again I ask...

[ryanh]

In order to avoid the problem of semantics, it would seem prudent to rely on the definition of debate. Beefche gave one in the 6th post. It is the polar oppositional nature that is the problem with debate. It has it’s place – deciding what health care reform is most appropriate for the USA. It is not appropriate in matters of personal relationships or doctrinal understandings. Those are not matters of you’re wrong, I’m right. (IMO, in personal relationships, there is no right or wrong, simply different positions, and in doctrinal matters, there is a truth to be understood or discovered.) The oppositional nature and attempt to prove your own point as right that occurs in debates, rather than present your side and let it lie, feels prideful, and is a root of contention.

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another

(3 Ne. 11:29)

Some people can’t help being contentious. For instance, those with ADHD often are oppositional in order to self-medicate and release their brain from the chemical imbalances otherwise restricting them. It also inhibits their ability to think before they act. Somehow, those who are in touch with their empathy have to learn to ignore these people and let them find other places to get their self-stimulants.

[beefche]

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.

I agree, Lutheran. But what I don't understand is when someone finds discussing or debate "challenging" why does it fall on others to be the offensive party? Why do people choose to be offended, especially if one knows he/she to be challenged in that area?

I am curious, though. Your first paragraph implies that I am defending myself the way I am and not striving for the fruits of the Spirit. Am I reading too much into that? FTR, this sister in my ward is a wonderful, warm individual whom I admire greatly. After receiving her note, we spoke and I felt that we both came from that uplifted and feeling each other's respect and love. I am in no way criticizing her--merely using her as an example.

[beefche]

In order to avoid the problem of semantics, it would seem prudent to rely on the definition of debate. Beefche gave one in the 6th post. It is the polar oppositional nature that is the problem with debate. It has it’s place – deciding what health care reform is most appropriate for the USA. It is not appropriate in matters of personal relationships or doctrinal understandings. Those are not matters of you’re wrong, I’m right. (IMO, in personal relationships, there is no right or wrong, simply different positions, and in doctrinal matters, there is a truth to be understood or discovered.) The oppositional nature and attempt to prove your own point as right that occurs in debates, rather than present your side and let it lie, feels prideful, and is a root of contention.

(3 Ne. 11:29)

Some people can’t help being contentious. For instance, those with ADHD often are oppositional in order to self-medicate and release their brain from the chemical imbalances otherwise restricting them. It also inhibits their ability to think before they act. Somehow, those who are in touch with their empathy have to learn to ignore these people and let them find other places to get their self-stimulants.

ryanh, at least here on lds.net, one is not allowed to debate actual doctrine. That is against the rules.

I think where debate comes is in the application of doctrine (the more gray areas--is green tea against WoW or not-- type of discussions) or when there is a question about why we believe something from a non-member, who then explains why they believe what they believe.

[Guest missingsomething]

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.

Thank you - this is exactly what I feel. I love really love the "I contend that to discuss within the framework of the fruits of the Spirit is a greater challenge." Well put.

hahaha... my co worker (nonmember has been reading this thread with me.... and just shook his head and said...) Well *My name*, why dont you just ask them if they would take the same tone/method of "discussing" if it were with the Savior. DUh." Then he said... "But then again, those same people would say, 'thats not the point'" ... I nearly peed my pants!

I dont think discussing opposing views is negative.. its the manner in which it is done...

[ryanh]

But what I don't understand is when someone finds discussing or debate "challenging" why does it fall on others to be the offensive party? Why do people choose to be offended, especially if one knows he/she to be challenged in that area?

It's not easy to please everyone. I've done my fair share of goof ups and offended those when I had no intent to do so. I have several thoughts about it.

I don't presume that even the most sensitive and ready to take offense I have encountered "choose" to be offended. That may be the case at times, but I try to give the person the benefit of the doubt and assume they have the best intentions. Can't we just assume that the other person has good intentions and is actually hurt emotionally? :) :) :)

It is also feels to me that there is nothing wrong with being as sensitive as we can to other people's feelings. Doing so is only developing myself and making myself a better person. Especially if I can simultaneously differentiate myself enough to not take offense. The two are not incompatible traits within one person.

Paul once told the Corinthians, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” (1 Cor. 8:13.)

When my wife takes offense to something I did (and vice versa) it doesn't help our relationship much for me to blow it off as she's just being 'too sensitive', or choosing to take offense. It can't be bad to treat our brothers and sisters the same.

[Guest missingsomething]

Can't we just assume that the other person has good intentions and is actually hurt emotionally? :) :) :)

Good point. I get it.... as much as I often think... UGH what in the WORLD - how did they take "THAT" wrong... I try to err on the side of say sorry and move on...just incase

[glow_inthe_dark_girl]

for those who speak spanish: CONTENCIÓN. Salvo circunstancias muy fuera de lo usual, debate no es parte

del sistema aprobado para presentar el mensaje de salvación al mundo o para persuadir a

los miembros a que acepten una doctrina en particular. Por lo general, el debate hace que

la persona y sus simpatizantes se afiancen con más firmeza en la opinión sostenida.

"Contiendas, envidias, iras, divisiones, maledicencias, murmuraciones, soberbias,

tumultos" -son descritas por Pablo como maldad. (2 Cor. 12:20; Rom. 1:29.)

AN ATTEMPT TO TRANSLATE:

except for special circumstances, debating is not a part of the approved system for presenting the message of salvation to the world or to persuade members to accept a particular doctrine. Usually the

discussion makes the person and their supporters reinforce their ideas. "Contest, envy, anger, division, evil, murmuring, riots, "were described by Paul as evil (2 Cor. 12:20; Rom. 1:29.)

mormon doctrine p.184 . Although this book was only the opinion of Bruce R. McConkie, I agree, with this, I like participating on school debates but the times I had been in religious debates with some friends of other religions the results had not been the best. The best way to express our opinion is with love and empathy i think.

Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

Edited July 27, 2009 by glow_inthe_dark_girl

[Guest TheLutheran]

. . . I am curious, though. Your first paragraph implies that I am defending myself the way I am and not striving for the fruits of the Spirit. Am I reading too much into that? FTR, this sister in my ward is a wonderful, warm individual whom I admire greatly. After receiving her note, we spoke and I felt that we both came from that uplifted and feeling each other's respect and love. I am in no way criticizing her--merely using her as an example. . . .

Yep. Soon as I hit the "SUBMIT REPLY" button it occurred to me that you might perceive my statement re: "defending the way we are" to be directed at you. My apologies. It is my responsibility to communicate clearly, concisely and correctly to avoid erroneous implications.

I chose to quote your post because of the loving, peaceful, kind, and gentle manner the church lady employed in her interactions with you.

[beefche]

It's not easy to please everyone. I've done my fair share of goof ups and offended those when I had no intent to do so. I have several thoughts about it.

I don't presume that even the most sensitive and ready to take offense I have encountered "choose" to be offended. That may be the case at times, but I try to give the person the benefit of the doubt and assume they have the best intentions. Can't we just assume that the other person has good intentions and is actually hurt emotionally? :) :) :)

It is also feels to me that there is nothing wrong with being as sensitive as we can to other people's feelings. Doing so is only developing myself and making myself a better person. Especially if I can simultaneously differentiate myself enough to not take offense. The two are not incompatible traits within one person.

Paul once told the Corinthians, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” (1 Cor. 8:13.)

When my wife takes offense to something I did (and vice versa) it doesn't help our relationship much for me to blow it off as she's just being 'too sensitive', or choosing to take offense. It can't be bad to treat our brothers and sisters the same.

ryanh, I am not excusing anyone the responsibility of their own words and actions. We are all responsible to be kind, loving, and gentle in our interactions with everyone.

I am very sensitive when it comes to polygamy. I know that. I can get offended very easily when people begin defending polygamy and insisting that it is the way of our eternal lives. For that reason, I typically stay out of polygamy discussions. I can join in to a certain extent, but then I have to bow out because I start feeling my blood pressure escalating.

Does that mean I should just tell everyone that believes and promotes polygamy in the eternities that they aren't being sensitive and I'm offended and they should watch what they say? No, of course not. What I find to be offensive may not be intended that way (and probably isn't).

The point I'm trying to make is that only I can choose my reaction. Regardless if the words are offensive or not, I can choose to take offense. Then I become responsible for my reactions--thoughts, behaviors, actions, etc.

[beefche]

Yep. Soon as I hit the "SUBMIT REPLY" button it occurred to me that you might perceive my statement re: "defending the way we are" to be directed at you. My apologies. It is my responsibility to communicate clearly, concisely and correctly to avoid erroneous implications.

I chose to quote your post because of the loving, peaceful, kind, and gentle manner the church lady employed in her interactions with you.

No problem, I just wanted to know if I should choose to be offended or not.

[Danite]

It seems to me at the end of the day the question I ask my self is does it edify? The idea is to lift one another and inspire each to be more Christlike.

[Justice]

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.

Yes, the word "bashing" comes to mind. I have often been called a "basher" when all I did was share a different opinion.

Baffeling.

[Snow]

...

Edited July 29, 2009 by Snow

[Guest missingsomething]

You keep saying this over and over the past couple days... as if you really believe it. Again - how do you reconcile that with how your really behave - name calling, decrying other's faith, labeling those that disagree with you as sinners, comparing other's actions to the anti-Christ?

Do you not think it important to behave in accordance with your stated beliefs?

Again... I apologized to you.... please LET IT GO.

On topic please.

[Snow]

...

Edited July 29, 2009 by Snow

[Guest missingsomething]

Completely untrue - but irrelevant.

I am asking about how you reconcile your beliefs with your contrary actions - or if that is too personal, then generally speaking whether it is important for anyone to walk the walk or practice what they preach.

So you see - this issue is completely relevant to the topic - it speaks to, not just talking about contention, but actually how one goes about encouraging or steering clear of contention.

... as to your alleged apology... you did not apologize for your labeling, name-calling, decrying of my faith, etc. In short, you said nothing about your behavior. You, sarcastically - obviously, apologized for MY actions - what I, Snow did, and I quote: "I am sorry if you have chosen to have hurt feelings over anything that I said about your views (not you personally)... would that work?"

It's unnecessary but if you really wanted to apologize, you would apologize for YOUR actions and you would correct each of the false allegations made against me personally that you made.

In these matters, I find that a little honesty is always helpful.

SNow... please... we both know that no matter HOW I said sorry - you arent going to let this go. I WILL NOT ANSWER your questions as you are being contentious... But I did try to move past this... Did you even attempt...to apologize for how you acted at my request for prayers? So please dont cast stones. And once again.... PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.

DO EVERYONE ON THE SITE A FAVOR AND IGNORE ME if I am that offensive to you -so that we can keep these on topic. I am NOT going to stop posting on this site... so please... for the sake of everyone else... LEAVE ME ALONE.

[Carl62]

I think it is VERY difficult to walk that fine line of having a completely civil discussion without there being some form of debate interjected at some moment somewhere. Everybody in a discussion isn't going to be agreeing with everybody else all the time. If that's the case, then what's there to discuss? I guess you may be able to add something on to or expound on what another is saying as long as it still stays in agreement with the topic at hand but what if somebody, let's say in the middle of a Sunday School class about the WofW, starts saying how they support medical marijuana and that using it for such reasons would not be going against the WofW. You don't think some of the die-hard "don't even drink a coke" Mormons wouldn't come out and be a bit, umm, vocal about that?! I give this example because this has actually happened in my ward over a particular member who's now becoming rather well known over his crusade for this. I think a lot of this discuss/debate thing all comes down to the topic, the environment, the caliber/intelligence of the people you're talking with, and the level of passion of the person over their viewpoint and/or convictions. As in the case of our anti-Mormons friends, when have we ever tried to have a mere discussion that usually didn't end in a full blown debate? IMHO, debating and discussing are almost inseparately linked.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Carl62

[Snow]

SNow... please... we both know that no matter HOW I said sorry - you arent going to let this go. I WILL NOT ANSWER your questions as you are being contentious... But I did try to move past this... Did you even attempt...to apologize for how you acted at my request for prayers? So please dont cast stones. And once again.... PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE.

DO EVERYONE ON THE SITE A FAVOR AND IGNORE ME if I am that offensive to you -so that we can keep these on topic. I am NOT going to stop posting on this site... so please... for the sake of everyone else... LEAVE ME ALONE.

As you whether I should apologize to you, hmmm, I am sorry that during what must be an anxious time I took exception to your belief that God would get involved in your job search in such a way that caused you more anxiety, rather than less. I didn't then, nor do I now think that your disagreement with my belief in God and prayers makes you bad, a sinner, an opponent of the gospel, immoral or comparable to any bad model. I don't think I did, but if I said any such thing, I would appreciate it being pointed out so that I could edit it to set the record straight. Moreover, I hope you got the job that was most appropriate for you.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Snow

[Moksha]

When I see hypocrisy or irrationality or whatever, I'll point it out.

Let us know when our zipper is down too.

[prisonchaplain]

Are we really debating debate and discussing discussion??? LOL

[Snow]

Let us know when our zipper is down too.

The eye sees all - you know, I mean - so to speak.

[pam]

That eye still creeps me out.

[Guest missingsomething]

I think it is VERY difficult to walk that fine line of having a completely civil discussion without there being some form of debate interjected at some moment somewhere. Everybody in a discussion isn't going to be agreeing with everybody else all the time. If that's the case, then what's there to discuss? I guess you may be able to add something on to or expound on what another is saying as long as it still stays in agreement with the topic at hand but what if somebody, let's say in the middle of a Sunday School class about the WofW, starts saying how they support medical marijuana and that using it for such reasons would not be going against the WofW. You don't think some of the die-hard "don't even drink a coke" Mormons wouldn't come out and be a bit, umm, vocal about that?! I give this example because this has actually happened in my ward over a particular member who's now becoming rather well known over his crusade for this. I think a lot of this discuss/debate thing all comes down to the topic, the environment, the caliber/intelligence of the people you're talking with, and the level of passion of the person over their viewpoint and/or convictions. As in the case of our anti-Mormons friends, when have we ever tried to have a mere discussion that usually didn't end in a full blown debate? IMHO, debating and discussing are almost inseparately linked.

not the same "topic" but yes this is what happened in my ward last week...

[Guest missingsomething]

it seems to me at the end of the day the question i ask my self is does it edify? The idea is to lift one another and inspire each to be more christlike.

great response! lots of people eluded to this... some have taken this completely out of the discussion... but I think this is indeed exactly what my bishop was referring to. If you are "debating or discussing or 'calling someone out'"... does the method in which you do, your tone, your body language and *how you are perceived (in a church lesson,etc) EDIFY and LIFT the group up. If not, then the spirit is not involved and I believe that is how the prophets meant for us to "debate/discuss" these things.

Edited July 28, 2009 by missingsomething

[beefche]

What I still don't understand is how people claim that simply posing an opposing view is "debate, contention, not uplifting, etc."