Contend Earnestly

[ErikJohnson]

Contend, per Dictionary.com—

1. to struggle in opposition: to contend with the enemy for control of the port.

2. to strive in rivalry; compete; vie: to contend for first prize.

3. to strive in debate; dispute earnestly: to contend against falsehood.

Questions: What do LDS make of the admonition in the Book of Jude for believers to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3 KJV)? The context is against false teachers and their false doctrines. How should LDS members apply that admonition here on the forum, especially when interacting with those who, from an LDS point of view, willingly and purposefully advocate false doctrines to LDS on this site? (E.g., that Jesus is the Eternal God, the second person of the Trinity.)

In my experience, many LDS—even ones on internet forums—are hesitant to embrace and apply Jude’s words. In his July, 2008 admonition for LDS to share their “restored gospel” via the internet, Elder Russell M. Ballard wrote, “There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs.” Some (including Ballard himself) have contended that contention is inherently of the devil (which by definition puts them in an awkward spot).

Obviously there are high-profile members who evidence no such qualms (e.g., Dr. Daniel C. Peterson at BYU & his followers). But it seems much more common to find LDS simply stating their own positions (or reciting those of their leaders) with little or no attempt to engage and debate important differences. Most appear heed Ballard, not Jude, if they’ve considered Jude at all.

Certainly not advocating that anyone be contentious or disrespectful. But please share your thoughts regarding what it means to contend earnestly for your faith against false doctrines (if it does mean anything to you), and especially as it applies to internet forums.

--Erik

[Elgama]

Contending for my Faith begins internally, I fight within in myself to keep myself on the straight and narrow, when i do that Christ is in my countenance and people who are not LDS respond to that - I have people apologize to me in the street for swearing lol or telling a blue joke, the people around me are less likely to get drunk (when i was at college just by being a good Latter Day Saint I allowed other people not to drink and were less likely to have sex and come home with me),

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is the greatest power we have as Latter Day Saints and the most important thing is not to remove that from any situation. When we go into battle its important we retain our full armour and show Christian Courage

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

This article is brilliant my favourite paragraphs are:

To her inquiry I would say that one of mortality’s great tests comes when our beliefs are questioned or criticized. In such moments, we may want to respond aggressively—to “put up our dukes.” But these are important opportunities to step back, pray, and follow the Savior’s example. Remember that Jesus Himself was despised and rejected by the world. And in Lehi’s dream, those coming to the Savior also endured “mocking and pointing … fingers” (1 Nephi 8:27). “The world hath hated [my disciples],” Jesus said, “because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:14). But when we respond to our accusers as the Savior did, we not only become more Christlike, we invite others to feel His love and follow Him as well.

To respond in a Christlike way cannot be scripted or based on a formula. The Savior responded differently in every situation. When He was confronted by wicked King Herod, He remained silent. When He stood before Pilate, He bore a simple and powerful testimony of His divinity and purpose. Facing the moneychangers who were defiling the temple, He exercised His divine responsibility to preserve and protect that which was sacred. Lifted up upon a cross, He uttered the incomparable Christian response: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).

Thats why we need the Holy Ghost so we know how to respond, without Him all we have is Satan's influence and lack of love

Edited February 6, 2010 by Elgama

[NeuroTypical]

What do LDS make of the admonition in the Book of Jude for believers to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3 KJV)?

Most of 'em are ignorant of the passage, but very well versed on 3 Ne. 11: 29 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.

I try to get 'em to listen to Jude, so they can aid me in giving folks like you the verbal thrashing you so richly deserve!

Most appear heed Ballard, not Jude, if they’ve considered Jude at all.

Nice attempt to demonstrate us following men instead of scripture, but 3 Nephi is the source of the notion, not Elder Ballard.

please share your thoughts regarding what it means to contend earnestly for your faith against false doctrines (if it does mean anything to you), and especially as it applies to internet forums.

I'm pretty content with your definition. In other words, if I could just be a tad bit more friendly-sounding and charitable in my interactions with critics like you, I'd be good.

LM

[ErikJohnson]

Most of 'em are ignorant of the passage, but very well versed on 3 Ne. 11: 29 ...

LM

Interesting observation LM, so let's start with that. Why do you think most are ignorant of the passage in the New Testament and yet very well-versed in the Book of Mormon passage?

--Erik

[john doe]

Site Rules

1. Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

If you are unaware of the site rules, they can be found listed at the top of almost every page on this site.

[Faded]

Interesting observation LM, so let's start with that. Why do you think most are ignorant of the passage in the New Testament and yet very well-versed in the Book of Mormon passage?

--Erik

Part of the answer is that one is a Seminary scripture mastery scripture and one is not.

NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE MASTERY:

Matthew 5:14–16

Matthew 6:24

Matthew 16:15–19

Matthew 25:40

Luke 24:36–39

John 3:5

John 7:17

John 10:16

John 14:15

John 17:3

Acts 7:55–56

Romans 1:16

1 Corinthians 10:13

1 Corinthians 15:20–22

1 Corinthians 15:29

1 Corinthians 15:40–42

Ephesians 4:11–14

2 Thessalonians 2:1–3

2 Timothy 3:1–5

2 Timothy 3:16–17

Hebrews 5:4

James 1:5–6

James 2:17–18

Revelation 14:6–7

Revelation 20:12–13

BOOK OF MORMON SCRIPTURE MASTERY

1 Nephi 3:7

1 Nephi 19:23

2 Nephi 2:25

2 Nephi 2:27

2 Nephi 9:28–29

2 Nephi 28:7–9

2 Nephi 32:3

2 Nephi 32:8–9

Jacob 2:18–19

Mosiah 2:17

Mosiah 3:19

Mosiah 4:30

Alma 32:21

Alma 34:32–34

Alma 37:6–7

Alma 37:35

Alma 41:10

Helaman 5:12

3 Nephi 11:29

3 Nephi 27:27

Ether 12:6

Ether 12:27

Moroni 7:16–17

Moroni 7:45

Moroni 10:4–5

And you should know very well that every Christian religion in existence has their "pet" passages from the Bible.

For example, born-again Christians LOVE Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works lest any man should boast." They tend to not focus too much on James 2:17–18 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

[bytor2112]

For me it is because I understand that it is the Holy Spirit that converts and lively debate, while fun, doesn't invite the Holy Spirit. I am not a scriptorian nor would I consider myself qualified to debate theology with many that post on this or other forums.

All that being said, I am thankful that the Gospel is simple enough for a child to understand. Why? Because it is the Holy Spirit that teaches Sacred and Eternal verities and not debating meanings of different verses to prove who is being led astray by believing false doctrines or erroneous teachings.

Without the Holy Spirit, I would not be a Latter Day Saint....probably still a very lukewarm Southern Baptist that rarely attended church.

Edited February 7, 2010 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

Logical debate is only useful between people who share the same foundational assumptions and are willing to own to those assumptions. Otherwise, it's useless.

I read Jude as addressing specifically people who are coming within the Church to teach false doctrine. I think you'd agree with me that the Church is pretty quick to shut down teachers who don't toe the party line to a greater or lesser degree.

In Verse 9, Jude seems to admit that sometimes, it's better to just leave it to the Lord to handle the most flagrant perverters of doctrine than it is to proceed with making your case against them.

Edited February 7, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[bytor2112]

Interesting observation LM, so let's start with that. Why do you think most are ignorant of the passage in the New Testament and yet very well-versed in the Book of Mormon passage?

--Erik

Perhaps because it is Jesus Christ speaking in the climatic chapters of the Book of Mormon.

[NeuroTypical]

Why do you think most are ignorant of the passage in the New Testament and yet very well-versed in the Book of Mormon passage?

I think faded nailed the reason why, and bytor nailed why we're not especially agreeing with your interpretation of the verse after we're made aware of it.

I used to go into yahoo chat rooms and contend ernestly. One zealous evangelical seemed to think that he was 'scoring points for God' if I didn't follow the pace of his criticizing. He'd cut and paste half a dozen criticisms, and then declare victory after nobody gave them the treatment he thought he deserved. He quoted Jude to justify his position as well. I said all the treatment is issues could handle could be found on various LDS apologetic message boards - he wasn't having any of it. According to him, if we weren't going to contend the way he was, it was proof positive that we weren't Christian.

Can't say that I agreed with him.

LM

[ErikJohnson]

...

And you should know very well that every Christian religion in existence has their "pet" passages from the Bible.

Hey Faded—

A pleasure to hear from you. But yours is not a fair statement, for a couple of reasons. Hopefully this will serve to clarify—

First, I don’t agree with your premise that there are multiple Christian religions. I actually think there’s only one—a point I’ve endeavored to make previously. Those who worship Jesus as the Eternal God are Christians. There are many denominations and expressions, to be sure, but I submit there’s only one Christian Faith.

Second, you are mistaken to suppose every Christian expression has its own “pet passages.” If there is an equivalent to “Seminary scripture mastery” where I am a member—the pastors have been wildly successful in keeping it secret from the membership (which seems like it would defeat the purpose). Our position would be that All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness—which happens to be what God Himself has revealed about the matter (2 Timothy 3:16).

Does this make sense?

--Erik

[ErikJohnson]

...

I read Jude as addressing specifically people who are coming within the Church to teach false doctrine. I think you'd agree with me that the Church is pretty quick to shut down teachers who don't toe the party line to a greater or lesser degree.

...

Hey Just_A_Guy—

So presumably you would answer that Jude 1:3 has no bearing on a predominately LDS internet forum. Fair enough.

If you don’t mind—may I ask where you think the passage would apply? Within the 4 walls of an LDS Church building? Among baptized members of the LDS Church, regardless of venue? Other situations?

Please share your thoughts and reasoning.

Regards,

--Erik

[ozzy]

Contend, per Dictionary.com—

1. to struggle in opposition: to contend with the enemy for control of the port.

2. to strive in rivalry; compete; vie: to contend for first prize.

3. to strive in debate; dispute earnestly: to contend against falsehood.

Questions: What do LDS make of the admonition in the Book of Jude for believers to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3 KJV)? The context is against false teachers and their false doctrines. How should LDS members apply that admonition here on the forum, especially when interacting with those who, from an LDS point of view, willingly and purposefully advocate false doctrines to LDS on this site? (E.g., that Jesus is the Eternal God, the second person of the Trinity.)

In my experience, many LDS—even ones on internet forums—are hesitant to embrace and apply Jude’s words. In his July, 2008 admonition for LDS to share their “restored gospel” via the internet, Elder Russell M. Ballard wrote, “There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs.” Some (including Ballard himself) have contended that contention is inherently of the devil (which by definition puts them in an awkward spot).

Obviously there are high-profile members who evidence no such qualms (e.g., Dr. Daniel C. Peterson at BYU & his followers). But it seems much more common to find LDS simply stating their own positions (or reciting those of their leaders) with little or no attempt to engage and debate important differences. Most appear heed Ballard, not Jude, if they’ve considered Jude at all.

Certainly not advocating that anyone be contentious or disrespectful. But please share your thoughts regarding what it means to contend earnestly for your faith against false doctrines (if it does mean anything to you), and especially as it applies to internet forums.

--Erik

We seem to be operating under the idea that the dictionary is a good source to turn to for biblical definitions. Today the word contend is as the dictionary defines it. But it has been over 1500 years since Jude. Words change. It only took a few decades for gay to stop meaning 'happy' and to start meaning 'homosexual.' If this the dictionary definition were correct even then, Christ himself could be accused of ignoring the words of Jude as the only time he got contentious beyond simply stating a position was when the temple was being defiled.

In the LDS church, we do not spend our time contending against those who are not of our faith because we do not consider them to be the source of difference. The source of false doctrine is the devil. As such, the only way to really contend is to testify. There is no spiritual testimony in argument, only the words of men striving to one up each other.

Edited February 7, 2010 by ozzy
clarification

[ozzy]

Hey Faded—

A pleasure to hear from you. But yours is not a fair statement, for a couple of reasons. Hopefully this will serve to clarify—

First, I don’t agree with your premise that there are multiple Christian religions. I actually think there’s only one—a point I’ve endeavored to make previously. Those who worship Jesus as the Eternal God are Christians. There are many denominations and expressions, to be sure, but I submit there’s only one Christian Faith.

Second, you are mistaken to suppose every Christian expression has its own “pet passages.” If there is an equivalent to “Seminary scripture mastery” where I am a member—the pastors have been wildly successful in keeping it secret from the membership (which seems like it would defeat the purpose). Our position would be that All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness—which happens to be what God Himself has revealed about the matter (2 Timothy 3:16).

Does this make sense?

--Erik

That does make sense. However there are still favorite passages that are emphasized more than others. Faded gave a good example with his scripture. I could supply another example that is for the Jehovahs Witnesses in that they concentrate much of their efforts on Revelations 7:4 and do not acknowledge Rev 7:9. Further example that the pet scriptures exist is in the presence of so many denominations. Yes they all follow Christ and can thus be called Christian, however it is very apparent that they disagree on a number of issues. These disagreements generally arise from a focus on some verses over others, and differing focuses between the denominations.

One reason I think we choose not to contend in the way many take the word 'contention' is because the gospel is not a debate. Debates exist to support mans view. Man's view is generally incorrect with regard to the gospel. God doesn't debate. He says. Its as simple as that. We say too. The only difference between us and Him is that we have no right or power to condemn or afflict for false belief.

Perhaps they are all Christian. But that doesn't make them all correct.

Out of curiosity, are you LDS? If not, I find it surprising that you want us to contend against you. Wouldn't that be sort of counterproductive?

[Justice]

I don’t agree with your premise that there are multiple Christian religions. I actually think there’s only one—a point I’ve endeavored to make previously. Those who worship Jesus as the Eternal God are Christians. There are many denominations and expressions, to be sure, but I submit there’s only one Christian Faith.

I agree that there is supposed to be one Christian religion. But, that certainly is not reality.

If worshipping Jesus makes a religion Christian, then why is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints not considered Christian by most of the Christian community?

[Just_A_Guy]

Hey Just_A_Guy—

So presumably you would answer that Jude 1:3 has no bearing on a predominately LDS internet forum. Fair enough.

If you don’t mind—may I ask where you think the passage would apply? Within the 4 walls of an LDS Church building? Among baptized members of the LDS Church, regardless of venue? Other situations?

Please share your thoughts and reasoning.

Regards,

--Erik

I love and respect Elder Ballard, but if he truly meant that all contention is of the devil then I must regretfully disagree with him.* What 3 Nephi 11:29 condemns is the spirit of contention--much like Paul doesn't condemn money but the love of money as the root of all evil.

On the one hand: our own Book of Mormon has numerous instances of doctrinal contention, 3 Nephi 11:29 notwithstanding. Jacob contends with Sherem, Abinadi with Noah's priests, Alma with Korihor and Zeezrom. On the other hand: Jesus of Nazareth had nothing but silence for Herod Antipas, even though Antipas was practically begging for a doctrinal showdown.

A bit of contention was apparently needed to cleanse the church of Jude's day from apostates who were trying to pervert doctrine in such a way as to justify sexual promiscuity. On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria noted--and scorned--Christian "martyrs" who deliberately made themselves as obnoxious as possible and only succeeded in getting themselves killed. Elder Ballard's teaching boils down to the notion that internet warriors make poor missionaries.

The only hard-and-fast rule I'd agree to here is the one the Preacher at Jerusalem taught in Ecclesiastes 3:

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

*But considering that Elder Ballard is on the governing board of the institution that pays Daniel C. Peterson's salary, I'd venture to guess that even Elder Ballard isn't an absolutist in this area.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[RanMan]

Having come over here from an apologetics forum where the non-LDS followed the interpretation of Jude as the OP has presented, I think I have a pretty good handle on this topic. LDS are told by the Leadership to avoid conflict and that is what following this interpretation of contending for the faith leads to - conflict. While we may want to set people straight on the truth, what ends up happening is we lose the spirit as we reach higher and higher levels of contention. For many, including myself, the Love of God leaves us as we attempt to prove the truthfulness of our beliefs. And it doesn't stay within the confines of the forums, it spills over into our everyday lives. Contention on the forum can make you short tempered with your family, friends, and coworkers. It can dim your view of life and prevent you from seeing the wonderful miracle that is life.

I suggest that if you want to contend for the truth you do so by setting an example for others to follow.

:)

[Suzie]

Also in my opinion another reason the leaders ask us not to contend with other religions is because most members are not fully aware/do not know much of our Church doctrine and Church history and when a topic (they do not know about) is brought up into the discussion by the other party (you know, the most controversial stuff: Blood atonement, Calling and Election, Blacks and the Priesthood, etc) they are not able to give a proper explanation.

[Blackmarch]

Contend, per Dictionary.com—

1. to struggle in opposition: to contend with the enemy for control of the port.

2. to strive in rivalry; compete; vie: to contend for first prize.

3. to strive in debate; dispute earnestly: to contend against falsehood.

Questions: What do LDS make of the admonition in the Book of Jude for believers to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3 KJV)? The context is against false teachers and their false doctrines. How should LDS members apply that admonition here on the forum, especially when interacting with those who, from an LDS point of view, willingly and purposefully advocate false doctrines to LDS on this site? (E.g., that Jesus is the Eternal God, the second person of the Trinity.)

In my experience, many LDS—even ones on internet forums—are hesitant to embrace and apply Jude’s words. In his July, 2008 admonition for LDS to share their “restored gospel” via the internet, Elder Russell M. Ballard wrote, “There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs.” Some (including Ballard himself) have contended that contention is inherently of the devil (which by definition puts them in an awkward spot).

Obviously there are high-profile members who evidence no such qualms (e.g., Dr. Daniel C. Peterson at BYU & his followers). But it seems much more common to find LDS simply stating their own positions (or reciting those of their leaders) with little or no attempt to engage and debate important differences. Most appear heed Ballard, not Jude, if they’ve considered Jude at all.

Certainly not advocating that anyone be contentious or disrespectful. But please share your thoughts regarding what it means to contend earnestly for your faith against false doctrines (if it does mean anything to you), and especially as it applies to internet forums.

--Erik

there are times to contend and there are times to not contend. If anger, disrespect, and etc.. result then likely it was not a time to contend in such a manner.

However to earnestly contend does not generally mean to argue, bicker and nitpick.

[RanMan]

Also in my opinion another reason the leaders ask us not to contend with other religions is because most members are not fully aware/do not know much of our Church doctrine and Church history and when a topic (they do not know about) is brought up into the discussion by the other party (you know, the most controversial stuff: Blood atonement, Calling and Election, Blacks and the Priesthood, etc) they are not able to give a proper explanation.

Good point.

:)

[Blackmarch]

there are times to contend and there are times to not contend. If anger, disrespect, and etc.. result then likely it was not a time to contend in such a manner.

However to earnestly contend does not generally mean to argue, bicker and nitpick.

I must also add when such occurs that one will lose their respect for the other party... making it so that instead of loving your brother, you must love thine enemy- which I must say is many orders harder to do- I believe this is a real danger of the internet, and is a more subtle one.

[Faded]

Hey Faded—

A pleasure to hear from you. But yours is not a fair statement, for a couple of reasons. Hopefully this will serve to clarify—

First, I don’t agree with your premise that there are multiple Christian religions. I actually think there’s only one—a point I’ve endeavored to make previously. Those who worship Jesus as the Eternal God are Christians. There are many denominations and expressions, to be sure, but I submit there’s only one Christian Faith.

Second, you are mistaken to suppose every Christian expression has its own “pet passages.” If there is an equivalent to “Seminary scripture mastery” where I am a member—the pastors have been wildly successful in keeping it secret from the membership (which seems like it would defeat the purpose). Our position would be that All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness—which happens to be what God Himself has revealed about the matter (2 Timothy 3:16).

Does this make sense?

--Erik

I think you're digging up disagreement where there is none. Of course we believe in all of the scriptures and not just parts of them.

What I've experienced in my dealings with Born-Again minded ministers, pastors and members love to quote Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works lest any man should boast."

They tend to get irritated when somebody present mentions, James 2:17–18 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

Why do they get annoyed? Because taken separately, the two passages of scripture seem to contradict one another. The passage from Ephesians lines up better with the concept of being born again and thereafter being free from sin forever no matter what. The Ephesians passage works to build the case that works are not necessary for salvation and that all they need is faith.

James seems to imply that belief without good works isn't really faith at all.

The key in this and every other case is that both passages are correct. And it is certainly no stretch of truth to point out that some religions focus a lot of attention on some passages more than others. Catholicism places heavy emphasis on Matthew 16:15–19 because they feel it helps establish the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as God's designated earthly leader of all Christendom.

Here in the Church of Jesus Christ, we cannot adequately cover all of the New Testament in five hours per week and do it in a single school-year. The expectation is for students to have read the whole New Testament of course, but an in-depth analysis of every passage would be impossible. So you have a selection of passages that are studied in depth and it is up to the student to study the remainder.

So what would your solution be? By the very nature of your statement, we must assume that focussing any teaching or lesson on any single passage of scripture is wrong because it would seem to emphasize that passage moreso than all others. So shall we forego all teaching until we find time to go through the whole Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenant and Pearl of Great Price all in the same lesson?

You are welcome to believe that there is only one Christian religion. The visible evidence to the contrary is immense. It might come down to semantics and the like, but it's really just avoiding the obvious: There are 30,000+ Christian denominations. If you want to call that "one Church" that is your privaledge. But they are extremely divided, mutually contradictory and contentious against each other -- hardly what I think Christ envisioned for his earthly Church and Kingdom.

It's like LM said, we do not believe in the notion that we must answer every accusation thrown our way There are too many professional Anti-Mormons out there and we would waste a lot of time if we answered every single accusation thrown our way. Our time is better spent doing other things. Consider the tabloids: If every celebrity took the time to take every false accusation they put forward to court, the celebrity in question would end up spending their entire life in the court-room. And anti-Mormon material reads a lot like the Weekly World News in my experience. But even the Weekly World News has it's believers.

[Finrock]

Hello ErikJohnson. It is a pleasure to meet you! I hope you are enjoying your afternoon. :)

Contend, per Dictionary.com—

1. to struggle in opposition: to contend with the enemy for control of the port.

2. to strive in rivalry; compete; vie: to contend for first prize.

3. to strive in debate; dispute earnestly: to contend against falsehood.

Questions: What do LDS make of the admonition in the Book of Jude for believers to “earnestly contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3 KJV)? The context is against false teachers and their false doctrines. How should LDS members apply that admonition here on the forum, especially when interacting with those who, from an LDS point of view, willingly and purposefully advocate false doctrines to LDS on this site? (E.g., that Jesus is the Eternal God, the second person of the Trinity.)

In my experience, many LDS—even ones on internet forums—are hesitant to embrace and apply Jude’s words. In his July, 2008 admonition for LDS to share their “restored gospel” via the internet, Elder Russell M. Ballard wrote, “There is no need to argue or contend with others regarding our beliefs.” Some (including Ballard himself) have contended that contention is inherently of the devil (which by definition puts them in an awkward spot).

Obviously there are high-profile members who evidence no such qualms (e.g., Dr. Daniel C. Peterson at BYU & his followers). But it seems much more common to find LDS simply stating their own positions (or reciting those of their leaders) with little or no attempt to engage and debate important differences. Most appear heed Ballard, not Jude, if they’ve considered Jude at all.

Certainly not advocating that anyone be contentious or disrespectful. But please share your thoughts regarding what it means to contend earnestly for your faith against false doctrines (if it does mean anything to you), and especially as it applies to internet forums.

--Erik

I dont't think that the scripture in Jude is speaking to a type of contending that we might normally associate with in our current times. Also, the context of Ballard's counsel and that of the Book of Mormon is that to "contend with anger" is of the devil and not that all contention is of the devil. Now, it is true that two or more parties can "contend" in a civil and respectful manor. However, the tendency has been, at least in my experience, for some non-LDS groups or people to justify uncharitable conduct, words, and actions by using scriptures such as Jude, proclaming they are only "earnestly contending for the faith." Now, if you read the full chapter of Jude, you find that in later verses the counsel is in fact that we should show mercy and Christian love even towards those that are sinners and blasphemers. In short, the counsel is to love the sinner but hate the sin.

I think that all in all your position is setting up a false dilemma. In fact the LDS position is that we are to strive earnestly to keep the gospel of Christ pure and to stand up for what is right in a charitable way, heeding the promptings of the Spirit and acting according to those promptings. But I think we earnestly contend for the faith moreso by actually living the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than in trying to intellectually defeat our opponent in a battle of wits and scholarly supremacy.

Kind Regards,

Finrock

[Elgama]

I personally think the key is in the way the Saviour dealt with people he never did argue with anyone of another Faith he only argued with 'learned' people from his own Religion

[rameumptom]

There are times to contend, but never time to be contentious. I think that several of us here and at other blogs and forums discuss openly many things - as long as the discussion is done in an agreeable fashion. One does not have to scream or call someone names in order to properly advance the cause.

It is one thing to explain one's views and share evidence for such views. It is another thing to call the other person a devil or heretic, simply because the individual disagrees with your point of view. Remember, Jude also mentions:

9Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Railing accusations is not allowed. Sadly, that's what most think it means to contend. But as I said, there is a difference between contending and being contentious.