feel the need to examine it and pray about it so that I can develop my own belief and testimony of something….also I believe, while we should not contend, we can discuss it to give opposing views, ideas, interpretations to further our own understanding of a topic.

You are right - I can't always tell someone’s intentions –but if the other person they are speaking to says… I don't like the way you are talking to me and they continue… is that not contentious? If they disrupt a meeting (or a forum since you referenced that) and they cause discord… is it righteous to continue? If you point out someone’s difference in opinion/theory/belief in a way to say they are foolish, naïve, insincere, incompetent, etc .. then is that debate or discussion in line with what the scriptures and prophets have taught? I don't think so, nor do I think you do either…

And, RETORICAL QUESTION:

Is it ALWAYS right to be so adamant in your view that you must continue to push a theory onto others, even if you know or suspect that they are getting upset?? Even if you try to justify it with – well they SHOULDN’T get upset because I'm just discussing it?

[beefche]

I was once taught that if you didn’t intend to offend, but someone expresses that you have offended them (even though it MAY be their jaded view of what happened or that they are thin skinned) that it is our responsibility to apologize for offending them and inform them that was not our intent. After all, when it comes down to it… are you ever going to be in the wrong for doing so…even if your pride has to be swallowed sometimes..? But Beef, don't read too much into her note - I write people notes/call them if I even think I offended – because I don't want it to escalate… doesn’t mean I think they said/did anything wrong.

Ok, I'm going to disagree (haha, isn't that ironic?). I was once in a church meeting when another woman and I were sharing our differing beliefs. Another woman stood up and began screaming (literally) at us for arguing. I didn't feel the Spirit leave until that lady stood up and began screaming. Maybe SHE felt the Spirit leave, but her state of spiritualty is her business, not mine.

I believe a person’s tone and body language speak volumes about their intentions. And when a topic becomes argumentative (when you actually can FEEL THE SPIRIT LEAVE) then I believe you can say the intentions are not in accordance to what the prophets have spoken.

Again, your definition of debate may be different for other people. I gather from your posts that you feel that debate is a negative feeling for you. It isn't for others (including me).

I do not believe that what the prophets tell us is “up for debate”—I trust my Heavenly Father to only leave a prophet in place if they are in accordance to his plan….but I do feel the need to examine it and pray about it so that I can develop my own belief and testimony of something….also I believe, while we should not contend, we can discuss it to give opposing views, ideas, interpretations to further our own understanding of a topic.

Ok, here's where you might be offended and I truly don't mean to do that. But, people choose to be offended. Even in the face of someone saying something so offensive, one still chooses offense. I have had people tell me to my face things that are very offensive and although it hurts, I'm not going to make myself unhappy by being offended and lingering on it. I'm going to forgive and move on.

You are right - I can't always tell someone’s intentions –but if the other person they are speaking to says… I don't like the way you are talking to me and they continue… is that not contentious? If they disrupt a meeting (or a forum since you referenced that) and they cause discord… is it righteous to continue? If you point out someone’s difference in opinion/theory/belief in a way to say they are foolish, naïve, insincere, incompetent, etc .. then is that debate or discussion in line with what the scriptures and prophets have taught? I don't think so, nor do I think you do either…

And, RETORICAL QUESTION:

Is it ALWAYS right to be so adamant in your view that you must continue to push a theory onto others, even if you know or suspect that they are getting upset?? Even if you try to justify it with – well they SHOULDN’T get upset because I'm just discussing it?

I'm going to answer your rhetorical question: Why do you care about other's actions/motives? Seriously, if someone is trying to push their agenda, bow out of the conversation. I refuse to get in arguments with people. If we are sharing opposing views, that's fine. But if someone is trying to shove their thoughts/beliefs down my throat, I just clam up and bow out of the discussion. Not worthy raising my blood pressure....

[Dravin]

Again, your definition of debate may be different for other people.

I think debate being a dirty word or not depends on whether it conjures up images of debate club or of people yelling logical fallacies at each other over the internet.

[ryanh]

The scriptures are quite clear, that if they are not the true church, and there is only one true church, that all the rest are the church of the devil.

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 14:10)

39 And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye? Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd, and ye are of his fold; and now, who can deny this? Behold, I say unto you, whosoever denieth this is a cliar and a child of the devil.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 5:39)

23 He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.

(New Testament | Luke 11:23)

Consider the Pharisees / Sadducees. They read the scriptures, and prayed, and went to church, and showed everyone how righteous and pious they were…. And then they went and killed Jesus. That is who the Pharisees and Sadducees were, they were the ones who killed Jesus. Don’t let looks deceive you. Anyone who denies the power of God, who casts out His prophets and apostles, who refuses to read his continued revelation, who preaches for money, or to be seen of men… These are not of God, these are the Sadducees. Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. – They are wolves who keep their followers from the truth, from the ordinances and blessings that come from following God’s true church.

As far as contend goes:

3 ...ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

(New Testament | Jude 1:3)

5 Contend thou, therefore, morning by morning; and day after day let thy warning voice go forth; and when the night cometh let not the inhabitants of the earth slumber, because of thy speech.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 112:5)

Can't let that slide lest a non-member or uninformed member read it and not understand that is NOT the position of the LDS Church. There are various ways to interpret the word "church", and it may not always represent a denomination or building. Take a look at it's fruits before making a choice. Elder McConkie took the harshest stance on this topic that I have ever seen, and even that was IMO a far cry from the above post. It is also important to keep in mind that "contend" may have various meanings and should be read in context IMO.

[Guest TheLutheran]

. . . Recently, I was given an apology note from a lady at church. She felt that harsh words were said between us when she was teaching. I don't remember the particulars of what she was talking about, but I do remember giving an opposing view. At no point did it ever cross my mind that our opposing views were said harshly. I was absolutely shocked when she thought I was offended by her view. I assured her that I don't take offense easily and felt she gave a great lesson. Especially because she invites thoughts and opinions. . . .

Do you suppose sometimes we spent too much energy defending "the way we are" instead of striving to develop those qualities of character God wishes to grow in us? I'm talking about the fruits of the Spirit [love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control] and obviously the lady at church described above was striving for those qualities.

Many find discussing (or debating) very challenging. I contend that to discuss within the framework of the fruits of the Spirit is a greater challenge.