Speak the truth or never offend?

[Windseeker]

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.

 

I find that culture plays a big part in what offends us.

 

It was a great learning experience to serve my mission in Japan and see how differently Americans and Japanese interact. I remember spending all morning hiding a large pimple on my nose and the second I set foot in the Church a cute member (the last one I wanted to notice it..and yeah missionaries still find girls attractive) walked directly up to me and pointed out my zit and asked in the most concerned way if it hurt in front of the whole ward. 

 

Despite how forward they were, (many a green American sister missionary I saw in tears from being called large, fat, enormous) they thought Americans were extremely rude in how we always got directly to the point and never talked around things. A matter of fact, the more important the thing is the more one needs to avoid talking directly about it..talk about frustrating.

 

It was challenging to change, but if I wanted to share the gospel I had to learn to do so in a way that didn't drive the people I was called to serve away. Needless to say the bold approaches we do here do not work so where in other cultures. So not only did I have to learn not to offend but also how not to take offense when they would point out how "tall" my nose was..lol. Because to them they were showing interest, not trying to offend me when speaking their truth.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Windseeker

[Finrock]

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.

 

Speaking the truth is the top prioritoy but speaking the truth as the hypocrits speak truth is destructive to your soul.

 

-Finrock

[Vort]

There are times when Jesus refused to speak the offensive truth, such as when he stood before Herod.

 

Truth should always be given those who ask in sincerity. But in some cases, truth is a precious commodity, a collection of pearls, as it were, and not to be cast before swine.

[Suzie]

I think it pretty much boils down to intent. In my opinion, t is isn't really about the content of the message but our motivation behind them.

 

Frankly, it takes a little introspection and thoughtful reflection to determine whether the "truth" we want to share needs to be shared to  help/bless a brother or sister (and even in that scenario, we should carefully analyze how we say it, and whether is the right time to say it, etc).

 

Or

 

Are we simply trying to prove that the other person is wrong and we are right? What happens when we share the "truth" and the other person disagrees? Can we let it go, respectfully? Can we agree to disagree? Or do we continue trying and trying to impose (perhaps more like shove down their throat) our truth?

 

Speaking the truth is noble, once we are speaking the truth in love.

[classylady]

My personality type is such that I never want to offend. I have such a trepidation of offending or hurting someone's feelings, that I have learned over the years how to tell the truth in a manner that is not offensive.  I'm not saying that I am perfect at it.  But, what I have learned, is that the person to whom you are speaking needs to know that they are loved and accepted.  If it is necessary to point out a gospel principle that someone does not understand or does not believe, there are ways to do so, and speaking truthfully, where they are not offended with me, the bearer of the truth.  They may be "offended" at the truth, because it is something they are not ready to accept, but they are not offended with me or the way I presented it. And, hopefully, it does not leave a "sour taste" for the Church because I was able to state the truth in a manner that did not "offend" them personally.

 

For example:  if you say "you are wrong", this automatically puts the person on the defensive.  Instead, if you say, "I disagree, but I see your point of view", or some like-minded thought, it diffuses the tone of the debate.

 

When I think of the Savior, I think of him as teaching with love. And, it is a love that is honest and true, not feigned. I would hope that my interactions with anyone would be with love. When I think of the good I can do here on LDS.net, I want to be sure I am Christlike. I want to be a disciple of Christ, and be a tool in his hands. If I offend someone, whether church member or not, I don't believe that is what Christ would want me to do. He would expect me to find a way to state the truth, but in such a way that the person does not feel defensive, but loved/accepted.  Even, if they don't agree with the "truth" I would hope they would go away with at least an understanding of what the Church/Gospel is, and perhaps when they are ready for the "truth", because they felt love and accepted, they will want to know more and perhaps be more receptive, rather than never wanting anything to do the Church again.

[Bini]

Thank you, Suzie and Classylady, fantastic responses.

 

I'm far from perfect and I tend to get snappy with people when I lose my patience, but I'm getting better and I'm able to bite my tongue in times where I'm wanting to spew something unkind. I like Classylady's approach that when making a point, try doing so with a loving and non-threatening attitude, even if the receiving end chooses not to follow suit. People are much more willing to hear what you have to say if they don't feel beat up. I also loved the example given:

 

For example:  if you say "you are wrong", this automatically puts the person on the defensive.  Instead, if you say, "I disagree, but I see your point of view", or some like-minded thought, it diffuses the tone of the debate.

 

 

I can't tell you how many times I've read posts here on the site that start with: You are wrong. Search any of the hot topic discussions here in the forum and you'll see.

[theSQUIDSTER]

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.

Some might say about offense that it is *taken* .. not given. That being said.. It's probably all-too-often a rationale that's used by those who care very little about what affect their words can have upon others.. or who even enjoy the idea that they might provoke others..

If I may, I'd like to pose a related question:

Is it ever ok to speak the truth with *the intent* to offend? And, if so, under what conditions or circumstances would one do that?

(For example.. The terrorist "caliphate" that doesn't really want to be called "ISIS" .. but prefers to be called "Islamic state." A part of me REALLY wants to call them "ISIS" hoping that might just be a little bit offensive to them.... Is that so wrong? . )

Edited December 10, 2014 by theSQUIDSTER

[Connie]

I’m glad to see people bringing up intent.  I’ve been told that “intention is irrelevant” and that it’s all about how whatever was said or done made the person feel.  Apparently this is a sexual harassment mantra, but I’ve often thought that doesn’t really interpret well in real life.  This thread confirms that for me.  Obviously, intention is not irrelevant.  But I often wonder the same question as the poster above. 

 

I’m currently reading a book that touches a bit on this subject.  The author absolutely insists that Christ used sarcasm.  I’m not sure that’s an idea I can get behind.  That word implies to me that he spoke with the intent to insult and offend, but all we have are the words and not much clue as to tone of voice or body language.  And it’s got me wondering what was Christ’s intent behind the irony he often used or the name calling (whited sepulcher, dog, or even “Satan”)?  Obviously he said some things that could be taken as offensive.  Some people did take offense and others reacted more favorably.  Does that mean that when he spoke and people took offense that’s exactly how he meant them to take it and when he said similar things to others who didn’t take offense he used a kinder tone or something?  Or maybe his intent was to see how they would react—whether they would take offense or not?  Perhaps the way they reacted to what he said told him a great deal about that person?  I don’t know.  These are just some things I’ve been musing about lately.  I suppose it’s not possible to know at this point what his intent was in saying many of the things that can easily be interpreted as rude. 

[Guest]

Even when I agree with someone who is carelessly boorish, I don't tend to want to listen to them or be in their company when it can be avoided.

[Anddenex]

The first scripture that enters into my heart and mind regarding this topic is Alma 38: 12, “Use boldness, but not overbearance; and also see that ye bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love; see that ye refrain from idleness.”

 

The story of three gates enters into my mind when I think upon speaking truth. The three gates are: Is it true? Is it needful? Is it kind?

 

When I think of boldness, I think of speaking truth while allowing another person’s agency to remain in tact.  Truth, even if it passes these three gates, will be offensive to the wicked.  Nephi was bold with his brothers, and they bore offense at his words and were wroth with him. Lehi gives witness to his sons words verifying Nephi spoke according to the will of God, even though Laman and Lemuel were offended.  

 

Jacob provides further insight as to truth will be like daggers even to the sincere and good of heart, Jacob 2:9, “Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God…to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds…instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.” (emphasis added).

 

God’s words are pleasing to the righteous and condemning toward the wicked; however, we are also informed that even the word of God will be a dagger to already wounded hearts.  Jacobs language “it burdeneth my soul” should bear weight to our hearts also.  This is a form of compassion.  With this compassion, Jacob was constrained to speak the truth although its effect would be hard even on the righteous.

 

Our Lord recognized, in his life, that truth must be spoken boldly.  He called out the hypocrites by their title, “Oh ye hypocrites.”(Matthew 5:7; Job 20:5; Matthew 22:18).  Is not this, our Lord, who also said to his disciples, “O ye of little faith,” or “O thou of little faith.”  How well would a member respond today if their leader said, “O ye of little faith”?  And yet, this is our Lord which was declared of, “Jesus wept.” Our Lord was harsh against the wicked, while being compassionate toward the penitent.

 

******

P.S. Well, TFP, you have your links. Use them wisely.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Anddenex

[priesthoodpower]

if you want to have friends then don't offend them, plain and simple. when i was living in orem utah their best friends were their spouses or children so they offended the hell out of anyone and everyone else in church (visitors and members), its so much of a cultural norm in utah to offend that the people have become immune to it and no longer get offended when someone offends them.

 

the church outside of utah has cultural differences according to that region of people so to offend or tell the truth will vary place to place but like what another poster said, just use common sense.

Edited December 10, 2014 by priesthoodpower

[The Folk Prophet]

And priesthoodpower wins the most offensive post of the day award.

[Guest intra]

not sure whether to answer the OP  . .

. . or if answering the OP would be too offensive! 

[Vort]

And priesthoodpower wins the most offensive post of the day award.

 

Only if you're an Oremonian.

[priesthoodpower]

Only if you're an Oremonian.

oremonians have become immune to being offended :)

Edited December 10, 2014 by priesthoodpower

[FunkyTown]

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.

Are you? If so, we need an example.Both of my examples have been said to not be what you meant. Could you clarify and provide an example of where you offended by speaking the truth? That would be very helpful in providing meaningful insight. Without it, we'll just be coloring your answer with our own perception of what you mean.

[The Folk Prophet]

Could you clarify and provide an example of where you offended by speaking the truth?

 

Hmm...not sure that's a good way to go. Seems to me like it might be more inclined to lead to an argument about whether what I said was truth or not.

 

That would be very helpful in providing meaningful insight. Without it, we'll just be coloring your answer with our own perception of what you mean.

 

Don't get me wrong. I have found almost all posts herein this thread meaningful and insightful. Clarifications I have posted of my meaning are to expand the discussion and direct it according to my hopes (though I allow that the discussion can go in other directions (and it has) and still be meaningful and insightful).

[The Folk Prophet]

Jacob provides further insight as to truth will be like daggers even to the sincere and good of heart, Jacob 2:9, “Wherefore, it burdeneth my soul that I should be constrained, because of the strict commandment which I have received from God…to enlarge the wounds of those who are already wounded, instead of consoling and healing their wounds…instead of feasting upon the pleasing word of God have daggers placed to pierce their souls and wound their delicate minds.” (emphasis added).

 

This is an interesting reading of this scripture. I have never translated it to mean that the pleasing word would be daggers to them. I have always read it as the pleasing word would not be given at all, and instead daggers would be given. But what you're proposing, actually, makes a lot of sense.

[FunkyTown]

Hmm...not sure that's a good way to go. Seems to me like it might be more inclined to lead to an argument about whether what I said was truth or not.

In a case like that, think of how the Savior taught Nicodemus. There was a man asking questions of controversial things that could be argued. Nicodemus came with the right spirit, to one who had authority.

So, in a case like that where what you are taught might not be considered doctrine, you must ask:

1) Do you have authority to speak this? In this case, it's simple. The first Christians taught controversial things - They taught of the Son of God to a nation of unbelievers. But because they had knowledge of these things and it was simple and true, they taught of it. The Savior could speak of things like marriage in Heaven, Hell and all things in between. Others could not.

2) Is it necessary to salvation? Think of Paul, who avoided all the extraneous stuff that others thought so important. "I am of John." and "I am of Cephas". He counselled understanding and care for one another. He repeated the basic doctrine again and again.

Ultimately, because you are not the Saviour nor a Prophet, you have authority to speak those things you know are true. You can talk of baptism, prophets, apostles, resurrection. Things that will keep you busy for all eternity. Anything more complex, stick to 'Line upon line and precept upon precept' when teaching. Why teach advanced nuclear physics to someone who doesn't know basic math?

[Anddenex]

This is an interesting reading of this scripture. I have never translated it to mean that the pleasing word would be daggers to them. I have always read it as the pleasing word would not be given at all, and instead daggers would be given. But what you're proposing, actually, makes a lot of sense.

 

My thoughts stem from my experience with friends.  Some of my friends have never been married and I wonder how pleasing is it for them to hear the joy of having children and yet this blessing has been withheld from them.  

 

The doctrine is pleasing, and yet I am sure brings some sorrow for individuals in this situation.  I remember, while attending BYU and we had that annual Law of Chastity discussion.  The bishop was forward and blunt about keeping the Law of Chastity.  We were given the pleasing word of God; however, one young lady who had broken the Law of Chastity (although she had repented at this time) felt like daggers were placed in her heart.  The words were pleasing and they were spoken in the spirit of love for God and for his fellow brothers and sisters.  This lesson focused on the importance of keeping the Law of Chastity and consequences we face when we break the Law of Chastity.  She had hoped to hear the pleasing word of God regarding the joy of repentance.  This was mentioned, but was not the focus of the discussion.