Oaks - Red letter talk

[zil2]

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What about righteous anger?

@NeuroTypical did a better job than I can answering this.  I'll add only that anger's cousin is hatred.  I learned in my early 20s what hatred felt like (it feels like Satan wrapping your heart in outer darkness), and swore I would never feel that ever again.  Successful so far.

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Per my understanding (as best I can recall at the moment), Pres. Nelson seemed to be suggesting that the more evil the person or thing, the more important it was to deal without contention. I'll have to review his talk again. But that seemed to be part of it. The more wicked the world, the more important it is for us to approach it without contention. I do not understand the why of this, but it seemed to be part of his point.

To me, this makes perfect sense.  The more evil the person you are dealing with, the less likely any sort of contending will do good.  Bring in the Spirit, approach it a different way, or separate.  Perhaps, too, it's because they've already brought Satan with them and it'll be so much easier for you to fall into the trap if you let contention get it's foot in the door.  But here's another possible why:

Quote

Matthew 5

43 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Why should we do all that?  Not in hopes of eliminating evil from the world or defeating our enemies or winning the debate, but because it's what God does, and we are to be(come) like Him.

Also, the more I study scriptures these days, the more convinced I am that our job is to shine the light so that those who will recognize it and come can see it.  When the time comes for fighting, Christ will do it, not us.

42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do think it's useful to consider the difference between "contending" and being "contentious". It's the how that seems to matter. We need to contend against wickedness and for goodness but without doing so contentiously. There is a distinct definitional difference.

To me, why is the way to how - or the way to make how natural or easier.  If one truly has charity and enjoys the companionship of the Holy Ghost and is converted to the two great commandments, then it must be easier to avoid contention altogether.

[askandanswer]

Verse 2 of O Thou Rock of Our Salvation

We a war ’gainst sin are waging;
We’re contending for the right.
Ev’ry day the battle’s raging;
Help us, Lord, to win the fight.

4th verse

When for all that we’ve contended,
When the fight of faith we’ve won,
When the strife and battle’s ended,
And our labor here is done,

[NeuroTypical]

Another dad story.  My father fought in WWII, and was part of the allied occupation force after the war ended.  He saw combat close up, witnessed and participated in amounts of death and dying.  He told me on many occasions he had absolutely zero hard feelings for anyone in the German military.  He considered his counterpart in the infantry as exactly that - his counterpart on the other side.  As he put it, "just some poor schmoe, as wet and cold as I was, who didn't want to be there as much as I didn't."

Years after the war, he buddied up with a German immigrant, who had been in the hitler youth during the war.  Guy remembered the Americans crossing the bridge, and my dad remembered that bridge as well.  They were lifelong friends.  And spent decades play fighting the war over and over again.   

"I was there to welcome our liberators [LM's Dad]!  I was standing there with a flower to hand you!  Surely you remember..."
"Oh [explative].  If you had had a rock, you would have thrown it!"

He also told me about the time he saw the captured Nazi SS doctor.  "He had the cruelest eyes I've ever seen on a man."

 

He didn't tell me everything, and boy howdy was he a long way from perfect, but some of these stories seem to paint a picture on how to contend without being contentious.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's an excellent and valid question, and one I don't have an easy answer for.  I suppose if I ever actually feel it, I might have more insight.  But over my decades, every single time I've felt what I believe to be righteous anger, it doesn't stand up to 30 seconds of scrutiny.

The catch always seems to be: It can't be righteous if you're breaking two big important commandments in order to be angry.  The 2nd great commandment of Love thy Neighbor, and D&C 64:10's admonition to Forgive all Men, always seem to be getting in the way when I'm thinking I'm righteously angry.

I've learned what it means to have love and forgiveness, and react emotionally to the bad guys and evil deeds I've encountered.  That one time I confronted a rapist.  That one time I confronted the guy who had just sent my family to the hospital by crashing into their car.  The times I've interacted with people openly mocking temple practices, or other things I hold sacred.  The handful of times I have been specifically targeted by people who have been intentionally and willfully cruel or hurtful, who actually were trying to hurt me.  Those times I had to deal with people who refused to protect their daughter from child sexual abuse, and told her she needed to forgive and forget and stop talking about it.

Again, I know all about being angry when I'm lacking love and forgiveness.  Sometimes that's my default, actually.  But I've never felt angry at the times I've managed to carry those two things with me.  Honestly, I'd be tickled pink if I never have to encounter something that makes me righteously angry - where I'm looking at someone with love and forgiveness, and I'm still mad as hell.  I can't even conceive what it would look like - how can you have hell in you and be righteous?  It's right there in the name!

Hmm. I feel that I have a fairly consistent level of what I'd consider righteous anger. I am angry at the mutilation and murder of children the world over, the perversions encroaching into every facet of our daily lives, the political upheave, the efforts to destroy all that is good in life, and the fact that I don't know how to raise my children safely in all this. Etc., etc...

I am angry...but the feelings I have are not the same sort of dark bitterness like Satan has wrapped his arms around you feelings like @zil2 described.

[The Folk Prophet]

54 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I'll add only that anger's cousin is hatred.  I learned in my early 20s what hatred felt like (it feels like Satan wrapping your heart in outer darkness), and swore I would never feel that ever again.  Successful so far.

Can one hate Satan without it being of Satan?

Serious question: not just being flippant.

[NeuroTypical]

29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I feel that I have a fairly consistent level of what I'd consider righteous anger. I am angry at the mutilation and murder of children the world over, the perversions encroaching into every facet of our daily lives, the political upheave, the efforts to destroy all that is good in life, and the fact that I don't know how to raise my children safely in all this. Etc., etc...

Makes sense.  But you can't punch an ideology or a cultural trend in the face.  You can only interact with individuals pushing the notions.  I'm angry about child murder too, but what do I do when I interact with a child murderer?

Perhaps that's the solution to my dilemma - righteous anger can exist when directed at ideas or behavior, but not individuals?   

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Makes sense.  But you can't punch an ideology or a cultural trend in the face.  You can only interact with individuals pushing the notions.  I'm angry about child murder too, but what do I do when I interact with a child murderer?

Perhaps that's the solution to my dilemma - righteous anger can exist when directed at ideas or behavior, but not individuals?   

That's an interesting notion. But the practical effect seems the same. If you put the kingmen to death, you put the kingmen to death. Whether your anger is specifically at them or their ideas doesn't much matter. They're dead either way.

I actually have no problem with how to feel righteous anger. It's the acting upon it that I'm not entirely clear on.

Well, that's not really fair. I know not to kill anyone at this point. Unless...... I mean if someone comes into my home to murder and rape us all they're getting a baseball bat to the face followed by a round of my bedside 9mm. Hmm. I should get myself a shotgun. 

But short of that, I'm very clear that it's not appropriate to go out and start killing abortionists willy nilly

[zil2]

44 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can one hate Satan without it being of Satan?

Serious question: not just being flippant.

I have no idea, but I can honestly say that I don't feel hatred for anyone, not even Satan.  There are things I dislike.  I often say that I hate yardwork, but it's not the same emotion - not even sure that's an emotion.  More importantly, I think it's very different to hate a person vs [anything not a person].

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you put the kingmen to death, you put the kingmen to death. Whether your anger is specifically at them or their ideas doesn't much matter. They're dead either way.

Did they feel anger or hatred for the kingmen?  Did they act out of anger or necessity?  Perhaps they felt a deep sorrow over these people who embraced evil and rejected good.  (I don't know, or know how to know, I'm just asking the questions.)

48 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I feel that I have a fairly consistent level of what I'd consider righteous anger. I am angry at the mutilation and murder of children the world over, the perversions encroaching into every facet of our daily lives, the political upheave, the efforts to destroy all that is good in life, and the fact that I don't know how to raise my children safely in all this. Etc., etc...

I guess the question I would have is, what good does your anger do?  Does it bless your life or the lives of others?  If so, then perhaps it is indeed righteous anger?  If not, what's the point?  I feel things like sorrow and disappointment more than I feel anger about the things like you describe.  I don't know that my sorrow does any good either, but then, I wouldn't say I feel it all the time, only when confronted with these things and taking the time to ponder the people involved and the consequences.

Perhaps the right answer is found in moderation: are your emotions consuming you? Preventing you from providing for your family? Interfering with your Church attendance or callings? Keeping you from feeling other, happier emotions? Creating unhealthy relationships? Ruining otherwise healthy relationships? Draining your bank account? Do you skip over the scriptures about mercy (thinking, "yeah yeah, whatever") and delve into the ones involving cleansing the temple or killing kingsmen (thinking, "YEAH! TAKE THAT!")? Etc. Etc.

And maybe the details aren't the same for everyone.  Maybe the emotions that would destroy me (because I couldn't keep them reined in?) would drive you to righteous actions (because that's how you would express them).  ?  I don't know.  I'm just thinking that exploring the questions, doubting our certainties about our own "rightness" can be a good thing.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you put the kingmen to death, you put the kingmen to death. Whether your anger is specifically at them or their ideas doesn't much matter. They're dead either way.

Something I learned about myself when figuring out self defense and conceal carry permits and  listening to my dad's war stories and whatnot - if I ever defend myself with deadly force, it won't be out of anger. Righteous or otherwise.    And something I learned while involved with courts and judges and parole hearings for bad people - if it ever fell on me to carry out a sentence of execution - I wouldn't have an angry bone in my body.  

I'd suggest the possibility that those who put the kingmen to death had no anger in them either.  At least some of 'em.  It's possible.

Edited April 5, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Something I learned about myself when figuring out self defense and conceal carry permits and whatnot - if I ever defend myself with deadly force, it won't be out of anger. Righteous or otherwise.    And something I learned while involved with courts and judges and parole hearings for bad people - if it ever fell on me to carry out a sentence of execution - I wouldn't have an angry bone in my body.  

I'd suggest the possibility that those who put the kingmen to death had no anger in them either.  At least some of 'em.  It's possible.

I was specifically thinking of things like Captain Moroni's letter to Ammoron where he states:

"Behold, I am in my anger, and also my people; ye have sought to murder us, and we have only sought to defend ourselves. But behold, if ye seek to destroy us more we will seek to destroy you; yea, and we will seek our land, the land of our first inheritance.

...etc."

Was Captain Moroni angry with Ammoron, and Amalikiah before that? I think so. And I think such anger can certainly be (and was in his case) righteous. It can also be unrighteous.

I totally agree on the self-defense moment though. If I ever have to kill someone I expect it will be without anger. But.... imagine two scenarios: 1. You hear a noise in the night, grab your gun, and come upon a man entering your daughter's room. He lunges towards you with a knife. You shoot. Family is kept safe. 2. You hear a noise in the night, grab your gun, and come upon a man who has just murdered your daughter....

I mean I'll leave it off there because I don't want to get too morbid...but you get the point. I hope to never kill someone in the anger that I might feel coming upon the 2nd scenario. But I also feel quite positive that if such a scenario occurred....

[zil2]

5 hours ago, zil2 said:

Did they feel anger or hatred for the kingmen?  Did they act out of anger or necessity?  Perhaps they felt a deep sorrow over these people who embraced evil and rejected good.  (I don't know, or know how to know, I'm just asking the questions.)

  

Perhaps "Ask Captain Moroni whether they were angry at the kingmen." would be a good addition to someone's PBL...  For an added bonus, use a fountain pen.   (Above is Sailor Seiboku in a Kaweco Sport, fine nib on Staples ARC paper.)

#postbucketlist #post-bucketlist #pbl

(Apparently I'm not the first person to think of this, but I didn't know that until after I thought of it...  It's not terribly popular right now, and existing uses of the hashtag appear mostly to be about posting your bucket list online or what to do after you've done everything on your bucket list.)

(Also, it's possible I should have thought of this 4 days ago, but oh well, better late than never...)

Now that I've made the challenge, I'll have to go think of what to put on my Post-Bucket List...

Edited April 6, 2023 by zil2

[mordorbund]

23 minutes ago, zil2 said:

(Also, it's possible I should have thought of this 4 days ago, but oh well, better late than never...)

Did Zil die 3 days ago?! <surprised pikachu> 

[askandanswer]

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So I think where I struggle a bit more is where President Nelson says in the same talk that he doesn't mean peace at any cost, but then also says contention is never right.

But what else would one call Captain Moroni's actions if not contentious?

It seems like there are semantics at play here that have not been clarified. And it leaves me floundering a bit. Are we meant to be as Captain Moroni, or not? When the king men contend for the governance, should they be put to death, or not?

I mean this is the problem. A lot of us have been raised believing the Book of Mormon was written for our day, and that means that the examples therein are to help us navigate these times...that we should behave as Captain Moroni and Alma and the like. I mean a good portion of the Book of Mormon is dedicated to these conflicts. And we're specifically warned against secret combinations, and calling them out, and not letting them take root, etc.

But then, it seems to me, that President Nelson is telling us...nope....never... that's not the way. Don't do it.

And it seems problematic to me to narrowly define contention as only doing so with anger (sorry @zil2. Not meaning to be contentious....). I have very, very rarely typed a thing on this forum, for example, in anger. But I have very obviously been very engaged in contention. The idea that if two people go back and forth at each other saying, "You're wrong." "No, you're wrong." "No. You're wrong" and so forth, but do so without anger that it isn't contention doesn't work for me. Sure...anger makes it worse. But whether I'm mad or not, telling others that they're wrong all the time is clearly against the counsel President Nelson gave.

So I have to swallow a lifetime of perception and understanding based on my scriptures study.

I accept that. I don't deny President Nelson is right. I am determined. I will follow. But I guess I'll complain about my confusion a bit too.  

But really...I don't actually believe never being like Captain Moroni is the correct answer. Somehow the two ideas need to be reconciled in my mind. I haven't yet been able to reconcile them.

but I'm not so far off as I was a few years back.

See also Alma 11, Mosiah 13 – 17 and Helaman 13 for accounts of events that might be interpreted as righteous contention. However, these events all involved prophets long since dead, and may therefore not be as relevant as the words of the prophet today.

[mikbone]

Full text now available

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/51oaks?lang=eng

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by mikbone

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

See also Alma 11, Mosiah 13 – 17 and Helaman 13 for accounts of events that might be interpreted as righteous contention. However, these events all involved prophets long since dead, and may therefore not be as relevant as the words of the prophet today.

The day I believe the Book of Mormon is not relevant for today is the day I've apostatized from the gospel.

[Vort]

21 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can one hate Satan without it being of Satan?

Serious question: not just being flippant.

My considered opinion, after long years of examining this: I think we must hate Satan, or else become like him.

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The day I believe the Book of Mormon is not relevant for today is the day I've apostatized from the gospel.

I know the Book of Mormon is, and will continue to be, relevant for today, but I think there is room to question whether it is as relevant as our Prophet today. 

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I know the Book of Mormon is, and will continue to be, relevant for today, but I think there is room to question whether it is as relevant as our Prophet today. 

What are you getting at?

The Book of Mormon was explicitly written for our day. Having a living prophet is also clearly for our day. Why would we pit them one against another?

I think a better approach would be to use the one to understand the other, and vice versa.

Edit: sorry if I'm sounding grumpy or confrontational. I'm sore from beginning a new work out plan and I think I'm a bit out of sorts. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[estradling75]

In 3rd Nephi the Lord tells us that the "Spirit of Contention" is of the devil.  That seems pretty clear, but it does open the possibility of being able to "Contend" without the "Spirit of Contention"

That was how I always reconciled Christ's words with other scriptures with more positive takes on contention.  Plus it seems to perfectly align with D&C on exercising priesthood authority (aka the dangers of unrighteous dominion)

Now our Prophet is saying do not Contend.  That strikes me as a council for our day.  Like Boarding the Ark was in the day of Noah, or the Law of Moses, or even the Word of Wisdom.  Council and direction for those living today in this environment.

This leads me to wonder if our environment has become so toxic (or shortly will) that we can no longer Contend without having the Spirit of Contention...  I mean that was already a very hard thing to do before...  Is he warning and forewarning that it is no longer going to be possible?

[askandanswer]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What are you getting at?

 

The Book of Mormon seems to contain several examples of where contention has been used in the pursuit of good and righteous purposes, eg, the scriptures I referred to - Alma 11, Mosiah 13 - 17 and Helaman, and possibly many others that I haven't referred to. If good and righteous contention is a correct way to characterise those events, this could lead to the conclusion that there are occasions and purposes when it is right and good to contend, ie, a green light to engage in contention. However, a more recent, and I suggest, more relevant source, has now counselled against contention. So if a person is weighing up if or how to contend, they could consult all relevant sources and perhaps place greater weight on the most recent and relevant sources.

[zil2]

21 hours ago, zil2 said:

I'll have to go think of what to put on my Post-Bucket List...

In the beginning:

 

What, you didn't expect me to be serious after death, did you?

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, zil2 said:

In the beginning:

 

What, you didn't expect me to be serious after death, did you?

Do #5 and I'll tell my descendants to honor you in perpetuity.

[askandanswer]

12 minutes ago, zil2 said:

In the beginning:

 

What, you didn't expect me to be serious after death, did you?

Some might think this is a zlightly zilly lizst

[zil2]

1 minute ago, askandanswer said:

Some might think this is a zlightly zilly lizst

Only because they haven't spent enough time watching I_am_puma videos.  (I really, really want my very own mountain lion now.)

[askandanswer]

17 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Only because they haven't spent enough time watching I_am_puma videos.  (I really, really want my very own mountain lion now.)

I was thinking more about how the list was created and what it was written with, rather than its contents.