Sign in to follow this  
applepansy

Confused and concerned and definitely saddened.

Recommended Posts

I have posted about the level of contention at this site before.

 

I haven't been here much in the last year or so.  I just didn't have the stomach for the contention.  Yesterday I found myself wanting to discuss the news conference with other LDS members.  I was hoping there were others who felt the same way I did about the news conference.  I was happy.

 

I am confused why there is so much contention over the issue the church spoke on and over the news conference itself.  For me the words of our Prophet and Apostles are the last word.  I was happy to hear the church say it expects the same respect as other groups are expecting.  That is something to celebrate.  It needed to be said.  It needs to be fought for.

 

Our free society is disintegrating because we (as a nation) aren't allowing all people the same level of freedom.  (I am not talking about redefining words, such as, marriage.)  One side wants one thing and the other wants something else and if there is a little legal victory then its an all out war to make the other side pay.  That's wrong!  As LDS members we need more than ever to be Christ-like.  Instead we bicker and fight.

 

What I read in the headlines yesterday was so misleading and out right wrong I wondered if they even listened to the news conference.  What I read here is was just as disheartening to say the least, definitely un-Christ-like.  I was surprised all over again at the level of contention.  I was not surprised to see the thread closed this morning.

 

Are we as members going to be part of the wickness?  (rhetorical)

 

Sigh.... have at it.  I've voiced my concerns and probably won't be back for another year.

 

I hope all of you have a great day (year).  Enjoy! :)

 

Edit:  Had to add this quote from Russell M. Nelson, Conference Address, April 1989

 

"My concern is that contention is becoming accepted as a way of life. From what we see and hear in the media, the classroom, and the workplace, all are now infected to some degree with contention. How easy it is, yet how wrong it is, to allow habits of contention to pervade matters of spiritual significance, because contention is forbidden by divine decree:"

Edited by applepansy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 I was happy to hear the church say it expects the same respect as other groups are expecting.  

 

Our free society is disintegrating because we (as a nation) aren't allowing all people the same level of freedom.

 

 

Are we as members going to be part of the wickness?  (rhetorical)

 

 

This post is disheartening to me.  We all know what the prophets said.  And we understood them perfectly.

 

I snipped off everything except the most relevant lines that IS THE source of contention.

 

Respect - this became contentious because people who are for property rights are associated with being disrespectful.  This is the same issue with abortion and murder.  If you're not pro-life, you're a murderer.  If you're pro-property-rights, you're disrespectful.

 

On Freedom - this became contentious because people who do not want to rent their property to gay people are equated to people who don't want to afford gay people "freedom and rights" an even that they want gay people to be homeless.

 

On Wickedness - good question.  Except that, if I don't agree with you, I'm wicked.

 

Okay, I said my piece.  You can close the thread now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contention is not caused by disagreement. Contention is caused by emotional reactions to disagreement. When someone posts an idea and another disagrees, all is well. When the first person reacts to that disagreement emotioinally as if it's a personal attack then things degrade quickly. That's, essentially, from my perspective, what happened in the other thread. An idea was posed. Someone questioned it (not even blatant disagreement) and that person was then attacked as being argumentative and contentious -- and downhill things quickly went.

 

Disagreement does not need to be contentious or uncivil. And, in my opinion, the holier-than-thou condemnation of the discussion process is being slung more by those who are actually causing the contention than it is by those who simply disagree.

 

It is entirely unfair to treat disagreements as if they are nothing more than contention.

 

If anything saddens me, its that -- once again from my perspective -- that there was nothing hateful said in that thread whatsoever, and yet......accusations abound.

 

Why is it that contention comes primarily from those who supposedly have a problem with contention? Why is it that judgment comes from those who supposedly speak against judgment. Why is it that those who preach love can't seem to show love to those they are condemning as hateful?

 

Maybe when the Savior taught us "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye" there was a good reason He did so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a difference between debate and contention. However when people debate topics they feel strongly about they tend to do so with emotion, which is responded to in kind. Disgust begets disgust, hate begets hate, love begets love. The other thing is that a large amount of people can't listen to disagreement without taking it personally. It's best to step out and cool down if we find that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I would encourage members of the Church wherever they may be to show kindness and respect for all people everywhere. The world in which we live is filled with diversity. We can and should demonstrate respect toward those whose beliefs differ from ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

I would encourage members of the Church wherever they may be to show kindness and respect for all people everywhere. The world in which we live is filled with diversity. We can and should demonstrate respect toward those whose beliefs differ from ours.

 

 

Just like we should demonstrate respect toward those whose beliefs are the same as ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

 In any event, we should be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting persecution of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation. -Dallin H. Oaks

 

Refusing service based on sexual orientation is persecution, just as it would be if we were refused service for being Mormons. Using terms that are known to be offensive slurs and disregarding the feelings of those that the words are directed toward is not being a person of goodwill. Calling those things what they are- hateful, or at least spiteful, is not being contentious. It is advocating for the counsel we're being given from our Church leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling those things what they are- hateful, or at least spiteful, is not being contentious. It is advocating for the counsel we're being given from our Church leaders.

 

"Nothing is achieved if either side resorts to bullying, political point scoring or accusations of bigotry." Jeffrey R. Holland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't exactly put you on moral high ground.

 

I have not advocated (which you should know instead of just presuming if you're going to join in) for one idea or the other concerning the politics of gay rights. You don't know what my views are in this matter. So I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here by saying this.  In point of fact, I'm fairly neutral in the political debate. But I believe, as Elder Holland said, that nothing is accomplished when one person accuses the other of bigotry (or being hateful).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implicit in the Jeffery R. Holland quote is the same underlying idea as the Dalin H. Oaks quote. One advocating against an absence of goodwill, and another advocating for goodwill.

 

 

 

 we should be persons of goodwill toward all

It seems to be that this is the moral high ground.


Some times it's not what is said, but how it is said that causes a problem.

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some times it's not what is said, but how it is said that causes a problem.

 

Or how it is read/heard. I think it's kind of funny how sometimes people respond to certain things that others have written as if it's SO horrible...and yet what was actually said isn't really that horrible, or even meaning what it was taken to mean.

 

People read a lot into things. Particularly with emotional, hot topic issues such as homosexuality.

 

Of course, knowing that, it behooves us all to make efforts to tread lightly in these touchy subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even read the news conference thread.

 

I've been debating the topic of civility in this forum in my own mind the last few weeks. I am new to this. I came her to share ideas not debate them. I do take it personal when someone critizes a comment of mine in which I feel they simply misunderstand me. They think I am being critical when I am not. Then I feel they are being critical - are they not?

 

I don't enjoy the forum and considered leaving myself. Which is really sad because we should be a more cohesive community of Saints. Instead, at this point, I am thinking I am just having to learn how this unsocial form of communication works. I have resorted to leaving threads where I feel there is contention. I don't return to them. My list of updated, unread threads is growing.

 

I mean no malice to any of you. I'm sorry if you have taken any communcation as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Refusing service based on sexual orientation is persecution, just as it would be if we were refused service for being Mormons. Using terms that are known to be offensive slurs and disregarding the feelings of those that the words are directed toward is not being a person of goodwill. Calling those things what they are- hateful, or at least spiteful, is not being contentious. It is advocating for the counsel we're being given from our Church leaders.

 

This is not what we are doing.  We are simply being BYU imposing our no-beer-drinking, no-leggings rule on our private property.  We are not advocating that beer drinkers and leggings-wearers do not have the right to a college education.

 

Nobody really wants to see our point in this.  They always go to - you're a heartless, disrespectful bigot.  My husband's best friend who is cohabiting with his boyfriend has no problem understanding this stance that my husband and I hold.  Trying to make LDS folks understand this... whew.  I have a better chance birthing a blue whale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I didn't even read the news conference thread.

 

I've been debating the topic of civility in this forum in my own mind the last few weeks. I am new to this. I came her to share ideas not debate them. I do take it personal when someone critizes a comment of mine in which I feel they simply misunderstand me. They think I am being critical when I am not. Then I feel they are being critical - are they not?

 

I don't enjoy the forum and considered leaving myself. Which is really sad because we should be a more cohesive community of Saints. Instead, at this point, I am thinking I am just having to learn how this unsocial form of communication works. I have resorted to leaving threads where I feel there is contention. I don't return to them. My list of updated, unread threads is growing.

 

I mean no malice to any of you. I'm sorry if you have taken any communcation as such.

 

pkstpaul, if it's any consolation... I love reading all your posts.  Even the ones where we don't quite see eye to eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or how it is read/heard. I think it's kind of funny how sometimes people respond to certain things that others have written as if it's SO horrible...and yet what was actually said isn't really that horrible, or even meaning what it was taken to mean.

 

People read a lot into things. Particularly with emotional, hot topic issues such as homosexuality.

 

Of course, knowing that, it behooves us all to make efforts to tread lightly in these touchy subjects.

I think this is exactly what happened. There are some really good points on both sides, it is sad that the conversation devolved. (and since it happens so often sometimes it's best to keep it at arms length)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've been debating the topic of civility in this forum in my own mind the last few weeks. I am new to this. I came her to share ideas not debate them. I do take it personal when someone critizes a comment of mine in which I feel they simply misunderstand me. They think I am being critical when I am not. Then I feel they are being critical - are they not?

 

I think this also has something to do with the personality of different people. To some people debate is debate, and not personal. To some debate is conflict. To some debate is boring. etc... When you have all sorts of people coming together online it is really easy to misunderstand where a person is coming from and how they feel about things, it makes communication really hard. 

[edit]

I've notice for example that Eowyn doesn't like disagreement but shows great compassion, while Anatess will run right into the roil and not be phased. Vort tends to pick apart ideas and present them from another angle. The Folk Prophet is very willing to state bluntly what he thinks is right. Margin of Error is a bit unconventional, (he's? not been quite so active on the forums since i've been here, so idk him? very well). A small sample of people, but I think that the coming together of all of these people and perspectives is a beautiful thing. Pam is the almighty admin. And Palerider takes bribes ;P

and i tend to be more interested in the debate-ish threads....shame on me  ;)  :P

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[edit]

I've notice for example that Eowyn doesn't like disagreement but shows great compassion, while Anatess will run right into the roil and not be phased. Vort tends to pick apart ideas and present them from another angle. The Folk Prophet is very willing to state bluntly what he thinks is right. Margin of Error is a bit unconventional, (he's? not been quite so active on the forums since i've been here, so idk him? very well). A small sample of people, but I think that the coming together of all of these people and perspectives is a beautiful thing. Pam is the almighty admin. And Palerider takes bribes ;P

and i tend to be more interested in the debate-ish threads....shame on me  ;)  :P

 

 

Oooh!! OOOh!!!!  Do me next!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh!! OOOh!!!!  Do me next!!!

Mordorbund likes getting compliments  :D and has an awesome profile picture  :P (Does that work  :D )

 

[edit] Maybe I should have said mordorbund likes people to talk about mordorbund  :)

Edited by Crypto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that some people want the "last word".  It's okay if someone disagrees with your point of view.

 

I have learned to disengage.  In other words, I simply don't reply if I feel like it's going to erupt into a discussion that can be contentious.  I personally don't like debate that becomes heated.  So, I try not to jump into the fray and that way I stay out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that some people want the "last word".

I generally don't like getting the last word in online discussions...it means you've killed the thread!  :( 

(sometimes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this also has something to do with the personality of different people. To some people debate is debate, and not personal. To some debate is conflict. To some debate is boring. etc... When you have all sorts of people coming together online it is really easy to misunderstand where a person is coming from and how they feel about things, it makes communication really hard. 

 

The tone-deafness of written language doesn't help either*. In a face to face conversation a matter-of-fact tone can communicate someone is trying to be dispassionate, or a soft tone can indicate they're trying to gently introduce new ideas into the conversation for consideration rather then trying to declare as if they were coming from on high. Not that all tone and body language in face to face conversations fosters communication but the intent can be a bit clearer. 

 

When you have long time posters this can be counteracted by their posting history. For instance, I know that Vort is usually trying to matter-of-factly present information and ideas (or examine the same) not rail at people with spittle specked lips. If you don't have a posting history with someone though it can often be left up to the reader's imagination how something is perceived. You touch on this with your edit.

 

*Sufficient effort and clarification can help impart a tone to the written word (it doesn't necessarily require wordiness) but generally people don't spend that much time on internet forum posts. They tend to write to get their point across to the degree they're satisfied with rather then trying to create a masterpiece of the written word.

Edited by Dravin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

while Anatess will run right into the roil and not be phased.

 

Ohhh... there was a time when Vort would cause my knees to knock together.  But yeah, even in those days, I will go toe-to-toe with Vort if it is important to me.  Something happened when Vort broke up with the Icelandic big-eyed girl... he's not as fearsome anymore.  The Folk Prophet is the fearsome one now... and yeah, TFP and I have had our boiling toe-to-toe moments.  :D

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone-deafness of written language doesn't help either. In a fact to face conversation a matter of fact tone can communicate someone is trying to be dispassionate, or a soft tone can indicate they're trying to gently introduce new ideas into the conversation for consideration rather then trying to declare as if they were coming from on high. Not that all tone and body language in face to face conversations fosters communication but the intent can be a bit clearer. 

 

I certainly agree, and I'd add that in face-to-face conversations you can stop speaking if the other person starts to bare his or her teeth.  With a long email or a post, your first sentence can accidentally detonate the entire conversation and then you have this nonstop streaming text that will continue to gush and churn and inflame.

 

People tell me I have a dry British humor.  I recently found some old emails of mine from the mid-1990s, which at the time I had written with streaks of what I considered harmless dry humor.  I was shocked at how nasty they sounded today.  I'm really surprised that my boss at the time didn't slap me more often.  If I had been her, I would have fired me long before I quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this