Contend Earnestly

[Maya]

Hi Erik looks like you are stil up to the same questions as before. Not found any answer in these years? Try reading the Book of Mormon.

I stil believe that the Book of Mormon is word of God just like the Bible and I know that Joseph Smith did see 2 personages. As well as I know that there was a war of independence in USA.

[MeIRL]

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)?

I doubt any of us can speak for "LDS" as a group.

In any case, I see no reason to interpret this verse as you have apparently done, where "contend for the faith" means "fight for Christianity". "The faith" is a private thing nurtured in one's soul. Alma 32 makes it clear that we need to nurture our understanding of the word with faith, so that it grows up to a tree of life. This seems to me to be what Jude is saying: Fight to gain and then to keep your testimony of truth.

[pam]

I doubt any of us can speak for "LDS" as a group.

In any case, I see no reason to interpret this verse as you have apparently done, where "contend for the faith" means "fight for Christianity". "The faith" is a private thing nurtured in one's soul. Alma 32 makes it clear that we need to nurture our understanding of the word with faith, so that it grows up to a tree of life. This seems to me to be what Jude is saying: Fight to gain and then to keep your testimony of truth.

Thank you. That was my interpretation as well.

[Justice]

Christ "contended" against the Scribes and Pharisees many times. But, He was never contentious toward them.

If a person is trying to make a claim that being even somewhat contentious is what Christ wants us to be, they are mistaken, and do not know the Christ of the New Testament or Book of Mormon.

Main Entry: con·tend

Pronunciation: \kən-ˈtend\

Function: verb

intransitive verb

1 : to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle

2 : to strive in debate : argue

transitive verb

1 : maintain, assert <contended that he was right>

2 : to struggle for : contest

I think the 1st definition in the transitive sense is what we're looking for. We must maintain or assert, or testify, never to argue or fight.

[ErikJohnson]

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?

Hey Ozzy—

I’m definitely not. Once upon a time, I made full disclosure—here. And regarding whether my post could be counterproductive, I’m always happy to have folks contend with me when I have the benefit of a better argument. As someone once said (in defense of our adversarial system)—from the clash of adversaries, the truth will emerge.

But I didn’t write the thread to try to get anyone riled up. It had been on my mind for a while that the passage in Jude, at least when taken at face value, is at variance with what I was taught back in my LDS days—that contention is of the devil, the devil is the father of contention, etc. Having a few moments last week, I put my thoughts together in the OP to see what LDS members here would say. The subject is interesting to me.

And I also thought there is a tension between the traditional LDS view of contention and some of the goings-on in the LDS apologetics community (a minority—to be sure). I made mention of Dr. Peterson in my OP, and thought perhaps someone might articulate a similar conclusion along the way (although I didn’t directly raise the question).

Anyhow, I do appreciate your responses, although I must disagree with one point you made previously. An English dictionary is actually an excellent resource to have in hand when reading the Bible in English. Your example of the evolution of the word “gay” really proves the point. Any decent dictionary will note both past and present usages, allowing the reader to understand both the meaning of the word in 19th century literature and also understand how the word could be misunderstood today. Incidentally, the Greek word rendered “contend earnestly” [NASB] is “epagonizomai.”

Regards,

--Erik

[Maya]

Just curious; are you planning to write more antimormonliterature? Or make more films? Or was it what you call it scripts?

[ErikJohnson]

Just curious; are you planning to write more antimormonliterature? Or make more films? Or was it what you call it scripts?

Hey Maya--

For the record, I've never authored anything that could be considered "literature"--anti-Mormon or otherwise. I've produced a fair bit of technical documentation regarding reporting applications and databases for my clients, but that's about the extent of it. And I've never made a film or a film script. I'm not even much of a movie buff--although I enjoy the occasional show at the local theatre.

It's as funny as it is strange. When I posted my intro on this site (about a year ago), several LDS made allegations that they had seen me on a variety of forums (via Facebook, Ask-a-Mormon, etc.). Places I'd never even visited, let alone posted. None-the-less, they bore their testimonies and witnesses against me. When I asked them to provide evidence, links, etc., they offered nothing to substantiate their claims (obviously). Yet when I called them out--none of them was willing to post a retraction. Maybe they had seen me doing the things they alleged through their "spiritual eyes." I really don’t know what else to make of it. Nor do I know what to make of your post.

Perhaps you'll take the time to explain yourself, Maya. I'd certainly appreciate it.

--Erik

[ErikJohnson]

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?

Hey Faded--

Let's start with that. Can you establish that “born again” Christian ministers and pastors get "irritated" and/or "annoyed" when someone cites a passage from the Book of James. Can you furnish any references for the responses you claim to have experienced? I don't pretend to have seen the whole world--but I have yet to experience a Bible-believing Christian minister of the Gospel express irritation or annoyance over a passage of Scripture. Not saying it's never happened--just saying it's something I've never experienced (and certainly not at my Church).

Also, you seem to use the words "born again" as a mark of distinction, to distinguish Christian ministers who are different than you. Out of curiosity, do you not consider yourself to have been born again?

Regarding the number of Christian religions out there (I say one, you say many)—for the sake of efficiency, let’s leverage a previous thread for that discussion.

Lastly, regarding the Weekly World News--I confess I probably haven't kept up with you. Has there been a recent citing of Bat Boy? Last I heard he was seen supporting the coalition forces in Afghanistan, but that was circa 2003...

;0)

--Erik

[Zechariah]

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.

Yes, we LDS do tend to lay forth our beliefs from our position, quoting from our leaders, and from scripture, in the process, to explain what the LDS Church teaches and what we believe.

I would suggest to you that this is as it should be.

The first listing for contend at wordnetweb.princeton.edu is to postulate - to maintain or assert.

I would say this is what LDS most commonly do. I would also say we tend to prefer this, as our means of contending for the faith, rather than contending against other faiths.

[marts1]

Considering how lieing is so prevailent in the world today especially when a debate starts getting heated, I find them mostly a waste of time. Not that I've seen any of that in this thread mind you.:)

[Justice]

Let's start with that. Can you establish that “born again” Christian ministers and pastors get "irritated" and/or "annoyed" when someone cites a passage from the Book of James. Can you furnish any references for the responses you claim to have experienced?

I can support this claim. Now, it may not be that every instance I have been involved in was specifically from the book of James, but I have been dealt very harshly with in many instances by ministers when discussing the Gospel.

If you have done any amount of discussing or debating religion you must know it often gets heated when people feel their beliefs are being challenged. I have seen many LDS do the same, so I'm not saying born again Christians are the only ones who do it. But, all who do it should admit it's not what Christ would want.

I don't think it's necessary to explain details of the experiences I had. I just wanted to say I have definately witnessed what was claimed.

[Justice]

And, by the way, the use of the term "born again Christian" is not something LDS invented. I don't even like the term, personally, becausje it carries the "once saved, always saved" connotation with it (even though that may not be true in every instance). But, many people I know of certain Christian faiths use this term for themselves.

It seems only appropriate that if they use the term for themselves that we, too, can use that term for them.

I'm a little puzzled how you can think there are not different Christian religions in the world. Each go to their own different churches on Sunday and teach the Gospel according to what they believe. The beliefs are NOT the same.

In fact, at the VERY least there are 3 different Christian religions: Catholic, Protestant, and LDS. None of the 3 fit the definition of the other.

[ErikJohnson]

I'm a little puzzled how you can think there are not different Christian religions in the world. Each go to their own different churches on Sunday and teach the Gospel according to what they believe. The beliefs are NOT the same.

In fact, at the VERY least there are 3 different Christian religions: Catholic, Protestant, and LDS. None of the 3 fit the definition of the other.

Hey Justice--

Starting to wander from the purpose of my original thread--and I'm afraid I have no one to blame but myself.

Maybe this will help you, once again from dictionary.com--

christian religion

noun

a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity]

In your short list, Catholic and Protestant churches are branches of the Christian religion (a.k.a., "Christianity")--by the dictionary.com definition, which in my opinion, is quite reasonable. You may disagree with my judgment and submit a definition of your own, of course. But at least this should enable you to understand where I'm coming from.

Make sense?

--Erik

[Justice]

Sure.

But, we're not the ones that branded ourselves "not Christian," that was done by other Christians.

In the general sense all who believe in Christ and try to follow Him are Christians. But, there are many different beliefs among those Christinas as to who He is.

That's the point we're making when we say there are many different Christians religions.

[rameumptom]

Maybe this will help you, once again from dictionary.com--

christian religion

noun

a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior [syn: Christianity]

Erik, most LDS would agree that this is a good definition of Christianity. However, not all Christians would. There are many who insist on making their own requirements for being Christian, such as a mandated belief in the Trinity, etc.

Dictionary.com doesn't discuss those extraneous, though important to some, issues. For example, when Mitt Romney was running for president, one major evangelical leader emailed his 1.5 million followers and told them that a vote for Mitt Romney was a vote for the devil. Why? Because he believes Mormons are devil worshipers, not followers of Christ.

[rameumptom]

Hey Faded--

Let's start with that. Can you establish that “born again” Christian ministers and pastors get "irritated" and/or "annoyed" when someone cites a passage from the Book of James. Can you furnish any references for the responses you claim to have experienced? I don't pretend to have seen the whole world--but I have yet to experience a Bible-believing Christian minister of the Gospel express irritation or annoyance over a passage of Scripture. Not saying it's never happened--just saying it's something I've never experienced (and certainly not at my Church).

Rameumptom: There are some Christian ministers who DO get irritated when we interpret scriptures differently than they do. They do not like Mormons calling themselves Christian, because we do not believe in the Trinity, believe in modern prophets, etc. Each of these issues is due to a difference in interpreting scripture. And yes, I've also had several pastors angry with me because I interpreted the scriptures differently. Once, several years ago, one was upset with me, because in trying to "prove" the Trinity, he quoted the Johannine Comma. I explained to him that it was actually a verse that was interpolated/injected in by later scribes. He said that he believed in sola scriptura, which means it couldn't be wrong.

Also, you seem to use the words "born again" as a mark of distinction, to distinguish Christian ministers who are different than you. Out of curiosity, do you not consider yourself to have been born again?

Rameumptom: We wish all people were born again in Christ. However, the term is often used by certain conservative evangelicals to distinguish themselves from other groups of Christians, who do not necessarily use the term, or who view conversion differently. Some use the term as a bat to use against those who view the Bible differently.

Regarding the number of Christian religions out there (I say one, you say many)—for the sake of efficiency, let’s leverage a previous thread for that discussion.

Rameumptom: As I mentioned before, dictionary.com is correct, but very simplified. If we use just the definition of dictionary.com, then anyone calling him/herself a Christian would fit in. However, there are many who reject groups of people due to other sets of beliefs. There are many who insist one must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. Others insist on sola scriptura. Some refuse Mormons the title of Christian, because we believe in a restoration of ancient Christianity. Wars have occurred between Protestants and Catholics, and among Protestants. Protestants have driven Mormons out of a few states, and declared war on them in Missouri. This is definitely not one Christianity.

[ErikJohnson]

Erik, most LDS would agree that this is a good definition of Christianity. However, not all Christians would. There are many who insist on making their own requirements for being Christian, such as a mandated belief in the Trinity, etc.

Dictionary.com doesn't discuss those extraneous, though important to some, issues. For example, when Mitt Romney was running for president, one major evangelical leader emailed his 1.5 million followers and told them that a vote for Mitt Romney was a vote for the devil. Why? Because he believes Mormons are devil worshipers, not followers of Christ.

Hey Rameumptom—

Glad you found the dictionary.com definition helpful. I agree it’s reasonable and useful, though not necessarily complete. But certainly sufficient to make the previous point. And I think there should be much more unity among the various branches of the Christian religion, where Jesus is worshipped as the Eternal God.

And of course there will be, ultimately. But at present, local and denominational church expressions of the Christian Faith are far from perfect, and disagreements abound. I think Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s words are worth keeping in mind--

If I had never joined a Church till I had found one that was perfect, I would never have joined one at all! And the moment I did join it, if I had found one, I should have spoiled it, for it would not have been a perfect Church after I had become a member of it.

Regards,

--Erik

[Suzie]

Hey Maya--

For the record, I've never authored anything that could be considered "literature"--anti-Mormon or otherwise. I've produced a fair bit of technical documentation regarding reporting applications and databases for my clients, but that's about the extent of it. And I've never made a film or a film script. I'm not even much of a movie buff--although I enjoy the occasional show at the local theatre.

It's as funny as it is strange. When I posted my intro on this site (about a year ago), several LDS made allegations that they had seen me on a variety of forums (via Facebook, Ask-a-Mormon, etc.). Places I'd never even visited, let alone posted. None-the-less, they bore their testimonies and witnesses against me. When I asked them to provide evidence, links, etc., they offered nothing to substantiate their claims (obviously). Yet when I called them out--none of them was willing to post a retraction. Maybe they had seen me doing the things they alleged through their "spiritual eyes." I really don’t know what else to make of it. Nor do I know what to make of your post.

Perhaps you'll take the time to explain yourself, Maya. I'd certainly appreciate it.

--Erik

Erik, unfortunately I think a lot of my LDS brothers and sisters are a bit too sensitive when dealing with doctrine and what they may (erroneously or not) perceive to be attacks. I think it makes more harm than good however I think is easy (if both parties are MATURE) to contend earnestly. We do not have to pull each other's hair to do so though.

[ozzy]

Hey Ozzy—

I’m definitely not. Once upon a time, I made full disclosure—here. And regarding whether my post could be counterproductive, I’m always happy to have folks contend with me when I have the benefit of a better argument. As someone once said (in defense of our adversarial system)—from the clash of adversaries, the truth will emerge.

But I didn’t write the thread to try to get anyone riled up. It had been on my mind for a while that the passage in Jude, at least when taken at face value, is at variance with what I was taught back in my LDS days—that contention is of the devil, the devil is the father of contention, etc. Having a few moments last week, I put my thoughts together in the OP to see what LDS members here would say. The subject is interesting to me.

And I also thought there is a tension between the traditional LDS view of contention and some of the goings-on in the LDS apologetics community (a minority—to be sure). I made mention of Dr. Peterson in my OP, and thought perhaps someone might articulate a similar conclusion along the way (although I didn’t directly raise the question).

Anyhow, I do appreciate your responses, although I must disagree with one point you made previously. An English dictionary is actually an excellent resource to have in hand when reading the Bible in English. Your example of the evolution of the word “gay” really proves the point. Any decent dictionary will note both past and present usages, allowing the reader to understand both the meaning of the word in 19th century literature and also understand how the word could be misunderstood today. Incidentally, the Greek word rendered “contend earnestly” [NASB] is “epagonizomai.”

Regards,

--Erik

Erik,

Thanks for your response. I have decided that I do agree about having a dictionary on hand being valuable. My fear comes with the fact that the dictionary still being written by humans who are inherantly not perfect. Kinda like my spelling. :) Anyway, after there having been so much time since Jude, so many translations and interpretations and so on, I am hesitant to fully accept that a modern dictionary would truly explain the meaning of the actual words of Jude. Though upon thinking about it, I do agree that one would do a good job when considering the Bible as we have it.