Speak the truth or never offend?

[The Folk Prophet]

Which is top priority?

 

And I did not include "both" as an option on purpose. Clearly, if and when "both" is an option then "both" is the right option. I am asking concerning those times when speaking the truth will offend. And saying nothing is included in the never offend side, to my thinking.

[Guest]

Depends on why you feel you need to speak the truth rather than stay quiet.  If speaking the truth changes lives, then speak the truth even if it offends.

[FunkyTown]

Yep. Anatess, as always, is the Grand High Poombah of Most Right.

Strive to speak the truth, but I have met far too many people who feel that the excuse "I was just being honest" covers for "I was just being mean."

If you meet someone on the street and you say, "Wow! Your face is as ugly as a jarful of smashed, dirty buttocks." when they are, in fact, as ugly as a jarful of smashed, dirty buttocks - You are not 'Just being honest'. You are being hurtful. Even if it's the truth, it is a truth whose sole purpose is to be a bludgeon.

[The Folk Prophet]

Yep. Anatess, as always, is the Grand High Poombah of Most Right. Strive to speak the truth, but I have met far too many people who feel that the excuse "I was just being honest" covers for "I was just being mean." If you meet someone on the street and you say, "Wow! Your face is as ugly as a jarful of smashed, dirty buttocks." when they are, in fact, as ugly as a jarful of smashed, dirty buttocks - You are not 'Just being honest'. You are being hurtful. Even if it's the truth, it is a truth whose sole purpose is to be a bludgeon.

 

Maybe I should have specified...gospel truth. I suppose some people have faces that are "gospel-truth" as ugly as a jarful of smashed...

 

:)

[FunkyTown]

Maybe I should have specified...gospel truth. I suppose some people have faces that are "gospel-truth" as ugly as a jarful of smashed...

 

:)

In that case, it depends on what you're saying, in what context and to whom.

Let's take this conversation:

"Hey, Bob, I'm feeling a little down because my dog just died."

"JESUS IS LORD!"

"Thanks, Bob. It's just I -"

"NOT MAMMON!"

"But Bob... What does that have to do wi-"

"YOU CAN CHOOSE WHOM YOU SERVE, BUT FOR ME I SERVE THE LORD!"

"I just... Can you dial it back a bit? I don't really want to be shouted at."

"I SPEAK ONLY GOSPEL TRUTHS! YOU SHOULD NOT HIDE YOUR LIGHT UNDER A BUSH!"

"..."

In this case, Bob is going to have very few friends.

[The Folk Prophet]

In that case, it depends on what you're saying, in what context and to whom.

Let's take this conversation:

"Hey, Bob, I'm feeling a little down because my dog just died."

"JESUS IS LORD!"

"Thanks, Bob. It's just I -"

"NOT MAMMON!"

"But Bob... What does that have to do wi-"

"YOU CAN CHOOSE WHOM YOU SERVE, BUT FOR ME I SERVE THE LORD!"

"I just... Can you dial it back a bit? I don't really want to be shouted at."

"I SPEAK ONLY GOSPEL TRUTHS! YOU SHOULD NOT HIDE YOUR LIGHT UNDER A BUSH!"

"..."

In this case, Bob is going to have very few friends.

 

Respectfully...this example is a bit out there and unrealistic.

 

Being a jerk is being a jerk. We all know that.

 

What I'm trying to explore, rather, is those times when something is said with good intent, meant to be helpful (and in context) but with an outside understanding that there may be offense taken. This happens all the time. We see it in the forum a lot. Someone asks for advice. You give it to them, but it is in terms of blunt truth -- not said unkindly or insincerely, but with intent to speak clear, plain, truth for their understanding. And then, of course, it all blows up in your face, and you're the biggest jerk who ever walked the earth, you have no compassion, you're SO bad at interacting with other people, you are insensitive, unkind, etc., etc., etc...

 

Whereas there are certainly times when the 'way' it was said could have been reassessed...let's just leave that out of it for a bit and presume that there are times (perhaps...I'm open to a debate on this) when speaking the truth leaves no option for saying it any way that would not be taken as insensitive. So then what's the priority. Not hurting feelings? Or putting it out there because right thinking is right thinking and it's better to teach right and correct principles and thinking even at the cost of short term offense than it is to never hurt feelings.

 

Clearly I fall on the side of the second. But, as I said...I'm open to debate on the matter and accept that I can learn and improve.

 

I take scriptural examples as support for my thinking -- Nephi and Laman, for example. Perhaps this is invalid though. Nephi spoke the blunt truth and hurt Laman's feelings. But... Laman was actually wicked (or so we understand). Are we to understand that "the guilty take the truth to be hard" as literal or not? Does that tranlate, or not, to those who take truth hard are ALWAYS guilty?

 

then next vs (1 Nephi 16:3) says:

"...if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us."

 

When someone murmurs against our words, saying we speak hard things, are we in the wrong, or are they?

 

What is the priority here?

 

I'll admit, I'm asking it (again...I've discussed similar things before) because I am constantly being accused of "saying hard thing" against people. And I'm legitimately interested in doing what's right. I don't know how to respond to these accusations.

 

And...of course, throwing a wrench into the entire thing...I take the accusations as others saying hard things against me. Does that mean I'm guilty? It seems more complicated than that. The key, of course, being "truth".

 

So maybe the question really comes down to, how can we know that we are speaking truth and not just wildly and randomly judging and accusing others from a holier-than-thou stance? :) (Which is often what I feel others are doing when they accuse me...but maybe I'm doing the same to others...)

Edited December 9, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Bini]

You must be tactful in all things.

 

If you offend, no one will listen. You don't get bees with vinegar. It's all about being tactful.

[MarginOfError]

I think more to his point would be something along the lines of the following scenario:

 

A Catholic parent invites you to the baptism of their newborn child and you tell the parent, "I cannot come because infant baptism is an abomination before the Lord."

 

The thing about what we call "gospel truth" is that it isn't as objective as we like to think it is.  When gospel truth requires personal revelation, it cannot be all that objective.  And so if we mean to say "I'm just telling the truth," we really ought to remember that the full and correct phrase would be "I'm just telling the truth as I feel it has been revealed to me."  

 

And so, in many cases, I find that "telling the truth" is wickedly boorish and divisive unless it can be done in a way that opens the door for civil disagreement.

[The Folk Prophet]

You must be tactful in all things.

 

If you offend, no one will listen. You don't get bees with vinegar. It's all about being tactful.

 

So...Nephi was wrong then when he offended Laman? :)

 

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly... Two people debating may not ever convince each other, but what about the listening crowd?

[Bini]

So...Nephi was wrong then when he offended Laman? :)

 

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly... Two people debating may not ever convince each other, but what about the listening crowd?

You don't want me to answer that. I'm not sure that I personally subscribe to any of it right now.

 

But to reiterate, you must be careful in how you approach things when trying to make a point, because it will never be listened to if you're a butt about it. There's a difference between being firm and a straight shooter, and just being obnoxiously offensive about it.

[MarginOfError]

So...Nephi was wrong then when he offended Laman? :)

 

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly... Two people debating may not ever convince each other, but what about the listening crowd?

 

The listening crowd is usually as turned off by boorish behavior as the recipient of the message.

[The Folk Prophet]

A Catholic parent invites you to the baptism of their newborn child and you tell the parent, "I cannot come because infant baptism is an abomination before the Lord."

 

The thing is that telling someone you cannot come because of such a thing is not true. You certainly can go in spite of that thing.

 

However, to your point, there is clearly an argument to be made that speaking the gospel truth is not always appropriate.

 

Your scenario would be boorish. But what about a catholic asking you point blank about the LDS view on infant baptism? And let's even throw in the "as I feel it has been revealed to me" part. Would that offend any less?

 

"What is the LDS view on infant baptism?"

 

"It is an abomination, as I feel it has been revealed to me."

 

Seems pretty offensive still.

[The Folk Prophet]

The listening crowd is usually as turned off by boorish behavior as the recipient of the message.

 

True. But boorish is more often in the eye of the beholder methinks. Political debates are a good example. The republican crowd sees the democrat as boorish, the democrats the republican as boorish... (and the reality is they both are...perhaps besides the point though...) But there are, certainly those fence sitters who are swayed by the good argument that some find boorish and others find spot on.

 

Just thinking through it with my writing....

[MarginOfError]

The thing is that telling someone you cannot come because of such a thing is not true. You certainly can go in spite of that thing.

 

However, to your point, there is clearly an argument to be made that speaking the gospel truth is not always appropriate.

 

Your scenario would be boorish. But what about a catholic asking you point blank about the LDS view on infant baptism? And let's even throw in the "as I feel it has been revealed to me" part. Would that offend any less?

 

"What is the LDS view on infant baptism?"

 

"It is an abomination, as I feel it has been revealed to me."

 

Seems pretty offensive still.

 

If asked directly, I would actually state quite concisely that we see it as an abomination.  But would follow up with a description of agency and accountability, as well as our rejection of Original Sin.  The goal would be to show that, given our assumptions, calling it an abomination is logical.  

 

Tone carries more in this situation.  If you speak with sterile tone and without judgment, the message is usually well received.

[MarginOfError]

True. But boorish is more often in the eye of the beholder methinks. Political debates are a good example. The republican crowd sees the democrat as boorish, the democrats the republican as boorish... (and the reality is they both are...perhaps besides the point though...) But there are, certainly those fence sitters who are swayed by the good argument that some find boorish and others find spot on.

 

Just thinking through it with my writing....

I don't think boorish is in the eye of the beholder.  I think our tolerance for boorish is dependent on who is speaking.  We'll tolerate more boorish behavior (and even celebrate it) from a candidate we agree with, but have far less tolerance when we disagree.

 

The fence sitters, generally speaking, will gravitate away from the boorish, regardless of the validity of the arguments presented.

[estradling75]

On this subject I think of two scriptures...

 

The Armor of God in Ephesians 6 and the proper use of Priesthood (or any) Authority in D&C 121

 

I noticed in the Armor of God scripture something interesting...  All the item but one are designed to be inward focus and applied personally.  The only item that is by design to reach out an affect others is the "Sword of the Spirit".

 

In the verses about authority there is only one case where we are allowed to reprove with sharpness and that is "When moved upon by the Holy Ghost".

 

It seems to me that God takes in upon Himself to reveal Truth...  And that we need to be very careful that we are following his will when we reveal Truth... by taking the spirit as our guide.

[Connie]

Christ offended a lot of people during his lifetime.

[Vort]

In your initial choice, obviously if we have to choose between (1) always telling the truth and (2) never offending, we will choose (1) every time. But this is obvious, and everyone on this list (and every honest non-politician in the world) already agrees with that.

 

It is my current thought, based on my experience, that it does occasionally happen that you must speak boldly, even if some will take offense at your truthfulness -- but only very occasionally. In the vast majority of cases, words can be spoken that carry the needed message without undue offense. Such words are of more value than "blunt truth", because they are more likely to be understood and accepted by the recipients.

 

But again, there are times when you must speak an unpopular truth. In such a case, it's cowardice to refuse to speak the truth because you're afraid of the disapprobation of men.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Vort

[2ndRateMind]

If the truth is offensive, then my contention would be that the problem lies with the offended, and not the truth.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Traveler]

Very interesting thread.  I personally believe that G-d is so loving and compassionate that he will not force truth but will allow agency and that in the cases that G-d does force something that the purpose is not for truth but for eternal benefit. 

 

And so it it that we deal with a paradox as we communicate our thoughts, feelings and understandings - if our efforts are to lift up, to inspire and enlighten then truth is a good thing.  If however, we intend to use truth as Satan does - to discourage and damn others then such truth may not be such a good thing.  What then is better - to be right in what we teach or to be loving and compassionate? 

 

I believe there are many more cards to be played in the game of this thread - but I will play what I have above and see what it draws out from the hands of others before I play my hand.  B)

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

I believe there are many more cards to be played in the game of this thread - but I will play what I have above and see what it draws out from the hands of others before I play my hand.   B)

 

Looking forward to seeing how your hand plays out, friend. I tend to a less subtle, less political, approach to truth, and other people. I tell them how it is, and let them react as they may.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 9, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

This is one of those that can't really be answered correctly because... especially in differing cultures... what is polite to some is offensive to others and, unless you want to spend your entire life studying humanities, it's just one of those you have to just put faith in the Lord in.

 

Your intention will flow through your words.  Have pure intent with love in your heart when you speak the truth.  If it offends, you can be assured that you will have the opportunity to repent.

 

Just don't tell somebody your face is as ugly as a jarful of smashed, dirty buttocks... there's no repentance available for that.

[yjacket]

I would say it depends in the situation.  For example with infant baptism, is it essential to tell them at that moment infant baptism is evil?

 

Also sometimes being offensive is actually a good thing (believe it or not), while I don't recommend it as a general course of action, sometimes being offended gets people to think more than not being offended.  For example, based upon my understanding of homosexuality and sin, I won't back down from saying that homosexual behavior is sin, if that is offensive to some so be it.

[Windseeker]

Great question and great responses by everyone.

 

Of the many Apostles I'm familiar with none seem as plain in speaking the truth as Dallin H. Oaks. That is why his council on truth struck me so strongly when I first read it, that I have never forgotten it. 

 

What I learned was that just because something might be true does not mean it's right to speak it.  He gives several example of this. 

The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.

 

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. For example, it is wrong to make statements of fact out of an evil motive, even if the statements are true. It is wrong to threaten to reveal embarrassing facts unless money is paid, even if the facts are true. We call that crime blackmail. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are forbidden to reveal facts they have received in confidence, even though those facts are true.

 

Just as the principle of justice must be constrained by the principle of mercy (see Alma 42), so must the use of truth be disciplined by the principle of love. As Paul instructed the Ephesians, we “grow up into” Christ by “speaking the truth in love.” (See Eph. 4:15.)

 

In a message titled “Truth—and More,” Elder Russell M. Nelson contrasted the single-minded surgeon who coldly announces the truth about a terminal illness with the compassionate surgeon who mingles that message with assurances of love and support that help the patient and his family handle the truth. Truth is powerful and absolute in its existence, but its communication should usually be guided by companion principles. “Otherwise,” Elder Nelson observed, “the sword of truth, cutting and sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel, might not be governed by righteousness or by mercy, but might be misused carelessly to embarrass, debase, or deceive others. … Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid.” (Ensign, Jan. 1986, pp. 70–71.)

 

One who focuses on faults, though they be true, tears down a brother or a sister. The virtues of patience, brotherly kindness, mutual respect, loyalty, and good manners all rest to some degree on the principle that even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it to any and all persons at any and all times.

 

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: “The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (3 Ne. 11:29.)

 

Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

 

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ ~ Dallin H. Oaks

 

 

In another talk about Tolerance he says the same thing in another way. 

 

 

..a thoughtful Latter-day Saint woman wrote me about her concern that “the world’s definition of ‘tolerance’ seems to be increasingly used in relation to tolerating wicked lifestyles.” She asked how the Lord would define tolerance.⁵

President Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has said: “The word tolerance does not stand alone. It requires an object and a response to qualify it as a virtue. … Tolerance is often demanded but seldom returned. Beware of the word tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue.”⁶

This inspired caution reminds us that for persons who believe in absolute truth, tolerance for behavior is like a two-sided coin. Tolerance or respect is on one side of the coin, but truth is always on the other. You cannot possess or use the coin of tolerance without being conscious of both sides.

Our Savior applied this principle. When He faced the woman taken in adultery, Jesus spoke the comforting words of tolerance: “Neither do I condemn thee.” Then, as He sent her away, He spoke the commanding words of truth: “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). We should all be edified and strengthened by this example of speaking both tolerance and truth: kindness in the communication but firmness in the truth. ~ Dallin H. Oaks

 

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

Tone carries more in this situation. If you speak with sterile tone and without judgment, the message is usually well received.

Totally agree. Tone is extremely difficult in writing. It's a skill that I struggle with.