Being Offended

[Fether]

Are we ever justified in being offended? Are there any scriptural stories of prophets being offended? How did prophets respond in situations where they could have been offended? Are you offended by this because you were offended today?

[Guest]

Jesus was offended by the moneychangers in the temple, and of course that was justified.

Edited March 17, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

Are we ever justified in being offended? Are there any scriptural stories of prophets being offended? How did prophets respond in situations where they could have been offended? Are you offended by this because you were offended today?

I'm offended that you would even ask such a question.

 

[NeedleinA]

I'm offended by that guys "girl" hair and flower.

[zil]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

I'm offended by that guys "girl" hair and flower.

I'm offended that you're offended by girl hair and flowers.  Further, I'm offended that "offended" gets infinitely more use than "onstarted".

Excuse me while I go get offended that my Pringles came all broken into bits.

[JohnsonJones]

We have a situation in our ward.  It appears that it is popular for some people that were given leadership positions in the past, threaten to kick people out for "disruption" when the people were asking questions that didn't flow with their lesson plans or didn't agree with their opinion.

For some reason, people didn't take kindly to that.  So, that leader got replaced.  Just in the past month, we had yet ANOTHER leader threaten to kick people out for expressing their opinions that didn't agree with the lesson.  This time that leader threatened to eject people by force!

I can't win...I honestly can't win on this.

On this, I actually agree, they have the right to be offended.  NO ONE should practice their priesthood or other leadership callings in that manner, I would even call it trying to abuse their priesthood authority.  So, the problem is, this is a situation I think they have a right to be offended (especially since they were flat out told they were not welcome to church in a roundabout way by telling them they were upsetting that leader by discussing things).  I have to go visit these people and it is my thoughts to invite them to church.  Of course, the problem being, I agree with their sentiment, I actually understand it now more fully. 

None of those leaders are ever going to apologize.  It's a catch 22 for me.  I want the former active members to return to church, but I can't say just get over it because apparently this type of attitude has been going on with some people in the ward for a while.  It's not like it's suddenly going to disappear.  The biggest problem are these leaders that want to toss people out and though in theory under the BP, they were called by the Stake.  When they are threatening to throw people out by force...even if those people want to come and insist on coming (which is why the threat of force was issued if those individuals "misbehave" aka...sitting nicely in their chairs and only speaking when called upon, but talking about things that the leaders don't wish to discuss).  I don't agree with that, to be honest...but it seems to be going on.  I just wonder if it's going on in my ward, if this is something problematic in other wards of the church.

So, yes, people can be offended.  I think many people in the church have been offended.  I think (as long as they don't throw you out by force...of course) the thing is a personal matter for you to decide which is more important, the lord...or your pride.  We don't necessarily do what the prophets of old did when they were offended.  Even if we did, we should remember it's done in the Lord's time BY the Lord, not by us.

Nephi was offended when his brothers wouldn't help him build a boat.  He eventually shocked them when instructed by the Lord.

Alma had a different approach where he was slapped, hit, tied up, bound, tossed in prison, watched the membership get thrown into a fire, and finally the LORD tore down the prison and sent a enemy group that basically massacred the town.

Nephi's brother (later Nephi, around the time of the Lord's coming to America) I believe was stoned, Nephi and the Saints persecuted.  A Greater number of the more wicked of the people were killed in fires, earthquakes, drowning, and all manner of disasters from a great storm.  The rest were converted later.

Mormon was very distraught with the actions of the people which were doing things very offensive to the Lord.  His entire nation was slaughtered. 

People mocked Noah...they all drowned.

Moses is an interesting story.  He was not happy with how one individual was treating a Hebrew, and killed that individual.  Then he had to flee and wasn't in Egypt for many years.  That's one instance of a personal offense where the future prophet took action on his own desire...rather than the Lord acting upon it, and the result probably was not what Moses would have preferred in that instance (a guess).  Later, when Pharaoh refused the Lord's demands, the Lord slew Pharaoh's first born and when Pharaoh's armies pursued Israel, many of them were drowned in the seas.

So, yes, I think there are times when prophets have been offended, but justice is the Lords.

Normally, I think it comes down to choice, however.  In instances where we are offended, we have several steps, all of which we need to decide whether we are going to take, or not to take.

1. Decide which is more important, our pride, or following the Lord.

    1a.  If it is our pride which is more important, than we can sulk at home and/or eventually fall away and do our own thing on Sundays

2.  If we decide we want to follow the Lord, we go to church regardless.  We then have another choice.  To try to be Christlike, or to emulate the world.

   2a.  If we emulate the world, we go, but we hold grudges and hate on that individual that offended us.

3.  If we try to be Christlike, we forgive the other individual.  We must realize that the individual may NEVER be sorry and may continue to do what originally offended us.  It is OUR choice to forgive them.

  3a.  If we forgive them, then we must also choose to show our love for that individual.  Even as the Lord was dying on the Cross he choose to forgive those who did that to him and asked his father to forgive them.  We must show love to those that despitefully use us, and be nice to those that hate us.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[NeedleinA]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just in the past month, we had yet ANOTHER leader threaten to kick people out for expressing their opinions that didn't agree with the lesson.  This time that leader threatened to eject people by force!

Not even an isolated Branch of 5 members in Uzbekistan acts like this.
(Hopefully your not from Uzbekistan are you?)

[zil]

I'm rather curious what was said that got these leaders' backs up.  If it was false doctrine, then the leader is obligated to correct it, but even if it was, I've never heard of or witnessed threats of physical ejection.  Indeed, the guidelines as I've received are the other way around (everyone else leaves, not the person being disruptive - unless that person chooses to leave on their own, possibly after being asked).

As to what to say to those who have been threatened - from this distance (and I know what I'm about to say is extremely hard to see up close, and harder to do), it seems like a perfect opportunity to put into practice various teachings from the Sermon on the Mount.  (And perhaps good reason to meet with the SP.)

Edited March 17, 2017 by zil

[Sunday21]

Elisha who set bears on children who called him bald?

https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2Ki2.23-24

Edited March 17, 2017 by Sunday21

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Elisha who set bears on children who called him bald?

https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2Ki2.23-24

I have always felt that surely there must be something more to this story that we are not getting from the text of the Old Testament...  

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Elisha who set bears on children who called him bald?

https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2Ki2.23-24

The Old Testament Institute Manual gives a pretty cool explanation in this. And I also believe this has more to do with disrespecting the Lord's Annointed Servants than being offended

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, zil said:

I'm rather curious what was said that got these leaders' backs up.  If it was false doctrine, then the leader is obligated to correct it, but even if it was, I've never heard of or witnessed threats of physical ejection. 

I agree that is weird.  Generally speaking all a teacher needs to do is assume command and just say something like "we appreciate your thoughts on xyz, if anyone wishes to discuss it further we can do so after class, we will now discuss abc" or STTE.  

I can see someone getting kicked out of class if they are simply unwilling to obey the teacher and conform to that request, but most should get the hint.  In addition, this would be a perfect thing to bring up in teacher's council.  It would have to be an extreme circumstance for someone to get kicked out. IMO.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Fether said:

Are we ever justified in being offended? Are there any scriptural stories of prophets being offended? How did prophets respond in situations where they could have been offended? Are you offended by this because you were offended today?

The Spirit is offended when we participate in anything ungodly. As we know, when the Spirit is offended, He leaves. I'm trying to learn to follow that example.

[a mustard seed]

I always thought we were taught to be the opposite of offended. We are told to be long-suffering, patient, and to turn the other cheek. Instead of assuming motive(like that those who offended me intended to do so) I instead try to foster an environment where love is more freely given. "Try"...it's not easy to follow His example but I am certain at least of what I am supposed to do. 

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, Fether said:

Are we ever justified in being offended? Are there any scriptural stories of prophets being offended? How did prophets respond in situations where they could have been offended? Are you offended by this because you were offended today?

 

I believe it was Brigham Young that said. – Only a fool would be offended by someone that did not intend to offend them but it would take a much bigger fool to be offended by someone that did intend to offend them.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, zil said:

I'm rather curious what was said that got these leaders' backs up.  If it was false doctrine, then the leader is obligated to correct it, but even if it was, I've never heard of or witnessed threats of physical ejection.  Indeed, the guidelines as I've received are the other way around (everyone else leaves, not the person being disruptive - unless that person chooses to leave on their own, possibly after being asked).

As to what to say to those who have been threatened - from this distance (and I know what I'm about to say is extremely hard to see up close, and harder to do), it seems like a perfect opportunity to put into practice various teachings from the Sermon on the Mount.  (And perhaps good reason to meet with the SP.)

There are several different situations.  I don't want to get into it all that much due to privacy issues so forgive me if I don't go into detail and dance around it somewhat, false doctrine that the leader may have allowed to be taught is one item that has popped up occasionally, other times dealt with questions into doctrine deeper than what the leader felt should be discussed on occasion, and various other items.  From my discussions it sounds like the members got their answers anyways, afterwards, but not at church.  Unfortunately, it seems some of them went to places on the internet that were not so nice about LDS members but do discuss some of these topics.  That's an entirely different subject though, and yet another headache.  This has heavily influence how I think things should be handled in church, because if they don't get their answers one place, they are going to get them somewhere.  But the offensive part was the leaders who threaten to throw people out of class.  I simply don't believe it that they did that, though they did.  The first time I heard a member tell me that is what offended them, I probably was offensive myself simply because I couldn't believe anyone would ever do that.  It took verification from others, and finally seeing it all over again that it really sunk in, this actually happens!  Apparently one leader went over my head (no idea how they presented it in that instance as I was not there) and even got it approved by higher authority...which sort of left me fuming and tied my hands.

My advice of simply to bear testimony about the class subject and try to move it on with the lesson was summarily ignored.

Anyways, to the actual topic, yes, those people were offended.  I don't feel comfortable asking them to go back to classes which they were offended at simply because I feel they have a good reason to BE offended.  However, at the same time, I am supposed to invite them back to church.  That's what I'm going to do, but it can be a tough job when you know part of the story behind it, know what caused it, and know the easiest solutions have been bypassed already.

Edited March 18, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, yjacket said:

I agree that is weird.  Generally speaking all a teacher needs to do is assume command and just say something like "we appreciate your thoughts on xyz, if anyone wishes to discuss it further we can do so after class, we will now discuss abc" or STTE.  

I can see someone getting kicked out of class if they are simply unwilling to obey the teacher and conform to that request, but most should get the hint.  In addition, this would be a perfect thing to bring up in teacher's council.  It would have to be an extreme circumstance for someone to get kicked out. IMO.

This is problematic, and gives me an idea that the leaders are not portraying the entire story correctly.  At least one person has asked that the leader not be allowed to discuss this item in public because the leader does NOT accept blame in any of it and blames the individual for being a disruptive force in class.  I don't believe in censoring individuals, so I did not tell the member I would prevent the leader's discussion, but the leader knows the individuals concern.  My thought is how dismissive the leader has been toward that individual and others, the leader will probably bring it up in the council and every other place they can (as they have been doing), which is another problem with how they offend people.  It seems GOSSIP is rampant, and they like to talk behind people's back.  Most likely the subject will be brought up at a time when that leader is at the class, but has ensured the members they are talking about are not.  Furthermore, and this also has offended people when they find out, and plays into this, because of this gossip network, blame normally falls on those who are now inactive members and is also part of why they become so offended at it.

This is a difficult situation for me, because it does not appear anyone else sees a problem with this, including those above me. 

Despite that, this is still a choice by the member to choose to BE offended in the first place.

The best advice is what I gave above though, even in this situation we have a choice.  It's the three steps above.

1. Decide which is more important, our pride, or following the Lord.  The best choice is to follow the Lord and go to church.

2.  If we decide we want to follow the Lord, we go to church regardless.  We then have another choice.  To try to be Christlike, or to emulate the world.  We should forgive the individual regardless of how many times they offend us.

3.  Finally, we should love the individual.  This can be the hardest step for some.

Unfortunately, despite how simple those steps may sound, they can be incredibly hard for people to accept, much less do.

Edited March 18, 2017 by JohnsonJones
Grammar

[Fether]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe it was Brigham Young that said. – Only a fool would be offended by someone that did not intend to offend them but it would take a much bigger fool to be offended by someone that did intend to offend them.

 

The Traveler

The quote is "He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool"

[yjacket]

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

This is problematic, and gives me an idea that the leaders are not portraying the entire story correctly. 

Unfortunately, the world has become less accepting of righteous authority and giving said authority the benefit of the doubt.  By this I mean that, people seem to think nowadays that the teacher is only their to facilitate discussion, and that the rules don't apply to them.  In general people are less respectful towards righteous authority, to parents, to teachers, to each other. In addition, it is now en vogue to give the party who is upset at authority the benefit of the doubt vs. giving leadership the benefit of the doubt.

Teachers are more than just to facilitate discussions . .. otherwise we would call them discussion facilitators rather than teachers. So what do they teach? The Doctrines of the Gospel as laid out in the manuals, they are to teach by the Spirit, but to still teach according to the manuals.  Unfortunately we have an attitude among some members, that Church meetings is the place where they should learn everything and anything about Church history, the mysteries of the Gospel, etc. That if they didn't learn it in an actual Church setting that the Church "lied" to them. And this is absolutely false. A teacher absolutely has the right and the obligation to terminate a discussion or a question in class that veers into strange paths.  For example, a Sunday School class is an inappropriate place to start a deep discussion about Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith or about Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory or any other host of deep discussions.

If you want to learn deep history on the Church in an actual Church setting, take Church Institute classes.

https://www.lds.org/si/institute/manuals?lang=eng

There are at least 2 courses that will dive fairly deep into the early Church in the 19th century.

[Guest MormonGator]

 I think some people get "offended" to show off how moral and wonderful they think they are and how dirty, sinful and stupid the rest of the plebeians are. Other times people get offended because they are selfish drama queens and want attention.

There are, of course, legit times to be offended. You know, when someone says "No offense but your kids are ugly and stupid."  

[Fether]

9 hours ago, MormonGator said:

There are, of course, legit times to be offended. You know, when someone says "No offense but your kids are ugly and stupid."  

Even then you can choose not to get offended. When I was like 5, I would very defensive when another kid would tell me their dad could beat my dad up (thinking back, they were probably right x) my dad is not a fighter by any means). Now if someone says that, Indont get upset. Not because I don't care, but because I have a strong personality rooted belief that that doesn't matter and my dad is is still as strong as anyone would ever need him to be.

[JohnsonJones]

13 hours ago, yjacket said:

.  For example, a Sunday School class is an inappropriate place to start a deep discussion about Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith or about Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory or any other host of deep discussions.

 

No, nothing like that.  When I say deeper discussion it would be more like things such as the teacher (this is an example similar, but not exactly) proclaiming the Lectures of Faith to be revelations from Joseph Smith, and a member saying they didn't quite think that was right...and then the Leader stepping in and asks the member to leave for disturbing the class.

The worst I think we've had has happened several times, and this is closer to the point of what discussion are has been over the teachings taught by other churches.  A teacher starts stating what Catholics or Baptists believe, and then a former member of one of those churches says...that's not what we believed at all.  One of the Leaders for some reason then feels it is their duty to put that member in their place, tell them the teacher is correct, they are wrong, and please leave if they insist on interrupting the class as the discussion is driving away the spirit (though for the person offended, once they felt inaccurate information was being told, the spirit probably left already, or so I imagine).  I have one member so offended by this they have restricted their entire family from coming to church now, even if the rest of the family still wants to come. 

A great majority of them though, I have a general story, but not the specifics and so I know they were offended by things at church, and things said (and normally it seems to also be heavily reliant upon the GOSSIP and backstabbing that ensues after the event) but not the specifics.  In general when I say deeper, I don't mean things that are especially "deep" doctrine, but they can be subjects which are occasionally heavily discussed online by anti-LDS groups (an example of this would be things dealing with the why the Pearl of Great Price was canonized and when...seemingly innocuous discussion overall, but if one looks online and stumbles across anti-LDS teachings it can turn up some pretty nasty stuff).

What comes to mind is the scripture that says how great shall be your joy if you save but one soul.  I sometimes wonder, what if a leader does the exact opposite of that, because of their decisions they actively are part of the reason that drives away a soul?

(And I am NOT innocent myself, I dread that as well.  I know at least one or two people that I inadvertently offended, and though I tried to apologize profusely afterwards, I am pretty positive they are still angry at me).

What do we tell the Lord then?  When he asks, why did you drive John, my good friend away from the gospel?  Do our excuses of saying...well, I thought he was talking about things I didn't like in class was a big sin, enough to drive him away...really seem like something we want to tell the Lord?

2 hours ago, Fether said:

Even then you can choose not to get offended. When I was like 5, I would very defensive when another kid would tell me their dad could beat my dad up (thinking back, they were probably right x) my dad is not a fighter by any means). Now if someone says that, Indont get upset. Not because I don't care, but because I have a strong personality rooted belief that that doesn't matter and my dad is is still as strong as anyone would ever need him to be.

I agree, ultimately it is our choice whether to be offended or not.  Part of what I'm supposed to do is to visit these inactives and try to get them to return to church, after the fact of what has already happened to them.  I'll admit, for most of them, I'm at my wits end.  I have no idea how to accomplish bringing them back to the church.  I completely agree with your statement (and I think the end of at least two of my posts above support that), but unfortunately, when dealing with many of these individuals, that's the last thing they want to hear coming out of my mouth.

I WAS successful (at least temporarily) with one or two of them, as they came out to tithing settlement at the end of last year, so that's a great, but overall, I don't know how to help those who feel offended overcome it and return to church activity.

Edited March 19, 2017 by JohnsonJones
Clarifications

[zil]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I agree, ultimately it is our choice whether to be offended or not.  Part of what I'm supposed to do is to visit these inactives and try to get them to return to church, after the fact of what has already happened to them.  I'll admit, for most of them, I'm at my wits end.  I have no idea how to accomplish bringing them back to the church.  I completely agree with your statement (and I think the end of at least two of my posts above support that), but unfortunately, when dealing with many of these individuals, that's the last thing they want to hear coming out of my mouth.

I WAS successful (at least temporarily) with one or two of them, as they came out to tithing settlement at the end of last year, so that's a great, but overall, I don't know how to help those who feel offended overcome it and return to church activity.

Your examples help make this situation clearer, and it's extremely unfortunate (for lack of a better word with similar meaning but more severity).  I am amazed that no one in the relevant auxiliary presidency or bishopric is willing to instruct these teachers in (a) not trying to state what other religions believe (irrelevant to any gospel lesson), and (b) how to gently pass over minor items like the sources of the PofGP or Lectures on Faith.

When the teachers are released, it might be easier for these people to come back.  It might also be easier if there were another class they could attend (e.g. during Sunday School, we have Gospel Doctrine, Gospel Principles (as needed), and Marriage & Family Relations).

Beyond that, I can't give you new advice.  This is an opportunity for these members to "be the better person", to practice humility, submissiveness, meekness, forgiveness, and, if necessary, ignoring another's willful preservation of their own ignorance (which, honestly, is something everyone is going to hit in one area of life eventually - I expect all of us could cite examples from our employment).

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, Fether said:

Even then you can choose not to get offended. When I was like 5, I would very defensive when another kid would tell me their dad could beat my dad up (thinking back, they were probably right x) my dad is not a fighter by any means). Now if someone says that, Indont get upset. Not because I don't care, but because I have a strong personality rooted belief that that doesn't matter and my dad is is still as strong as anyone would ever need him to be.

Absolutely. As a younger man (sadly, not just a child) I was extremely defensive and would take offense/argue at the slightest thing. It's taken me years to get rid of that truly obnoxious side of my personality. While I certainly still have my flaws and failures, I'm no longer like that. 

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Absolutely. As a younger man (sadly, not just a child) I was extremely defensive and would take offense/argue at the slightest thing. It's taken me years to get rid of that truly obnoxious side of my personality. While I certainly still have my flaws and failures, I'm no longer like that. 

I'm offended by your taste in music.  For example: Anvil is ugly and stupid.