Contention

[theSQUIDSTER]

I think it's inevitable that we're going to step on each-other's toes now and then. The question is, what do we do after that's happened?

Should we turn the other cheek? Should we stand firm in what we know to be right? Or is it possible to somehow do both?

Consider this story in the Book of Mormon: Alma chapters 60 & 61.

In chapter 60, Captain Moroni has sent a letter to the government containing a crushing rebuke for their failure to send support for the suffering troops. Was this a fair assessment of the situation?

Think about how Chief Judge Pahoran responded to Moroni.. Most especially in verse 9 of chapter 61:

" And now, in your epistle you have censured me, but it mattereth not; I am not angry, but do rejoice in the greatness of your heart. I, Pahoran, do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgment-seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people. My soul standeth fast in that liberty in the which God hath made us free. "

Would Pahoran have been within his "rights" to demand an apology of Moroni? If so, then why didn't he? Did Moroni ever offer an apology? From the records we have it doesn't say .. Wouldn't that be important to the story? So why wasn't that information included? Was it left out intentionally?

What I personally take away from this story is that disagreements are inevitable between even the most valiant of God's children. Both Moroni and Pahoran were such men.. But men with very different personalities, strengths and weaknesses. This whole story could have taken a very tragic turn if it had turned into a power struggle between Moroni and Pahoran. I think more of our own stories could have endings like this story described in the book of Alma.

Edited March 22, 2015 by theSQUIDSTER

[estradling75]

Not that long ago JAG posted this

 

Exhibit A:  It's not about the nail ("I don't need you to fix it; what I need is for you to listen".  :) )

 

I think it shows yet another area of contention.

 

We lots of people who come posting about the "Nail" in their head.  When they do... Forum members who are trying be helpful and nice generally respond in one of two ways...

 

"Wow  so sorry you have a nail in your head that really sucks"

 

Or

 

"Here is what you need to do to get that Nail out of your head"

 

Both groups are trying to be nice and helpful, both groups are more then likely offering up exactly what they would want to be told if they were in that situation

 

However if the person with the Nail is looking for only one kind of answer they are going to be put out by those that answer the other way.

 

If they are looking for practical solutions to the problem they are going to find those that say "Yes having a nail in your head really sucks"  "Well no duh!!!  What are you going to tell me next water it wet?"

 

If they are looking for support they are going to find those that say "Well this is how you fix this" and respond "Why are you telling me to change or be different??... I didn't come here to be judged I came here get support!?"

 

So if no matter how helpful or friendly you might want to be if you guess wrong as to what they really want they will consider you a total waste of their time.

[char713]

Or the third alternative:

 

Your advice or sympathy is different that what I expected to receive, but I have encountered similar kinds of responses many times before and realize that you are trying to help - but your choice of words and overall tone are what really tell me whether you are trying to:

 

A) Kindly suggest ways to remove the nail, which is what you might want to hear if it were in your own head. Or..

B) Insist that any extra pain or infection the nail might be causing is exaggerated or imaginary, and that there are other problems that matter much more to more people, so stop whining. Which is not what anyone would want to hear if they were in the other's place. ... And this, I believe, is the source of all true contention. Saying or doing harsh things without first considering the golden rule. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Except for when the topic is "controversial" only because it is personal, not because it is wrong or otherwise contrary to the views of the church. If and when I ever encounter such a scenario, of someone opening up about tender feelings, (whether wisely or not) the one thing I know I would never do is tell them how they ought to feel instead.

Let me state, at the outset, that I'm speaking in generalities here and not to anyone or any incident in particular.

Now, that said:

There is merit in the "don't tell me how I should feel!"--up to a point. We can't control initial reactions of shock, inadequacy, betrayal, or whatever circumstances may lead us to feel. And I'm not brash enough to suggest that we can perfectly control pain even in the very long run.

On the other hand . . .

I do believe that certain feelings about certain circumstances, events, people or policies can be destructive and do need to be worked through over time; and publicly airing those feelings in order to to court expressions of approval of/sympathy for them strikes me as generally counterproductive to that process. If I were (heaven forbid) so unfortunate as to suffer some of the things that many here have suffered, and if it appeared that I was dwelling on those events/feelings in such a way as to stunt the effect of the Atonement's healing power in my life; I would hope that someone would point it out to me in a kind, gentle, empathetic and constructive way. And if such a person did so in an unkind, rough, insensitive or destructive way; I would hope I could get past my affronted feelings long enough to recognize the underlying truth of the observation.

Edited March 22, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[skalenfehl]

Contention begins where persuasion ends.

Impatience begins where longsuffering ends.

Anger, discord, hostility begin where gentleness, meekness and kindness end.  

[mordorbund]

Contention begins where persuasion ends.

Impatience begins where longsuffering ends.

Anger, discord, hostility begin where gentleness, meekness and kindness end.  

 

I read this in a Yoda voice.

[Guest]

I read this in a Yoda voice.

 

The Sphinx (Mystery Men) for me.

[David13]

Who can separate "feelings" from "thoughts" for me?  If you tell me you "feel" you are a Republican (or a Democrat) or you "think" you are a Republican (or Democrat) what is the difference?

Are your feelings based on your thoughts, or are your thoughts based on your feelings?  Is there a difference?

If someone "feels" they should use hard drugs, crack cocaine or something, that it's been ordained for them, that it's the right path for them, should we say nothing because we don't want to "hurt their feelings"?

Do any of you "feel" that evil is when good people do, or say nothing?

Do you think or feel that there is a difference between right and wrong?

In a debate, if you "feel" angry, or violent, or such, are you not admitting that you have lost the debate, that you cannot continue the debate? 

dc

Edited March 23, 2015 by David13

[The Folk Prophet]

Is not preaching love, repentance, faith, sorrow for sin, mourn with those who mourn, etc., etc., telling people how to feel?

 

Seems to me that telling people what they should feel it well within the scope of right behavior.

[Treble.clef]

nvm

Edited March 27, 2015 by Treble.clef

[char713]

Is not preaching love, repentance, faith, sorrow for sin, mourn with those who mourn, etc., etc., telling people how to feel?

 

Seems to me that telling people what they should feel it well within the scope of right behavior.

 

Sure, but tone and word choice matter just as much as the help itself. Encouraging and teaching versus preaching or correcting, addressing the individual and not just the problem. 

[pam]

It's hard to get tone in written form.  Many times it is the perception of the reader as to how something is taken.

[Treble.clef]

Sure, but tone and word choice matter just as much as the help itself. Encouraging and teaching versus preaching or correcting, addressing the individual and not just the problem. 

 

I agree with you and appreciate your answer but how do you do that exactly? I know I need to improve. (I don't mean this sarcastically) Do you think you people get to a point where there is no need to improve? It sounds like you have it down to a science.

[The Folk Prophet]

Sure, but tone and word choice matter just as much as the help itself. Encouraging and teaching versus preaching or correcting, addressing the individual and not just the problem. 

 

I recall many, many years back when I was less stalwart in some ways, that certain brethren in the 12 used to rub me wrong. Their tone just bugged me. I never let it get to me, because I was still a believer, etc., but I just thought that some of them could work on their "tone". Nowadays, those same brethren are my very favorite to listen to when conference rolls around.

 

The difference is not a change in the brethren's tone.

 

Eye of the beholder.

Edited March 23, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

I agree with you and appreciate your answer but how do you do that exactly? I know I need to improve. (I don't mean this sarcastically) Do you think you people get to a point where there is no need to improve? It sounds like you have it down to a science.

 

 

Great writers can and do construct wonderful passages that get their ideas across.  Most of us here on the forums are not great writers, Unless we plan to make a career out of being a writer, we settle at some point of being able to get our ideas across.   That means for a majority of the posters on the forums that the reader is going to have to fill in the blank spots with their own ideas.  This of course is another source of contention.

 

After all if someone accuses you of being hateful or insensitive when you had no intention of being either that is going to put you on the defensive...  Of course the reader doesn't like to be told they are wrong and its only in their head that such hatefulness or insensitivity exists...  Thus round and round we go.

 

It is said that in the real world 80 to 90 percent on communication is non-verbal.  And people who consistently misunderstand what people are saying in the real world usually get diagnosed with some kind of social disorder.   By its nature the internet (and in fourms like this one) strips out high percentage of our communication channels. Thus (Unless you are a great writer) we are all using a medium that by its every nature imposes the appearance of a social disorder on everyone.  

[theSQUIDSTER]

I recall many, many years back when I was less stalwart in some ways, that certain brethren in the 12 used to rub me wrong. Their tone just bugged me. I never let it get to me, because I was still a believer, etc., but I just thought that some of them could work on their "tone". Nowadays, those same brethren are my very favorite to listen to when conference rolls around.

 

The difference is not a change in the brethren's tone.

 

Eye of the beholder.

So what changed? How did you work through the issue of "tone". .?

[The Folk Prophet]

So what changed? How did you work through the issue of "tone". .?

 

I didn't work through the tone, per se. What I did (little by little through the years) was become more obedient, submissive, etc.

 

It was, very literally, the wicked taking the truth hard.

[Vort]

I recall many, many years back when I was less stalwart in some ways, that certain brethren in the 12 used to rub me wrong. Their tone just bugged me. I never let it get to me, because I was still a believer, etc., but I just thought that some of them could work on their "tone". Nowadays, those same brethren are my very favorite to listen to when conference rolls around.

 

The difference is not a change in the brethren's tone.

 

Eye of the beholder.

 

I have had very similar experiences in my life. Being humbled before and during my mission, and frankly ever since, have been great blessings to me. Hard blessings, uncomfortable, but great.

[Finrock]

I have had very similar experiences in my life. Being humbled before and during my mission, and frankly ever since, have been great blessings to me. Hard blessings, uncomfortable, but great.

 

Hi Vort! Hope you've been well. :)

 

I am full of pride. God has compelled me to humility and then I try to convince my wife (or others) that she needs to be humble, which leads to more circumstances that compell me to be humble. I wish I could just finally choose to be humble so that my pride will stop creating circumstances that compell me to be humble.   

 

I would be completely lost without God's hard blessings, though.

 

-Finrock

[theSQUIDSTER]

I love these most-recent posts. Thank you, TFP, Vort, Finrock. Being humbled, hard though it is, is in fact a great blessing. Being *humiliated* is NOT. Let me clarify. Humility, or being humble is a CHOICE. Humiliation is also a choice.. But more of a REACTION instead of the conscious choice to NOT react.. Which is probably why humiliation FEELS so .. involuntary. Being humiliated is weakness. Being humble is powerful.

In the last General Conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk "Loving others and living with differences." I love his words, "Kindness is powerful." ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng )

I also love the words of Elder Ulisses Soares, expressed in October 2013, General Conference: "Being meek does not mean weakness, but it does mean behaving with goodness and kindness.". ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/be-meek-and-lowly-of-heart?lang=eng )

Kindness, humility, meekness... These are very counter-intuitive to the natural man and the world.. And yet I believe they are true principles of power. Without such, can there really still be power in the priesthood? And without the blessings of priesthood power in our lives, where does that leave us?

Edited March 23, 2015 by theSQUIDSTER

[Suzie]

I love these most-recent posts. Thank you, TFP, Vort, Finrock. Being humbled, hard though it is, is in fact a great blessing. Being *humiliated* is NOT. Let me clarify. Humility, or being humble is a CHOICE. Humiliation is also a choice.. But more of a REACTION instead of the conscious choice to NOT react.. Which is probably why humiliation FEELS so .. involuntary. Being humiliated is weakness. Being humble is powerful.

In the last General Conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk "Loving others and living with differences." I love his words, "Kindness is powerful." ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng )

I also love the words of Elder Ulisses Soares, expressed in October 2013, General Conference: "Being meek does not mean weakness, but it does mean behaving with goodness and kindness.". ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/be-meek-and-lowly-of-heart?lang=eng )

Kindness, humility, meekness... These are very counter-intuitive to the natural man and the world.. And yet I believe they are true principles of power. Without such, can there really still be power in the priesthood? And without the blessings of priesthood power in our lives, where does that leave us?

 

Thank you for sharing that talk, there are a few parts I would like to highlight:

 

 

 

Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should love all people, be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable.

 

Sometimes we are too caught in trying to tell others they are wrong, etc and trying to show them what *we* perceive to be the right way, instead of listening to their point of view and showing true concern for their beliefs. Most importantly, when the conversation does not turn out the way we expected or when there is no possibility of consensus, what do we do? Do we turn bitter, pedant, irascible, truculent and personal or we gently agree to disagree and respectfully leave the conversation? This is a skill and I wonder how many of us are trying to develop it.

 

 

 

 

Our stands and communications on controversial topics should not be contentious. We should be wise in explaining and pursuing our positions and in exercising our influence. In doing so, we ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion. We encourage all of us to practice the Savior’s Golden Rule: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matthew 7:12). When our positions do not prevail, we should accept unfavorable results graciously and practice civility with our adversaries.

 

 

 

All of us should banish hateful communications and practice civility for differences of opinion.

 

This is one of the things I have been saying before. We can disagree without becoming contentious, we should never make others feel we are their enemy, we should strive for civil discussions where the other persons involved in the conversation know that we do not compromise certain beliefs and yet we are okay with discussing these issues and listening to their side in a calm, collected manner.. without trying to make others feel stupid or belittled. What is the purpose of that anyways?

 

I believe we will gain greater respect this way instead of focusing on telling others how they ought to live or feel.

 

My two cents for FWIW.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Suzie

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I think "contention" occurs when "anger" is injected into a debate. And yes, I'm an expert on that.

 

I have a pretty thick skin so it's VERY hard to offend me, but I can offend others with no effort at all and without trying.

My best friend tells anyone who will listen that I'm the only human on the planet that can say "I Love You" and make it sound like a death threat. 

[askandanswer]

Apparently contention is whenever I open my big yap. That defines contention. Apparently.

 

 

I recall many, many years back when I was less stalwart in some ways, that certain brethren in the 12 used to rub me wrong. Their tone just bugged me. I never let it get to me, because I was still a believer, etc., but I just thought that some of them could work on their "tone". Nowadays, those same brethren are my very favorite to listen to when conference rolls around.

 

The difference is not a change in the brethren's tone.

 

Eye of the beholder.

 

 

The impact of great knowledge will be lessened, when poorly delivered...............and poorly received.

 

 10 And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;

 11 Let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face.

 12 Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand.

 13 Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?

 14 To preach my gospel by the Spirit, even the Comforterwhich was sent forth to teach the truth.

 15 And then received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God; and in this are ye justified?

 16 Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you; he that is weak among you hereafter shall be made strong.

 17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

 18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.

 19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?

 20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

 21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truthreceiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?

 22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoicetogether.

 23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and isdarkness.

 24 That which is of God is light; and he that receivethlight, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

 25 And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you;

[Traveler]

I think most of the misunderstandings come from individual relationships of the terms offence and contention.   Because many are offended by the truth some seem to be trying to argue then that truth under such condition is the initiation of contention.  Some would argue that delivery of a truth can be the initiation of contention.   I believe such ideas concerning contention are false and misleading.

 

When I become contentious – it is my fault and my mistake.   Part of my flaw is thinking my contentiousness is someone else’s fault but the sad truth is that being contentious is my choice alone.  That is part of the problem with choosing contention.  We blame someone else and fail to take personal responsibility.  They said something and because they said what they did is the excuse of the contentious. 

 

Sadly I am not always the first to admit my flaws and even more sadly one of my flaws is becoming contentious when I think someone is pointing out a flaw when I think there is no flaw.  Under such circumstance I must have input from someone else to even realize that it is me that has surrendered to contention.  Since I have this problem I very often assume others to have the same problem with contention and enjoy blaming them for their contentions and at the same time try to avoid blame for my contentiousness.   The other problem I have is when I return to logic and reason – I tend to forget my contentious outburst as though they never happened and am completely blindsided by those that insist I take responsibility for my initial outbursts that I have lost from memory being sure I never said such a thing and if I did – I did not really mean it – especially the way it was understood.  Thus convincing myself that even if I admit my contentious mistakes and apologize – it really is not going to help anybody or anything. 

 

To those that have survived my posts – thanks and to those that have not – I guess that it is really just your problem.   

[Jane_Doe]

I recall many, many years back when I was less stalwart in some ways, that certain brethren in the 12 used to rub me wrong. Their tone just bugged me. I never let it get to me, because I was still a believer, etc., but I just thought that some of them could work on their "tone". Nowadays, those same brethren are my very favorite to listen to when conference rolls around.

 

The difference is not a change in the brethren's tone.

 

Eye of the beholder.

 

I have had similar experiences.  

 

For me, the change was rooted in changing from focusing on "What *I* think you're saying" (looking through my eyes loaded with my biases), to listening to "What are *you* trying to say?" (seeing that you're a child of God and looking through your eyes and what you mean).