Defending the Gospel

[The Folk Prophet]

Several years past, perhaps during the peak of my posting here, I had a discussion with my brother wherein I lamented the difficulties I felt I often faced, being viewed by so many as a pariah of sorts, declared judgmental, hateful, self-righteous, and generally "everything wrong with the church" -- a prime example of why people are driven from the gospel. In speaking with my brother concerning this phenomenon, I had expressed to him that my entire purpose in even being on the forum was in order to defend the gospel. But in response I am often treated as if I am the one on attack. As I see it, however, the world is filled with individuals who constantly hack away at the gospel citadel, chipping away at it here and there with petty grievances, objections, protestations, befuddling discombobulations, and all manner of crafty and corrupt commentary. When such attacks occur, I tend to try and make it my business to stand between them and the breastwork of plain gospel truths. I have never seen this as being the aggressor, despite the fact that I oft times attend to it aggressively. As I see it, when one man strives to slay an innocent and a second man charges him in response, the first may make the claim that the second is the aggressor, but the second knows the right of it.

But my brother's reply threw me for a loop. He asked, simply, "why does the gospel need defending?"

This struck me as an odd comment. I was raised in such a way that I have always viewed it as my duty to defend the gospel. My brother, in theory, was raised the same way, and yet somehow this basic idea hadn't, at some level, registered with him in the same way it did with me.

And so I raise the question here: 

Does the gospel need defending?

[Midwest LDS]

I think the answer depends on what you mean by defending. I suppose on a macro sense it doesn't, it's true and everyone who fights against it will one day find out their wrong and will take a knee before the Savior. But I would argue on a micro level, in our day to day interactions, it can and should be defended. There is no need to allow falsehoods to be spread in our presense, and I always looked at defending the Gospel as standing up for what's right. I would even argue that it's a form of testifying of the Gospel to defend it's truthfullness before others. I do believe we need to be careful how we do it though. I remember being a young and foolish missionary getting into a shouting match with someone on their doorstep because they said I was going to hell. After 15 minutes or so of screaming at each other, and him slamming the door in my face, (over one of my scintillating ripostes of logic I'm sure☺), I felt miserable. I realized I had invited the spirit of contention in by taking his offensive comment and throwing it back at him and had done both of us little good in the process. After that, if I felt myself reacting in anger rather than boldness I would take a step back and leave. I believe it's the spirit in which we are defending the Gospel that matters most in whether we should do it or not in any given situation.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[zil]

My initial thought before finishing reading your post, @The Folk Prophet, was the same as your brother's.  This quote came to mind:  “The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.”

I think @Midwest LDS hit on an important point.  Are you defending the gospel, or are you attacking the attacker?

[Jane_Doe]

Ok, well @Midwest LDS and @zil are earlier risers than me and beat me to the awesome reply.  So all I can say it "Amen to what they said".

[Midwest LDS]

Lol probably just an earlier time zone @Jane_Doe.

[Guest]

To put it bluntly, I see it less as defending the gospel and more as fighting stupidity.

And frankly, the older I get, the more I realize that there is a lot of stupidity out there.

Edited November 7, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Grunt]

As an investigator, take this with a grain of salt.   The LDS I know spend a lot of time talking about their testimonies.  As I look into the church, I’m not so much impressed by the words of their testimony as I am by the testimony of their life and actions.  You live to be more Christ-like, correct?   

I submit that the Gospel certainly does not need defense.  A defense by nature is off-putting.  The Gospel needs expression.  It needs to be embodied.  I fail at this daily.  My carnal nature is strong.  I’m often rude and argumentative.  Defensive.  I struggle to be better, though.  

It’s the delivery, content, and attitude of your words that presents the best “defense”.  I see some of you attacked here and your beliefs diminished, yet you respond with kindness, understanding, and clarity.  I’m in awe of some of the people on this forum.  You just seem to be genuinely incredible people.  

In my opinion, that is the best defense you could have.  

[Jane_Doe]

"Defend the Gospel" = stand as a witness of Him in all times and all places?  Yes.  We should do that, foremost with how we are and our actions.

"Defend the Gospel" = insulting people or shouting or otherwise interfering with their ability to believe what they are convicted to?  No.  That's not Christ way.

Is the devil going to keep throwing his fiery darts?  Yes, such is how it's always been.  Does Christ's church still keep marching forward? Yes.  

You can't keep the devil from throwing darts or people in the great and spacious building from mocking-- God gave them all their agency to do that.  All each of us can do is choose which master we each are going to serve.   Choose Him and your life will naturally testify.  

Edited November 7, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

I think the answer depends on what you mean by defending. I suppose on a macro sense it doesn't, it's true and everyone who fights against it will one day find out their wrong and will take a knee before the Savior. But I would argue on a micro level, in our day to day interactions, it can and should be defended. There is no need to allow falsehoods to be spread in our presense, and I always looked at defending the Gospel as standing up for what's right. I would even argue that it's a form of testifying of the Gospel to defend it's truthfullness before others. I do believe we need to be careful how we do it though. I remember being a young and foolish missionary getting into a shouting match with someone on their doorstep because they said I was going to hell. After 15 minutes or so of screaming at each other, and him slamming the door in my face, (over one of my scintillating ripostes of logic I'm sure☺), and I felt miserable. I realized I had invited the spirit of contention in by taking his offensive comment and throwing it back at him and had done both of us little good in the process. After that, if I felt myself reacting in anger rather than boldness I would take a step back and leave. I believe it's the spirit in which we are defending the Gospel that matters most in whether we should do it or not in any given situation.

One of the problems with online communications is that you can be in a conversation where from your perspective it is a calm, rational, logic, and rather stoic statement of facts, but from the other person's perspective it is a shouting match.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

One of the problems with online communications is that you can be in a conversation where from your perspective it is a calm, rational, logic, and rather stoic statement of facts, but from the other person's perspective it is a shouting match.

It helps not to be a bully! . (bad joke!  It has been too soon.  Sorry I couldn't resist)

Edited November 7, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[zil]

Just now, DoctorLemon said:

It helps not to be a bully! . (bad joke!  It has been to soon.  Sorry I couldn't resist)

Bully!

[Rob Osborn]

We must stand in fearless defense of the gospel and yet humble in our approach. It is up to us to defend the gospel. If we dont stand up and defend then we have not done our part. Defending the gospel means defending the doctrines we teach, even going so far as to help others know the right definition of "family", "marriage", "morality", etc. 

[Vort]

The gospel doesn't need defending. True or false, the gospel stands (or falls) on its own merits. Nothing we say can change that. People need defending. Specifically, the young and tender in faith, those new to the gospel, and malleable children who can be greatly influenced by evil need to be defended.

Even those who seem well-established, who have received revelations and testimonies and who appear solid, can weaken with discouragement. Self-doubt can erode their foundation. Hard though it may be to believe, those who have had divine manifestations, even the visitation of angels, can weaken and stand in need of love and encouragement. Even the strongest among us have weak moments.

It is in these moments where we get to show that the gospel titles "Sister" and "Brother" that we use in the kingdom are more than earwash. These are the times that I see it appropriate to engage in what we mistakenly call a defense of the gospel.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, zil said:

My initial thought before finishing reading your post, @The Folk Prophet, was the same as your brother's.  This quote came to mind:  “The truth is like a lion. You don't have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.”

Source your quotes!

1 hour ago, zil said:

I think @Midwest LDS hit on an important point.  Are you defending the gospel, or are you attacking the attacker?

In my experience, in the online world wide wonder of the interweb, the consideration of whether one is attacking the attacker or not is as much in the eye of the 'attacked' as it is reality. But...I'm not entirely sure that whether one is attacking the attacker or not is really the question. The means of defending the gospel, of course, is worth discussion. But defense, in war, is attack -- it is simply counter attack. When the commies come to take the guns away and you're holed up with your family and friends and they start shooting and you shoot back, it is defensive. But you're still shooting at them.

Though my point is not really to discuss that (not that I'm averse to tangents). I think what you mean is a question of whether an idea or a person is being attacked. In my experience there is little difference from the receiver's end, but a great deal of difference from the sender's. Still, I accept that our methods matter a great deal, even if I might disagree on which methods count as faulty. But what I'm more interested in is you first sentence wherein your response was as my brother's.

I'm not convinced that the idea behind defending the gospel has anything to do with the gospel's needs. I have always felt that the need to defend the gospel is much more related to our own characters and both the influence we have on others and the accountability we create in the world by expressing plain truths.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

"Defend the Gospel" = stand as a witness of Him in all times and all places?  Yes.  We should do that, foremost with how we are and our actions.

"Defend the Gospel" = insulting people or shouting or otherwise interfering with their ability to believe what they are convicted to?  No.  That's not Christ way.

Is the devil going to keep throwing his fiery darts?  Yes, such is how it's always been.  Does Christ's church still keep marching forward? Yes.  

You can't keep the devil from throwing darts or people in the great and spacious building from mocking-- God gave them all their agency to do that.  All each of us can do is choose which master we each are going to serve.   Choose Him and your life will naturally testify.  

For what it's worth, I don't really think either of your equations match what is my understanding of the call/need to "defend the gospel", and both are possibilities within its scope.

"Defend the Gospel" = correcting (putting the how aside) statement of falsehood that, if accepted, cause damage.

Person A says: Joseph Smith was a con man.

Person B says: That is false.

Necessary? Or not? Let it ride? Let the falsehood and lies go? Or speak up?

Btw, I find this part of your statement ("otherwise interfering with their ability to believe what they are convicted to"), as an idea of not Christ's way, flawed. It's pretty ambiguous. What counts as "interfering"?

[Midwest LDS]

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

One of the problems with online communications is that you can be in a conversation where from your perspective it is a calm, rational, logic, and rather stoic statement of facts, but from the other person's perspective it is a shouting match.

Agreed, I've found it's very easy to be misinterpreted online (I've got some stories thanks to my naturally loveable and agreeable nature lol?). Generally I try to assume a person isn't trying to be insulting, something I really hope people do for me, but if it starts to get heated I try to step back and leave it alone. That's easier said than done, I still struggle to actually live up to that ideal, but it is the best course of action in my opinion.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

The gospel doesn't need defending. True or false, the gospel stands (or falls) on its own merits. Nothing we say can change that. People need defending. Specifically, the young and tender in faith, those new to the gospel, and malleable children who can be greatly influenced by evil need to be defended.

Even those who seem well-established, who have received revelations and testimonies and who appear solid, can weaken with discouragement. Self-doubt can erode their foundation. Hard though it may be to believe, those who have had divine manifestations, even the visitation of angels, can weaken and stand in need of love and encouragement. Even the strongest among us have weak moments.

It is in these moments where we get to show that the gospel titles "Sister" and "Brother" that we use in the kingdom are more than earwash. These are the times that I see it appropriate to engage in what we mistakenly call a defense of the gospel.

I will grant that there is some problem with the phrase. In the grandest sense of things, of course, you are correct. The "gospel" itself does not need defending. But I did not gather that was the meaning behind what my brother said. What was clear to me (and, granted, it's been a few years), was that he meant I did not need to do as you suggest -- stand up for truth for the sake of people. That my efforts to clarify truths when I saw untruths being expressed was unnecessary.  The idea being, I believe, that as has been suggested, merely being a righteous example of Christianity was sufficient and the contrary exchange of ideas was unneeded.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I will grant that there is some problem with the phrase. In the grandest sense of things, of course, you are correct. The "gospel" itself does not need defending. But I did not gather that was the meaning behind what my brother said. What was clear to me (and, granted, it's been a few years), was that he meant I did not need to do as you suggest -- stand up for truth for the sake of people. That my efforts to clarify truths when I saw untruths being expressed was unnecessary.  The idea being, I believe, that as has been suggested, merely being a righteous example of Christianity was sufficient and the contrary exchange of ideas was unneeded.

I suspect your brother is right in many cases where people like you or me would charge in, guns blazing. But as a general statement, i can't agree with the above. In some cases, we should do more than simply be an example. In some cases, we should act, even if that action is simply to bear testimony of truth.

[zil]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Source your quotes!

It's so common I figured everyone knew it and would do what I did - google to get the exact wording...  According to the top google results, it's by St. Augustine of Hippo.  I'm assuming it's a translation, cuz, well, ya know...

Meanwhile, for some really great (and some amusing) lion photos, click here.

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think what you mean is a question of whether an idea or a person is being attacked.

Exactly.  The war analogy only goes so far.  In this case, the "attacker" states an untruth of some sort.  You can either say:

"You're an idiot. Your comment is stupid.  You don't know what you're talking about.  You're lying."  etc.

...or you can say...

"Actually, we believe X.  Please let me clarify what we believe.  I testify that...  In my experience..."

The first is attacking the attacker.  The second is defending, or asserting truth.  The second doesn't even require acknowledging the attacker's existence or comment (technically).  The second doesn't require us to even mention that the erroneous idea was "your idea" (where "your" is referring back to the attacker).

There will be times when the line between the two is extremely fine, but if we make every effort to use the second type of response, politely, and to avoid the first time of response, we'll do better.

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But what I'm more interested in is you first sentence wherein your response was as my brother's.

I'm not convinced that the idea behind defending the gospel has anything to do with the gospel's needs. I have always felt that the need to defend the gospel is much more related to our own characters and both the influence we have on others and the accountability we create in the world by expressing plain truths.

And this is why I said it was my initial thought.  I agree that we should not always let lies or untruths go by without response.  I like @Vort's comments and think this is what should be in our heads when seeing the "attacks".  I would point you to a recent example, but it thankfully was removed from the forums by a moderator (don't know which).  I will summarize, however.  The OP was experiencing weakness and came to the forum looking for support to not give in to temptation.  Many of us offered that support.  Another forum participant (not a church member), encouraged the OP to do something the world would see as trivial, but which would nonetheless be violating covenant.  The excuse given was basically that it would help the OP get it out of their system and was harmless.  I immediately countered by pointing out that the OP should ignore such encouragement and hold to their covenants.  This was followed by attempts to mock my comments.  Blah blah.  From my perspective, I was helping to build a wall around my sibling to protect them from temptation, and also, I was making a record for any future reader pointing out how bad the suggestion really was and that any faithful member should reject it.  I have no idea how anyone else saw it, but I would do it again in a heartbeat, with the same tone.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, zil said:

 and would do what I did - google to get the exact wording... 

Too lazy.

[Midwest LDS]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For what it's worth, I don't really think either of your equations match what is my understanding of the call/need to "defend the gospel", and both are possibilities within its scope.

"Defend the Gospel" = correcting (putting the how aside) statement of falsehood that, if accepted, cause damage.

Person A says: Joseph Smith was a con man.

Person B says: That is false.

Necessary? Or not? Let it ride? Let the falsehood and lies go? Or speak up?

Btw, I find this part of your statement ("otherwise interfering with their ability to believe what they are convicted to"), as an idea of not Christ's way, flawed. It's pretty ambiguous. What counts as "interfering"?

This example is one where I would say something, but it's all about how you say it. I had a non-member friend use that quote by Joseph Fielding Smith about man never landing on the moon. I took it as an opportunity to explain to him how a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such and that we are all, even prophets, allowed to have personal opinions. He understood what I was trying say, even though he disagreed, because I tried to correct him out of love rather than attacking his post in anger. I think defending the gospel is all about how you say it.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

 I immediately countered by pointing out that the OP should ignore such encouragement and hold to their covenants. 

That's because you're clearly a bully too.

[omegaseamaster75]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

As an investigator, take this with a grain of salt.   The LDS I know spend a lot of time talking about their testimonies.  As I look into the church, I’m not so much impressed by the words of their testimony as I am by the testimony of their life and actions.  You live to be more Christ-like, correct?   

Many members do spend a lot of time talking about their testimonies, I think it is a slippery slope if you are looking to the examples of their lives as living testimonies, if you are watching to see if they behave in a Christ like manner you will only set yourself up for disappointment.

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I submit that the Gospel certainly does not need defense.  A defense by nature is off-putting.  The Gospel needs expression.  It needs to be embodied.  I fail at this daily.  My carnal nature is strong.  I’m often rude and argumentative.  Defensive.  I struggle to be better, though.  

Bolded part done by me, because we can all make that statement, if you are observing you will undoubtedly see members at their weakest, when they are not being Christlike in their attitudes or actions because we fail miserably on a daily basis. When we bare testimony we are making an effort to express how we feel about the gospel and its truths. Living up to those standards is a difficult proposition.

Mosiah 3:9 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

[zil]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's because you're clearly a bully too.

I prefer to think of myself as a jerk.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, zil said:

I prefer to think of myself as a jerk.

I tend to think of myself as a rogue scoundrel a la Han Solo. Er...don't let the lightsaber in my avatar confuse.