Shall we make them like us or us like them?

[paulsifer42]

Jesus told us to get the logs out of our own eyes before going after the specks in others.  Amen.  The Master spoke.  Afterwards, though...ought I not try to help the fellow get that speck out?  The difference is that once I've had the log removed from my eye, I have become humble enough to help the fellow with the speck, without condecension....hopefully.

 

The problem today is that people like their specks, and don't appreciate having them pointed out.  So, some in Christianity are thinking, "If we had specks maybe we could get more to come to our clubs...er churches..."

 

The way I see it is not so much that we need specks to be more accepting (because I believe we don't), but that people generally know about their specks.  For example, I have a homosexual buddy.  He knows I'm LDS.  He knows our stance on homosexuality.  He knows my personal stance on homosexuality.  When he learned my stance it was after we were friends; this has been helpful because when he found out we had enough history that he kept being friend, so, even though he isn't dealing with his sexuality how I'd like him to, I do think I'm a positive influence on him.

 

The reason I don't think churches need to continually yell about what they believe God frowns upon:  because people already know.  I don't need to tell my buddy I think God frowns on homosexuality every time we have a conversation; my buddy knows.  Should I ever lie and tell him I give it two thumbs up?  No.  But does that mean I need to beat a dead horse?  Also, no.  It won't do him any good to not have the good influence I give him just to hear I REALLY believe God frowns on homosexuality a few more times.

[paulsifer42]

I'll put it the way Christ did in the King James:

 

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures

 

Of course in the newer translations, it's:

 

You do not know the Scriptures

 

Very Christlike of you.  Well done, sir.

[The Folk Prophet]

Very Christlike of you.  Well done, sir.

 

In theory, it could not be more Christlike, as it's directly quoting Him.

 

In practice, it was rude. Intentionally. (Which is not Christlike, but was meant to make a point).

 

And I stand by the thought. Anyone who thinks Christ was not considered rude by the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the like does not know the scriptures.

[paulsifer42]

In theory, it could not be more Christlike, as it's directly quoting Him.

 

In practice, it was rude. Intentionally. (Which is not Christlike, but was meant to make a point).

 

And I stand by the thought. Anyone who thinks Christ was not considered rude by the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the like does not know the scriptures.

 

You and I agree then.  Christ was seldom (if ever) intentionally rude.  When he called the Pharisees and Sadducees out, it wasn't to be rude, it was to be honest, and the wicked take the truth to be hard.  Like Christ, we should try to speak honestly and with as much kindness as that honesty can hold.  Will some get offended?  Of course, because Pharisees and Sadducees were never eradicated, just given different names, but, unlike Christ, we are not perfect, nor do we have a perfect knowledge, which means two things, 1. We should always be thinking of kinder ways to share the truth, while still holding to that truth and 2. we should leave the judging to the one who had a perfect knowledge of each and every heart and background.  Are we commanded to 'judge righteously' yes, but most of our judges are appointed (Bishops, etc.) and, of course, we need to judge the character of others to determine our dealings with them, but only to the point they need to be judged, no further (especially not the point of what kingdom they'll end up in, or how happy they're making God).

[prisonchaplain]

You are likely spot on for the majority of non-church members--they don't begrudge us our doctrines or moral standards--they just don't want us beating our drums at obnoxious decibils.  So, my concern is not with those outside the household of faith.  Rather, it is for our brothers and sisters who believe that our doctrines and standards are outdated at best, and offensive and abusive at worst.  Rather than making such a direct attack though, they simply discourage any kind of sin-confronting message, and urge church teachers/leaders to focus on "building up not tearing down."  Again, the result is spiritualized pop-success teaching, and a very consumer-driven churchy club.

 

BTW, I'm not criticizing a particular person, church, denomination etc.--just expressing a broad concern for some trends we see throughout the Christian world (at least in the U.S., Canada, and Europe).

The way I see it is not so much that we need specks to be more accepting (because I believe we don't), but that people generally know about their specks.  For example, I have a homosexual buddy.  He knows I'm LDS.  He knows our stance on homosexuality.  He knows my personal stance on homosexuality.  When he learned my stance it was after we were friends; this has been helpful because when he found out we had enough history that he kept being friend, so, even though he isn't dealing with his sexuality how I'd like him to, I do think I'm a positive influence on him.

 

The reason I don't think churches need to continually yell about what they believe God frowns upon:  because people already know.  I don't need to tell my buddy I think God frowns on homosexuality every time we have a conversation; my buddy knows.  Should I ever lie and tell him I give it two thumbs up?  No.  But does that mean I need to beat a dead horse?  Also, no.  It won't do him any good to not have the good influence I give him just to hear I REALLY believe God frowns on homosexuality a few more times.

[The Folk Prophet]

You and I agree then.  Christ was seldom (if ever) intentionally rude.  When he called the Pharisees and Sadducees out, it wasn't to be rude, it was to be honest, and the wicked take the truth to be hard.  Like Christ, we should try to speak honestly and with as much kindness as that honesty can hold.  Will some get offended?  Of course, because Pharisees and Sadducees were never eradicated, just given different names, but, unlike Christ, we are not perfect, nor do we have a perfect knowledge, which means two things, 

 

I think where we diverge is our understanding of Christ's intent to be kind in all cases. I do not think His running the money changers out of the temple was meant to be kind. I do not think His telling people to pluck their eyes out rather than sin was meant to be kind. I do not think kindness was the primary motivation. Truth was. And He full well knew that sometimes the truth is not kind. As you point out. Christ had perfect knowledge. Therefore, He knew that some would see his comments as rude. Therefore, He spoke rudely intentionally. He did not alter what He said to fix that perception.

 

1. We should always be thinking of kinder ways to share the truth, while still holding to that truth

 

Agreed...most the time. But there are times and places where it is, I believe, entirely appropriate to say something that you know darned well some people will find rude.

 

2. we should leave the judging to the one who had a perfect knowledge of each and every heart and background.  Are we commanded to 'judge righteously' yes, but most of our judges are appointed (Bishops, etc.) and, of course, we need to judge the character of others to determine our dealings with them, but only to the point they need to be judged, no further (especially not the point of what kingdom they'll end up in, or how happy they're making God).

 

What does judging have to do with it? I'm not following your line of thinking here.

Edited November 12, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Traveler]

Jesus told us to get the logs out of our own eyes before going after the specks in others.  Amen.  The Master spoke.  Afterwards, though...ought I not try to help the fellow get that speck out?  The difference is that once I've had the log removed from my eye, I have become humble enough to help the fellow with the speck, without condecension....hopefully.

 

The problem today is that people like their specks, and don't appreciate having them pointed out.  So, some in Christianity are thinking, "If we had specks maybe we could get more to come to our clubs...er churches..."

 

This is very difficult for me because of how I view what Jesus is saying.  Please note that to the person that thinks to help someone Jesus speaks of the great big beam or log in their eyes.  But the reference to those being helped he speaks of a speck.  From my discussions in the past I know the stuff in my eyes is much greater than yours,--- so how can I say this?  If we are to have a discussion about helping others remove their speck - that really is not the problem.  Perhaps the problem is that if we understood better - they would see the light in us and we would not have to explain it - despite their poor vision because of the speck in their eyes.  Maybe the beam is thinking we see clearly?  Maybe people really do not like their specks - but have no clear example of something clearly better.  

 

Is our G-d really the best?  Is our G-d the one and only true G-d?  Perhaps not???? but maybe its the only possibility we allow.  So we ask others to do that which we would never consider.  The reality is that it is much easier to justify ourselves representing a lesser g-d to others stuck with an even lesser g-d.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Traveler

[paulsifer42]

TFP,

I think where we diverge is in our definition of what is intentionally rude.  I think rudeness is not taking others' perspectives and attitudes into consideration, or intentionally wording something in a way that you know will get a rise out of them.  I agree that Christ knew when he would offend someone, but still said it in the kindest way he could while preserving the truth.  Because he considered the listener's feelings, and didn't intentionally word what he said rudely, in my definition, he was not rude.  Like I said, I think we only diverge on definition.

 

And you may know what you say will offend, but if you attempt to say it as kindly as possible, I don't think you're being rude.

 

And I added that last bit because people have a tendency to think "WWJD"=I can do anything Jesus did, including judge people, because, you know, I righteously know they are sinning.  It's the same as when I tell people I'm against the death penalty for religious reasons:  "But, they did it in the Old Testament.  Do you think they were doing what as wrong?"  "No, they had Prophets who could talk to God and get revelation to know who deserved the death penalty.  Just because they did it back then does not mean we have the same situation now."  Just because Christ did something, doesn't mean we can do everything he did, because we are not in the same all-knowing situation.

[paulsifer42]

You are likely spot on for the majority of non-church members--they don't begrudge us our doctrines or moral standards--they just don't want us beating our drums at obnoxious decibils.  So, my concern is not with those outside the household of faith.  Rather, it is for our brothers and sisters who believe that our doctrines and standards are outdated at best, and offensive and abusive at worst.  Rather than making such a direct attack though, they simply discourage any kind of sin-confronting message, and urge church teachers/leaders to focus on "building up not tearing down."  Again, the result is spiritualized pop-success teaching, and a very consumer-driven churchy club.

 

BTW, I'm not criticizing a particular person, church, denomination etc.--just expressing a broad concern for some trends we see throughout the Christian world (at least in the U.S., Canada, and Europe).

 

Oh, I know you're not, no big deal.

 

And sin, and consequences for sin are still very much taught by the LDS church.  Maybe, to use your analogy, not at the same decibel, but the teachings are still there and are still actively taught, so those in the church are still hearing it, or, at least, I sure am. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

TFP,

I think where we diverge is in our definition of what is intentionally rude.  I think rudeness is not taking others' perspectives and attitudes into consideration, or intentionally wording something in a way that you know will get a rise out of them.  I agree that Christ knew when he would offend someone, but still said it in the kindest way he could while preserving the truth.  Because he considered the listener's feelings, and didn't intentionally word what he said rudely, in my definition, he was not rude.  Like I said, I think we only diverge on definition.

 

Hmm.

 

Intention is only ever known by the one who intended (unless, in rare circumstances, that person admits they intended, as I did earlier. Had I not, you would not have known whether I intended it or not). Therefore, intention is really somewhat irrelevant to the point -- or, rather -- to the point, let's presume that most people who preach religion do not do so with the intention of being rude.

 

And yet, they are constantly viewed as rude. They are constantly called out as bigoted, rude, condemning, judgmental, hateful, and intolerant.

 

If intention is the core of it, then the religious community has nothing to change. They don't intend rudeness.

 

Is that legitimate? That is part of the question at hand.

 

Take me, for example. By the history I have in this forum, I may well be considered one of the ruder chaps about (I'm only assuming based on how often I seem to get accused of it). And yet, there has been only one time, in this very thread, where I was intentionally rude in order to make a point. Every other time, EVER, I have not intended to be rude, but simply to speak the truth.

 

And yet, I do not buy for a second that I have no responsibility to change how I speak and communicate. I know I have to continually work on that.

 

But...I also agree that there is some validity to the idea that rudeness is only in the eye of the beholder and from a certain point of view one who is not intending rudeness is not culpable.

 

Accordingly, I believe that in many circumstances, when I have have been called out as being rude that my accuser is simply and plainly mistaken.

 

What I have yet to discover is where that line is. When is is appropriate to back down and apologize because what one said was taken as offensive, and when is it appropriate to not back down because the truth is the truth? I'm not sure. But I disagree that there is an "always" about it. There is not "always" try to say it kindly just as there is no "never" worry about being kind. Each situation is unique and requires intelligence, thoughtfulness, and the guidance of the Spirit.

 

When Amulek called Zeezrom a child of hell, I don't think his intention was to be kind. And yet was Amulek wrong? Should he have backed off? Zeezrom not only wasn't offended, he was converted. (For those interested, here is the exchange in the Book of Mormon between the two. See vs. 23 for the "child of hell" part).

 

There's a real thought there. What is our objective in speaking? To never offend? NO! The objective is to bring souls to Christ. And in some cases offending is the wrong thing to do, and in some cases it may be just the right thing to do. Everyone is different. Everyone responds differently. No situation matches another.

 

And this is where you're view on Christ's objectives differs from mine. I do not believe for a second that Christ's primary objective and motivation was to be nice*. His objective is, and always has been, our salvation. And sometimes that means harsh words, whips, destruction and death.

 

* I can see, from a certain way of looking at it, that being "nice" was always His objective, in that true and legitimate niceness is not always a soft word, but a concern and choice for the welfare of the individual. As in, is it nicer to not yell at your kid when they are running out in traffic or is it nicer to scream your head off to save their lives?

Edited November 12, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[prisonchaplain]

There is the famous quote, "Preach the gospel by all means--if necessary use words."  It is clever, and it contains truth.  Yet, did not Jesus exhibit perfection in his words and deeds?  Did He not bare the light as best it could be borne?  Yet, when he ascended to the Father there were perhaps around 500 followers.  And why?  He not only demonstrated Truth, he spoke it.  He confronted sin and unrighteousness and spiritual hypocrisy.  He did cry over Jerusalem, for its many sins.  He called religious leaders white-washed tombs, and a generation of vipers.

 

Godly living does not compete with godly, prophetic speech.  They are companions.

 

I'd further contend that, while godly example preaches loudly, a life that is anointed and directed by the Holy Spirit is even more effective.  Peter preached one sermon and 3000 converted.

 

This is very difficult for me because of how I view what Jesus is saying.  Please note that to the person that thinks to help someone Jesus speaks of the great big beam or log in their eyes.  But the reference to those being helped he speaks of a speck.  From my discussions in the past I know the stuff in my eyes is much greater than yours,--- so how can I say this?  If we are to have a discussion about helping others remove their speck - that really is not the problem.  Perhaps the problem is that if we understood better - they would see the light in us and we would not have to explain it - despite their poor vision because of the speck in their eyes.  Maybe the beam is thinking we see clearly?  Maybe people really do not like their specks - but have no clear example of something clearly better.  

 

Is our G-d really the best?  Is our G-d the one and only true G-d?  Perhaps not???? but maybe its the only possibility we allow.  So we ask others to do that which we would never consider.  The reality is that it is much easier to justify ourselves representing a lesser g-d to others stuck with an even lesser g-d.

[The Folk Prophet]

There is the famous quote, "Preach the gospel by all means--if necessary use words."  It is clever, and it contains truth.  Yet, did not Jesus exhibit perfection in his words and deeds?  Did He not bare the light as best it could be borne?  Yet, when he ascended to the Father there were perhaps around 500 followers.  And why?  He not only demonstrated Truth, he spoke it.  He confronted sin and unrighteousness and spiritual hypocrisy.  He did cry over Jerusalem, for its many sins.  He called religious leaders white-washed tombs, and a generation of vipers.

 

Godly living does not compete with godly, prophetic speech.  They are companions.

 

I'd further contend that, while godly example preaches loudly, a life that is anointed and directed by the Holy Spirit is even more effective.  Peter preached one sermon and 3000 converted.

 

Here, freakin', Here!! :)

[paulsifer42]

TFP,

I think a big part of the Christian community's being called 'rude' or 'bigoted' stems from what appears to be a lack of consideration for their audience's feelings.  Now, it is possible they did consider their audience, but just lacked tact (try saying that five time fast).  Though, it would seem that if they really were considerate, but tactless and someone called them out on sounding/being rude they wouldn't jump to Matt. 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." as if offending someone and getting chewed out for it were some badge of honor, but would actually think about better ways of saying it.

 

Are there stories of people saying offensive (even intentionally offensive) things and good coming of it?  Of course there are; people have been communicating for a long time.  But Elder Oak's talk this last Conference seems to say we need to be honest AND kind with those we disagree with.  It seems most problems come from people forgetting to do one of those two.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng

[The Folk Prophet]

 

TFP,

I think a big part of the Christian community's being called 'rude' or 'bigoted' stems from what appears to be a lack of consideration for their audience's feelings.  Now, it is possible they did consider their audience, but just lacked tact (try saying that five time fast).  Though, it would seem that if they really were considerate, but tactless and someone called them out on sounding/being rude they wouldn't jump to Matt. 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." as if offending someone and getting chewed out for it were some badge of honor, but would actually think about better ways of saying it.

 

Are there stories of people saying offensive (even intentionally offensive) things and good coming of it?  Of course there are; people have been communicating for a long time.  But Elder Oak's talk this last Conference seems to say we need to be honest AND kind with those we disagree with.  It seems most problems come from people forgetting to do one of those two.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng

 

 

Lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact.

 

I'm well aware that we are supposed to be kind.

 

The question is (as you alluded to) is whether other's perception of rudeness in you qualifies you as rude or tactless or not. And I'm not saying it doesn't. I just don't know that it always does. You may be right about the religious community at large ignoring tact as a badge of honor, though you really have no idea any more than I do. I can only speak for myself. What I know is, as I've stated, sometimes I realize I have been tactless and take such responsibility. Other times, however, I have been making efforts to be kind in the way I state truth and it makes no difference. My experience (which I understand is just mine) tells me that if I am tactful or tactless makes no difference in the perception of rudeness. Therefore, the effort to be tactful is not, nor can it be, relative to other's perception, but only to my own character and who I ought to be. It's between me and God. And, more to the OP point, the concept of tact and kindness, while legitimate from a Christian's point of view, is being used as a weapon against truth to silence and suppress truth. I believe that it behooves us to stand up against this by speaking boldly without consideration of the receiver's perception, because that perception is manipulative, calculating, and conditioned to harm said truth.

 

I also think...just to expand the discussion a bit, that Elder Oak's comments are general, but specific situations would clearly dictate other actions. There is a time and a place to forget kindness and simply defend. But generally we should always try and be kind.

[paulsifer42]

Lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact.

 

I'm well aware that we are supposed to be kind.

 

The question is (as you alluded to) is whether other's perception of rudeness in you qualifies you as rude or tactless or not. And I'm not saying it doesn't. I just don't know that it always does. You may be right about the religious community at large ignoring tact as a badge of honor, though you really have no idea any more than I do. I can only speak for myself. What I know is, as I've stated, sometimes I realize I have been tactless and take such responsibility. Other times, however, I have been making efforts to be kind in the way I state truth and it makes no difference. My experience (which I understand is just mine) tells me that if I am tactful or tactless makes no difference in the perception of rudeness. Therefore, the effort to be tactful is not, nor can it be, relative to other's perception, but only to my own character and who I ought to be. It's between me and God. And, more to the OP point, the concept of tact and kindness, while legitimate from a Christian's point of view, is being used as a weapon against truth to silence and suppress truth. I believe that it behooves us to stand up against this by speaking boldly without consideration of the receiver's perception, because that perception is manipulative, calculating, and conditioned to harm said truth.

 

I also think...just to expand the discussion a bit, that Elder Oak's comments are general, but specific situations would clearly dictate other actions. There is a time and a place to forget kindness and simply defend. But generally we should always try and be kind.

 

I need to put this in the quote finding thread, but there is a quote by Joseph Smith that was in Truman G. Madsen's speech that basically said that when Joseph is criticized, or lied about, before being angry he looks inside to see if there is not some truth in the criticism and invited others to do the same.  

 

And I can think of no time where I offended someone when, later, upon more reflection, I could not think of a kinder way to say what I said.

[The Folk Prophet]

I need to put this in the quote finding thread, but there is a quote by Joseph Smith that was in Truman G. Madsen's speech that basically said that when Joseph is criticized, or lied about, before being angry he looks inside to see if there is not some truth in the criticism and invited others to do the same.  

 

To be fair, I do not feel we should not consider criticism before writing it off. I'm only saying that there will, likely, be many times, if our intentions are generally right and true, that we will, after consideration, find no reason to accept it as valid. I'm sure that happened to Joseph many times. Sure...sometimes he found weaknesses in himself to correct...and sometimes he surely found no validity to the crazy stuff said about him at all.

 

And I can think of no time where I offended someone when, later, upon more reflection, I could not think of a kinder way to say what I said.

 

*shrug* Okay.

 

What I have found, even on this forum, is when I say something with good intent, half the responses are thanks and agreement and the other half are angry accusations. (Of course that depends on the thread and who's posting at the time). So which one of these responses should I take as valid? Both? What I said was good and bad? Kind and unkind?

 

I stand by my thinking. Other's responses are not the entirely of the equation by a long shot. Sure, they're worth consideration. And we should not blow them off based on un-Christian values. But people's perceptions are all over the place.

[paulsifer42]

To be fair, I do not feel we should not consider criticism before writing it off. I'm only saying that there will, likely, be many times, if our intentions are generally right and true, that we will, after consideration, find no reason to accept it as valid. I'm sure that happened to Joseph many times. Sure...sometimes he found weaknesses in himself to correct...and sometimes he surely found no validity to the crazy stuff said about him at all.

 

 

*shrug* Okay.

 

What I have found, even on this forum, is when I say something with good intent, half the responses are thanks and agreement and the other half are angry accusations. (Of course that depends on the thread and who's posting at the time). So which one of these responses should I take as valid? Both? What I said was good and bad? Kind and unkind?

 

I stand by my thinking. Other's responses are not the entirely of the equation by a long shot. Sure, they're worth consideration. And we should not blow them off based on un-Christian values. But people's perceptions are all over the place.

 

I think we are in agreement.  From the sound of it, you are quicker to consider someone's opinion 'invalid' than I am (or than I would recommend), but hey, there's no way I can prove that.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think we are in agreement.  From the sound of it, you are quicker to consider someone's opinion 'invalid' than I am (or than I would recommend), but hey, there's no way I can prove that.

 

Maybe. It strikes me, on the other hand, that you've been pretty quick to consider pretty much every opinion I've ever had as invalid right from the get go. But, to be fair, you added "would recommend", and that's a legitimate viewpoint.

[paulsifer42]

Maybe. It strikes me, on the other hand, that you've been pretty quick to consider pretty much every opinion I've ever had as invalid right from the get go. But, to be fair, you added "would recommend", and that's a legitimate viewpoint.

 

Fair enough.

[Traveler]

There is the famous quote, "Preach the gospel by all means--if necessary use words."  It is clever, and it contains truth.  Yet, did not Jesus exhibit perfection in his words and deeds?  Did He not bare the light as best it could be borne?  Yet, when he ascended to the Father there were perhaps around 500 followers.  And why?  He not only demonstrated Truth, he spoke it.  He confronted sin and unrighteousness and spiritual hypocrisy.  He did cry over Jerusalem, for its many sins.  He called religious leaders white-washed tombs, and a generation of vipers.

 

Godly living does not compete with godly, prophetic speech.  They are companions.

 

I'd further contend that, while godly example preaches loudly, a life that is anointed and directed by the Holy Spirit is even more effective.  Peter preached one sermon and 3000 converted.

 

There are no harsher word spoken by Jesus than those criticisms of the Jewish clergy class.  Even to his Apostles Jesus said things like - "you do not know what spirit you are of" and "get behind me" - as reference to being influenced by Satan.  Many may think some special considerations will be made for those that enter into a covenant to represent Christ officially.  I am concerned that it is the opposite.  That such covenants also bring greater responsibility and that their unrepentant sins though seemingly insignificant and small bring greater shame before G-d than the grosses of sins of an infidel.  The comparison of log to speck is not in the sin as much as in the responsibility.

Edited November 13, 2014 by Traveler