Conference tecrus::mormonism

	When adherents to different beliefs collide in conversation,
	there is usually little change in position on either party's
	side. X just holds on to X's beliefs, and Y just holds onto
	Y's. I present this question to you then, what is gained?

	In a case where each has a testimony from the Holy Spirit
	(or equivalent, as this is percieved differently in different
	beliefs) that what they believe is true, that testimony
	will supercede anything that is discussed. The individual
	has prayed (Christian), chanted, meditated (various eastern
	and western religions), done whatever that person does to
	attune with and glean information from their Higher Power, and
	has received an answer that resonates throughout their entire
	being as Truth. Nothing that "man" says to that person is going
	to delete that person's revelation from her/his mind.

	Persons who have no defined beliefs, but are questioning and 
	searching for answers to the questions in their lives, are 
	ripe for the evangelistical plucking by the first sensible
	belief system that comes along. But in the case of the already
	converted, debates about beliefs (is the BOM true? Is the
	Bible the word of God? Is there one-and-only-one True Church?)
	serve the purpose of giving each side additional ideas and 
	concepts to think over. But no one should get angry with their
	neighbor simply because said neighbor refuses to see things
	their way.

	In one religious conference, about a year ago, a debate was
	abruptly ended when the moderator banished a certain noter
	from participating in the conference, vowing to delete any
	further notes the noter entered (no it wasn't me! 8^) ).
	If one does not wish to have controversy, then set the
	conference members only.

	Why can't we just LEARN what we can from each other, accepting
	those things that don't conflict with our Testimony, rejecting
	those that do, and then thank each other for the pleasant 
	exchange and go our ways?

	A good day to all of you, and God bless you!

	Neal Barnette
    

    This topic has a lot of facets that could be explored. I'd like to
    share my thoughts on a few of them. 
    
    According to my experience, there are two kinds of Gospel Doctrine
    Sunday School classes: those that seem to often stir up disagreement
    about points of doctrine and/or speculation, and those that do not. For
    those who may not know, all adults who are not otherwise occupied with
    other teaching assignments during the Sunday School time attend the
    Gospel Doctrine class, which rotates its course of study over four
    years between the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and
    Doctrine & Covenants/Church History. 
    
    Some years ago, I was called to be the Gospel Doctrine teacher. My
    predecessor was a good friend and a very intelligent person, who
    enjoyed delving into areas of speculation about gospel subjects. He
    spent a lot of time researching many different sources and presenting
    his findings. Almost always, the discussion ended up focusing on areas
    of disagreement about some of the information presented. I did not much
    enjoy attending, because I did not feel the Spirit of the Lord there. 
    
    When I began teaching the class, my prime objective was to have the
    Spirit of the Lord in the class, in such a way that all who attended
    would feel it. Many of those class periods were some of the most
    spiritual experiences I have ever had in my whole life. From my
    perspective, there were a number of things that were done differently
    that made the difference. 
    
    First, I tried never to assert a controversial position as the teacher.
    I positioned myself not as the expert, but as a fellow learner. Often
    questions would come up about speculative matters, but I would not try
    to present the answers. Instead, I would usually turn the question
    around and ask the class what they thought about the question. 
    
    Usually, there would be several answers, then I would say something
    like "The scriptures do not give a definite answer to this question,
    but we do know..." and then I would try to bring the discussion back
    from the quicksand to the solid ground. This way, people were free to
    mention such matters, but we were able to have such discussion without
    focusing on it, and without contention about it developing. 
    
    Second, I tried to focus more on communicating with the Spirit and less
    with the intellect. When we become *proud* about our own *intellectual*
    abilities (both key words relating to topics in last weekend's general
    conference), and we are not submissive to the spirit, we invite
    contention in. In class, I would often ask questions that would require
    class members to examine their own feelings about the gospel, and then
    I would let the question sink in and wait for feelings to come out. The
    silent pause can seem forever, but the results are wonderful. Some of
    the most beautiful experiences, testimonies, and responses come from
    people's hearts, when you give them a chance to draw them out. 
    
    Third, I would often bear testimony of the truths we were discussing.
    This meant that I had to spend extra effort preparing, so that my
    testimony would be pure, sincere, and from the Spirit. 
    
    How do these principles apply to this conference? I'm not sure. The
    talks in the recent general conference got me thinking about this
    topic, as well. 
    
    Sometimes non-Mormons raise questions, objections, or accusations in
    this conference, and we feel an urge to address them. We are free to do
    so, but counseled (in general conference) to be careful in how we do
    so. What should be our objective, if we choose to answer? I think our
    objective should generally be to promote gospel truth, and to
    demonstrate an example of the love of Christ. If we can do so by
    responding, it may be warranted. If not, then we would do better to
    hold our peace. 

    If appropriate to respond, then I think there are several
    considerations. First, we must be informed, for an uninformed response
    is worse than none. Second, we must be careful to answer in a spirit of
    true charity (the pure love of Christ), and not in a spirit of
    contention. If we answer in a spirit of contention, then we enter
    Satan's turf, and we will gain nothing. Third, we need to seek a
    testimony from the Holy Ghost of what we are saying, and then bear
    testimony of that which we know to be true. Fourth, we need to know
    when to quit. Endless discussion where different incarnations of the
    same objections are continually raised by the same people serve no
    purpose. Spiritual matters must be understood and proved by the Spirit
    and not by endless debates. 
    
    Sometimes Mormons, myself included, bring up speculative or
    controversial matters for discussion in this conference. I think the
    same suggestions apply as above. In addition, however, I think that we
    would generally be more benefited by strengthening one another in the
    things that *are* well understood in the gospel, rather than focusing
    on the things that are *not* well understood. 
    
    I've rambled too long already. I'm anxious to see what others might say
    on this subject. 
    
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

    Good topic.
    
    Generally I *know* when I'm being contentious, but that's me.  That's
    when I try to bend the other person to my way of thinking, no matter
    what;  or when I say something that provokes another person, or
    when I stoop to the level of someone arguing pointlessly, etc. 
    These are things I am really trying to fix.  It's not easy, and
    I get stubborn often, but I keep on asking for help.  I think if
    we can just stay aware and ask for forgiveness when we've overstepped
    that it's a good start.
    
    Jane

    I know when I feel a spirit of contention because my ears get hot.
    After my ears have cooled down, the blood goes back into my brain
    and I can think again.  :-)
    
    Steve

    
    Hi!
    
    It's been awhile since my last entry, just got back from a very
    spiritual week at the temple. I would like to share my thoughts
    on what contention is to me.  
    
    We are taught that the spirit cannot dwell where there is a spirit
    of contention. I find that I am constrained by the spirit when this
    happens, whether with non-members, family, or in conversations with
    members when discussing the gospel. What this spirit of contention
    seems to be, is when our values, and beliefs are held in question
    or perceived to be by others. The topic of religion by nature can
    be a very contentious subject, esp. when opposing faiths clash.
    I see , at least in this conference, by nature of the topics, that
    there is the real risk of being contentious, or appearing to be.
    There are many comments that I have prepared to enter in the conference
    that I've zapped at the last minute because I've gone back to read
    what I've typed up and felt it wasn't in accordance with the spirit.
    However we should not hesitate to make entries because of fear of
    being seen as contentious by others.  I will continue to speak out
    when prompted by the Spirit to do so, and pray that others do so also.
    
    Kevin
    
                                                                 

    Kevin,
    
    You are not alone in zapping your replies to "contentious" notes.  I,
    too, have done the same.  I gauge my level of "contentiousness" by the
    amount of anger I feel when I am writing a reply.  When I feel that
    anger, I zap it.  I have also observed that there are some people who
    are not interested in hearing or learning, but rather want to argue for
    the sake of argument.  In cases like these I either ignore them or just
    listen and give polite comments without committing myself. Getting
    myself all worked up just does not seem worth the effort when it
    usually does not change anything.
    
    Paul
        

    Ditto, though I tend to respond more than others to contentious
    implications.  I suppose what concerns me is when silence is
    interpreted as endorsement, especially of implications which are
    untrue.  I don't mind it when somebody doesn't accept the Gospel
    based on things that are true.  But, so often rejection of the Gospel
    is the result of misconceptions insidiously sewn through implication.
    We, as members, need never feel that the Church needs to be defended
    or excused.  The truth stands on its own.  But, I feel indignation
    and the need to speak up when implications creep in that misrepresent 
    the Church.  I, too, have 'zapped' responses though probably not
    as often as I should ...
    
    Steve

    Re: .5 & .6
    
    I, too, have often zapped replies. Or, after writing out a reply,
    have reread it and found that I have to go back and rewrite the
    whole thing!
    
    Rich

    re: .5-.7
    
    Get this! I have, on a few occasions, written a reply that could
    be construed as contentious (upon looking back at it) and attempted
    to send it anyway only to find the net link to be "mysteriously down" 
    or, delete the note accidently!
    
    Kevin 

Recently, my boy showed me one way to handle contention.

My 3-year old was on the playground with a 4-year old.  Because the 4-year
old didn't like how my boy was playing, he started to vehemently scold my
boy.  My boy continued with his play and didn't respond to the scolding
except to continue in play and to invite the 4-year old to play.  It was 
because my boy didn't really understand that he was being scolded that he
was not stirred to anger.  When the 4-year old saw that his scolding
didn't achieve the desired effect, he happily abandoned his attack and
joined again in play.  They were friends for the remainder of the time on
the playground.

I expect that as my boy gains in understanding, he will learn to respond in 
anger to scolding, especially when it is unjust or uncalled for.  But, if
he can learn to respond with compassion, and to prevent himself from being
stirred to anger, perhaps he can also sooth the hearts of those who are filled
with the spirit of contention.


Steve

    I know that some feel free to contend, to fight, to wrestle with
    the scriptures.  In Philippians 1:14-18, Paul comments on this.
    Is he endorsing preaching Christ with envy and strife, or it he
    just trying to make peace with a bunch of Saints having a problem
    with contention (as with the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 1:11-14)?
    
    Steve

		BEWARE THAT YOU SCATTERETH INSTEAD OF GATHERETH.
		===============================================

	MATT 12:30	" He that is not with me is against me; and he 
			  that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

	MARK 9:38-40	" And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one
			 casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not
			 us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us."
			  But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man
			 which shall do a miracle in my name, that can 
			 lightly speak evil of me.
			  For he that is not against us is on our part."
	
	LUKE 9:49-50	" And John answered and said, Master, we saw one
			 casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, 
			 because he followeth not with us."
			  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: For he 
			 that is not against us is for us."

	LUKE 11:23	" He that is not with me is against me; and he 
			  that gathereth not with me scattereth."

    
NOTE:  The word YOU in this reply is intended for ALL those who read it.
       It is NOT directed at anyone specific, so please don't treat it as
       such.

I think that we ought to finally bury the dead horse that we have been 
beating.  I am going to stop replying to this series of notes 51.*.  
The rest of the reply tells why:  (It is a little long, but PLEASE read it).

We have digressed from the original topic somewhat and all that is going on
now (in my perception of things) is little more than a verbal ping-pong 
similar to a high-school debate.  I find such an atmosphere inhospitable to
the promptings of the Holy Ghost.  As such, it is my intention NOT to continue
in this debate.  While some interesting ideas were brought to light, I don't
like debating over something.  You can't treat the Gospel as you would another
topic and debate it.  There is one way, one truth, and one light - Jesus Christ.
We ought to consider all things that deal with Jesus Christ and His Church
on the earth, as spiritual and treat them as such.  Archaelogy, the study of 
languages, etc won't help bring you closer to God.  The Church of Jesus Christ
is meant for all.  Your worldly knowledge or possessions (or lack of it) means
nothing to Christ.  Being rich or knowledgeable (differs from wise) will NOT
bring you any closer to Christ.  What really matters is what is in your heart.
Christ knows your heart and whether your questions are sincere or not.  He
knows whether you are really trying to live the Gospel or not.  He knows if 
you really want to return to Him or not.

To "argue" over the Gospel seems counter to what Christ taught or lived.  His
true Church would reflect His lifestyle and would preach (and live) His Gospel.

The experience about my last reply, brought something home to me.  We as 
members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have a principle 
that we hold very dear to us - tolerance of other's beliefs.  In responding
to Ed's letter, I got a little careless with my wording and stated a 
hypothetical situation which offended someone else's church.  (No, nobody 
mentioned anything about it to me).  I am sorry for my original comments, 
and I have tried to make ammends by editing the reply, but it did bring
a point home to me.  

If we are truly living the Gospel and follow the teachings of Christ, we will 
not put down others for what they believe.  Christ preached a message of peace, 
love and tolerance.  He taught through example and love.  He never argued or
accused.  As Christians, we should follow His example.

I am no expert on the Church, on archaelogy, or languages, etc.  What I do 
have is a firm testimony that Jesus is the Christ, the only Begotten of our 
Heavenly Father.  Our Church is led by a Prophet of God, who receives direct
revelation from our Father in Heaven.  Jesus Christ stands at the head of
our Church.  I have a witness that Jesus lives and I want to be closer to
Him.  Being human, I have my faults.  But, I can repent of my faults - 
thanks to Jesus Christ.  He atoned for my (and your) sins.  That is a 
wonderful thought that someone else loves me enough that they would pay
the penalty for my sins (if I repent), take on my burdens, and die for me.
It is a feeling and a knowledge that fills my heart with love.

We are not here to convince anyone.  Some churches may do that.  We are the
only Church (that I know of) where we tell you flat out "Don't take my word
for it that the Church is true, ask our Heavenly Father about it in sincere
prayer through His Son, Jesus Christ.  He will answer your prayers."  I have
a firm testimony of this principle.


If you (those who read this conference) are really sincere in your questions
about the Church, please call the missionaries.  But only if you are sincere
in your desire to know about our Church.  You have probably been reading this
conference for a while now and are interested in our Church.  If you really
want to know more (ask anything you like), please call the missionaries.

About the missionaries:  Their style is a humble style.  They aren't pushy.
They are there to teach - not to persuade.  They will not hassle you nor get
into any heated debates.  If you invite them in to hassle or try to get them
into an argument, please go get your kicks somewhere else.  The missionaries
come as messengers, bringing with them the Gospel and principles necessary to
your eternal salvation.  All you have to do is to listen to what they have to
say.  They usually stay around an hour or so.  They will stay longer if you
invite them to.  They will return when you ask them to.  You won't have a
problem about them coming around if you don't want them to (like some other
churches). You won't be asked to buy anything or make a donation or anything. 
If you don't want them to come back, they won't.  I know this is a concern you
may have as I have had this problem myself (missionaries from another church). 

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is so important to them that they voluntarily give 
up 2 years of their lives so that they can share this important message with
someone else.  Their mission is paid for out of their own pocket.  

The message they bring is one of peace and joy.  It is the Gospel of our Lord
and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  I hope you will give them a call.  I can answer
some questions in this Notes Conference, but the people you really ought to 
talk to the missionaries.  They can explain things better than I can.


In Christ's Love,

Frank

    To Frank W. in the last note:
    
    I agree with you, Frank.  I have stopped noting for many of the same
    reasons.  We seem to just go around and around.  I have a good friend
    of mine who once said, "Arguments centered around facts can be won;
    arguments of opinions cannot."  So, recognizing the difference, I have
    chosen to honor the right to people to hold to their opinions.
    
    Moderators - is it time to close this topic out?  

    
    Don't get me wrong.  I am not closed minded (at least I try not to be).
    I am also not going away in a huff.  It is just that I am getting tired
    of debating.  From re-reading 1.0, I see the objectives of the conference 
    as being uplifting, enlightening, and a source of inspiration for members 
    and non-members alike.  I never liked debating and probably never will.  
    However, I do enjoy a good intellectual and spiritual discussion.  Ed 
    (among others) has raised some interesting points.  
    
    However (you knew this was coming), you can't examine religion on a 
    scientific/archaelogical/whatever basis - it has to be examined on a
    spiritual basis.  This is best done on your knees in humble and sincere 
    prayer to our Heavenly Father.
    
    Before you do this, think about what you are asking and if you can
    really accept the fact that the Church is true with all that it
    implies (changing religions, losing "friends/family", being ostrasized
    from family/society).  Sometimes it isn't that bad.  But you have to
    get your priorities straight.  What is more important - Christ or
    <insert something you may have to give up here>.  Decide how important
    Christ is to you and make the decision.  It takes real effort to put 
    aside your schooling & biases, etc and kneel in prayer to sincerely
    ask our Heavenly Father if our Church is right.  You have to REALLY
    want to know the truth.  Anything less is a waste of your (and the
    Lord's) time.  Anything worth having is worth working hard for.  
    The right way is never the easy way, but it's worth it.
    
    As far as Christ "accusing", I have problems thinking of Him in that
    way.  I like the term chastise better.  Accusing to me has a negative
    connotation.  Chastisement, when done in a loving manner, can be
    positive.  
    
    Charles, please go ahead and post the lesson from the Priesthood
    Manual.
    
    Mr. Moderator, if you feel it appropriate, feel free to move the
    comments regarding debating,etc to another note.  
    
    Best Regards,
    
    Frank

	RE: <<< Note 51.159 by MUDIS3::WILLOUGHBY "FRANKly speaking " >>>

    
>    As far as Christ "accusing", I have problems thinking of Him in that
>    way.  I like the term chastise better.  Accusing to me has a negative
>    connotation.  Chastisement, when done in a loving manner, can be
>    positive.  

	We have gone from "accusing" to "judging" to "chastising."
	Chastisement is either to criticize or purify (usually through 
	punishment).  It seems to me that in order to accuse or criticize 
	there must be some sort of judgement beforehand.  My whole point
	is that I think that Christ did indeed (using the first word) accuse.
	I do not think you can say he "never accused."

	To go a step further, if we are to use Christ as an example, then 
	just because he accused does not mean we can go out and do the
	same thing (accuse someone) WITHOUT examining the direction he has
	given us to do so.  

	Maybe something for another topic, huh?, i.e. D&C 121:43.


>    Charles, please go ahead and post the lesson from the Priesthood
>    Manual.
    
	I will do so. (will have to get the manual from home first)

	Charles

>	First, I think it would be a disservice for the moderators to 
>	close this topic out.  Why should we shut any topic down?  Are
>	we that closed minded?
    
    Charles,
    
    I'm sure you know that more often than not I disagree with people in
    this conference, but when I do agree, I try to make a point of saying so,
    if only to make sure that people know that I my only reason for being
    here is to not just to argue (stay tuned for more on this).
    
    Anyway, this is one of those times when I want to show my agreement. 
    If conferences are meant to be forums for discussion, why should any
    topic be shut down because of a high level of "discussion" (I don't see
    it as arguing - except in the better sense of the word). No, I don's ee
    any point in shutting this topic down.
    
>	As far as this topic goes, I was examining next years Priesthood 
>	Manual, and there is an excellent lession on the feelings from the
>	Holy Ghost.  If you (the readers of this notes file) would like, 
>	I could post the pertinent section.
    
    Well, I for one would like that very much. I appreciate the offer.


    Ed

Re .157

>    Moderators - is it time to close this topic out?  

In case anyone is interested, the policy of this conference is that
moderators don't close down topics (discussions of Temple ceremonies are
exceptions to that statement).  Members of the conference "close" down
topics by not responding and thus letting the topic "die out".

> I think that we ought to finally bury the dead horse that we have been 
> beating.  I am going to stop replying to this series of notes 51.*.  

> While some interesting ideas were brought to light, I don't like
> debating over something.  

It seems contradictory to call our discussion "beating a dead horse," 
then follow it by saying that interesting ideas were brought to light.

Also, the word "debate" can connote different things. It can mean to 
dispute and wrangle (ie. fight), or it can mean to discuss or reflect. I 
agree that our discussions should not drift into flagrant bashing of 
others, but I don't agree that the first time someone commits a faux pas
that the discussion ought to be aborted. If "interesting" ideas were
raised, why not continue to pursue them? 

> You can't treat the Gospel as you would another topic and debate it. 
> There is one way, one truth, and one light - Jesus Christ. We ought to
> consider all things that deal with Jesus Christ and His Church on the
> earth, as spiritual and treat them as such.  Archaelogy, the study of
> languages, etc won't help bring you closer to God. 

You might as well say that the exercise of intelligence is "unspiritual"
as well. We've been using the intelligence we received from God to
discuss some of the claims and issues surrounding the reliability of the
Bible and Mormon scriptures. Why must we suddenly abort the discussion
when a negative comment surfaces? It doesn't make sense. 

(Besides, whatever happened to the advice to "study it out in your mind?") 

> To "argue" over the Gospel seems counter to what Christ taught or lived.  
> His true Church would reflect His lifestyle and would preach (and live) 
> His Gospel.

Christ often found Himself in opposition to the religious leaders of the
day, and never shied away from "arguing" when they confronted him. He
allowed His wisdom and truth to stand up to all challenges to the point
where they dared not ask Him any more questions because of the wisdom of
his answers. Every follower of Christ may not possess the full wisdom of
Christ, but I don't see anything "Christian" about avoiding honest
discussions of truth. 

> The experience about my last reply, brought something home to me.  We as 
> members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have a principle 
> that we hold very dear to us - tolerance of other's beliefs.  In responding
> to Ed's letter, I got a little careless with my wording and stated a 
> hypothetical situation which offended someone else's church.  (No, nobody 
> mentioned anything about it to me).  I am sorry for my original comments, 
> and I have tried to make ammends by editing the reply, but it did bring
> a point home to me.  

> If we are truly living the Gospel and follow the teachings of Christ, we 
> will not put down others for what they believe. Christ preached a message 
> of peace, love and tolerance. He taught through example and love. He never 
> argued or accused. As Christians, we should follow His example.

Maybe you should read further in your Bible. As I recall, Christ accused
the Pharisees of being a "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs," who
would "strain a gnat while swallowing a camel." Not exactly tolerance,
if you ask me. He also stood up to every assault upon his teaching, and
confounded his opponents at ever turn. I am not suggesting in any way
that our discussions are of a similar nature, but I just don't buy this
picture of Christ as a get-along guy who always strove to be agreeable
with everyone at all times. (You will also note, however, that when
Nicodemus, a chief of the Pharisees, sought out Christ, He was more than
gracious and patient with him.)

> If you (those who read this conference) are really sincere in your questions
> about the Church, please call the missionaries.  But only if you are sincere
> in your desire to know about our Church... If you really want to know
> more (ask anything you like), please call the missionaries. 

> I can answer some questions in this Notes Conference, but the people you
> really ought to talk to the missionaries.  They can explain things better
> than I can. 

Sounds like you're saying that the best source of information about the
LDS church is the missionaries, and that maybe I should quit all these
discussions (that you feel turn into "debates") and just invite some
missionaries over and let them answer my questions. I wonder, though -
aren't most Mormon young men (and many young women) trained as missionaries 
and serve a two year mission? If that's so, then it would follow that
most of the Moron participants in this conference were at one time
missionaries, and with their subsequent years of maturity and growth in
the LDS church, wouldn't they be an even better source of knowledge about
the LDS church than 19 year old missionaries? If that's the case, I should 
just stay here.

Ed

>It seems contradictory to call our discussion "beating a dead horse," 
>then follow it by saying that interesting ideas were brought to light.

	Not necessarily.  Good ideas were brought up, but the "discussion"
	was pragmatic to the point of nausea.  It is all a matter of the
	perspective basis for the discussion.


>Also, the word "debate" can connote different things. It can mean to 
>dispute and wrangle (ie. fight), or it can mean to discuss or reflect. I 
>agree that our discussions should not drift into flagrant bashing of 
>others, but I don't agree that the first time someone commits a faux pas
>that the discussion ought to be aborted. If "interesting" ideas were
>raised, why not continue to pursue them? 

	Once the point has been made and explained in multiple ways, 
	there is a point when one side is tired of the contention. 
	(There's that word again!)

>(Besides, whatever happened to the advice to "study it out in your mind?") 

	Study it is right, not beat it to death.

>Christ often found Himself in opposition to the religious leaders of the
>day, and never shied away from "arguing" when they confronted him. He
>allowed His wisdom and truth to stand up to all challenges to the point
>where they dared not ask Him any more questions because of the wisdom of
>his answers. Every follower of Christ may not possess the full wisdom of
>Christ, but I don't see anything "Christian" about avoiding honest
>discussions of truth. 

	Christ found himself in opposition to the religious leaders of the
	day because those leaders had perverted the teachings.  Those leaders
	backed down because they knew he was correct in his assertions.
	There was really not too much discussion and bantering done.

>Maybe you should read further in your Bible. As I recall, Christ accused
>the Pharisees of being a "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs," who
>would "strain a gnat while swallowing a camel." Not exactly tolerance,
>if you ask me. He also stood up to every assault upon his teaching, and
>confounded his opponents at ever turn. I am not suggesting in any way
>that our discussions are of a similar nature, but I just don't buy this
>picture of Christ as a get-along guy who always strove to be agreeable
>with everyone at all times. (You will also note, however, that when
>Nicodemus, a chief of the Pharisees, sought out Christ, He was more than
>gracious and patient with him.)

	Again, the leaders of the people were wrong and Christ chastened
	them correctly.  That is why they wanted to kill him so bad--he
	pointed out their shortcomings in front of the populace.  Even
	when Christ got angry (cleansing of the temple) it was because of
	the perverted and disobedient examples the people had from their 
	leadership.

    Ok, Charles, what's your point?
    

	Usually a discussional topic will have a basis of understanding
	for that topic.  When the contextual basis of that topic has been 
	either rejected or deviated from, the discussion then fragments and 
	becomes something else.  Most LDS members have a spiritual witness
	of their religion.  Their faith is not based upon things of this
	world.  They will try to explain what they feel and mean to anyone
	that asks.  The acceptance of scripture is also based upon this
	sure witness from God. 

	When they have explained it until they are blue in the face, then
	it becomes contention, which most LDS people would like to avoid.
	The bantering of words back and forth does not, in my mind, make
	up a discussion.  When this point is reached, I just withdraw from 
	the "discussion."  I believe this is the point to where Frank has
	gotton to.  Maybe I am wrong and I am way off base, but I don't 
	believe so because I have been there.

    
    Re: .169
    
    Charles,
    
    Thank you for explaining my situation and feelings.  You put it very well 
    (and only took a couple paragraphs - something I'm still working on). 8^)
    I really want to help, but words aren't adequate for something that
    the soul wants to hear.
    
    Thanks again for describing my situation and clearing up a misunderstanding.
    
    
    Take care,
    
    Frank

================================================================================
Note 51.158                                                           158 of 174
BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney"                           33 lines  29-AUG-1990 12:11
                   -< Lets not be closed minded about this. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[note: the parts not pertaining to arguments have been deleted.  The full
reply is still in note 51.  Moderator]
    
	First, I think it would be a disservice for the moderators to 
	close this topic out.  Why should we shut any topic down?  Are
	we that closed minded?

	Frank - You are right when you say Christ never argued - he 
		discussed based upon the scriptures.  This notes file 
		tends to lead more towards opinions than scriptures.

		You are wrong, however, when you say Christ did not accuse.
		In my way of thinking, he did a lot of accusing; especially 
		to those who had the leadership positions and were not 
		standing correctly in their callings.  But Christ also had 
		the authority and stewardship to accuse them.  He did not,
		however, do the judging we sometimes do.  I think maybe 
		words like "judge" and "judging" would be better to describe 
		the trap we enter.  Do not judge other people for their 
		beliefs, but give them their agency to follow the light and 
		knowledge they are willing to receive.

		Other than that Frank, I agree with your assessment as I
		have been there before.  There are many areas where we
		could share information and knowledge and understanding,
		but it should, I think, be under a scriptural basis.

	Charles

    I have not noted much lately, because like others I, too, have given up
    "beating the dead horse".  As I said in some previous note, arguments
    of opinion cannot be won.  In this case what I see is that there is a
    body of believers who operate from the opinion that the Bible is the
    Word of God without error, deletion, corruption or any other kind of
    problem you could mention.  Thus, the LDS position of "accepting the
    Bible as the Word of God only as it has been translated correctly" must
    appear as either offensive, iconoclastic, or maybe even as an
    indefensible position.  So there it is.
    
    One side says:  The Bible is all we need. God will never reveal any
    more to humanity.  The Bible is without error.  God has protected it
    throughout the ages and thus, it has come down to us as pure.
    
    The other side says:  Not exactly.  Yes, The Bible contains SOME of the
    Word of God.  But, it has some problems (i.e. corruptions, deletions,
    contradictions, etc.).  Thus, God may (and indeed has) again speak to
    humanity and reveal "lost" truths.
    
    Whichever side you chose, you will construct (believe) a system of
    doctrines and credos that are compatible with one of the above
    postions.
    
    The beating the dead horse syndrome is that one side tries to convince
    the other to change to their side.  Sounds like an argument of opinion
    to me.  All of this "debate" won't work.  Thus, the reason the LDS say
    study, ponder, search, pray, ask God, prepare your own heart to receive
    what God says, be teachable, listen to the Spirit, etc.
    
    This note is not contentious, is it?  I love a good debate (read
    argument in the classical sense), but in spiritual matters I have
    learned to listen to the another's position/beliefs.  I respond by
    explaining (not trying to convince) my own beliefs.  And leave it all
    at that.  AS Jesus said,  "My sheep hear my voice."  There is no need
    to persuade, convince, contend.
    
    I have heard his voice, and am grateful for the messages of the his
    gospel.
    
    Paul

Hi Paul,

>    I respond by
>    explaining (not trying to convince) my own beliefs.  And leave it all
>    at that.  AS Jesus said,  "My sheep hear my voice."  There is no need
>    to persuade, convince, contend.
    
I think you've brought out the important thing about discussions, especially
those in notes files.  Some people think that disagreements shouldn't be
discussed at all, that any discussion about differences is contention.
However, I believe that people can discuss differences without contention *if*
they discuss to *understand* the other's view rather than to *change* the
other's view. 

How do we discuss without trying to change, i.e. how do we discuss without
contention?  I think one requirement is that we accept the other person
*with* his or her differences rather than *in spite of* those differences.
Another requirement is that we must try and step back and view the world as
the other person does, walk in his or her moccasins so to speak.  This can
be difficult for some of us to do, because we have a narrow vision of things
and our vision is biased by our own perceptions.  If you and I have
differences, and I look at you from my perspective, then you seem way off
base.  But, if I can step back and look at you from your perspective, then
you seem right on target.  

I'm slowly learning that logic and reasoning don't convince anybody.  Logic
and reasoning can get people to think from a different perspective, but any
change that occurs is due to a persons own thought processes and his or her
value system, and (importantly) due to the influence of the Holy Ghost on
him or her.  In the case of these notes files, once I've explained my view
in as much clarity and detail as I think appropriate, I quietly bow out of
the discussion because my job is done.  Those reading my comments can think
about them, compare them with their own viewpoint, etc.  My job was to express
my viewpoint in clear terms.  Whether the other person accepts my view or
not is an entirely different matter and not one I can influence.

Allen

    Boy, those last two notes were really good, guys!  I was thinking about
    the issue of contention, not because of the discussions here, but
    because of the political climate that seems to have grasped the state,
    the nation and the world.  I remember the words of President Benson,
    what, two years ago?  Had to do with enmity.  How crafty that during
    these times we all go around feeling angry.  We're angry at New England
    drivers.  We're angry at the Iraqi's.  We're angry at our politicians.
    We're angry at the very rich.  We're angry at the "lazy" poor.  We're
    angry at the drug dealers.  We're angry at the biased media.  We're
    angry at noters who dig at our beliefs (both ways).  Where does it end?
    
    I know where it leads.  It says right here in Ether:
    
    "22. And when the night came they were drunken with anger, evan as
    a man who is drunken with wine; and they slept on their swords.
    
    23. And on the morrow they fought again ..." 
    
    After the destruction of the nation, Ether said:
    
    "34.  Whether the Lord will that I be translated, or that I suffer the
    will of the Lord in the flesh, it mattereth not, if it so be that I am
    saved in the kingdom of God.  Amen."
    
    Now, there's a man who was able to keep his head on straight while
    things were blowing up around him.
    
    FWIW, I'm also finding comfort in trying to enjoy whatever I do.  Just
    make it fun, even if it's supposed to be stressful or tedious.  A sense
    of humor helps.  Playfulness helps.  Keeping self-confident but humble
    helps.  Prayer helps a lot.  Anything to keep from dwelling on feelings 
    and thoughts of anger.
    
    Steve

    Re: .23 & .24
    
    Paul & Allen,
    
    Very nice comments in your replies.  I enjoyed reading both of them.
    Keep up the good work!  8^)
    
    (Yours was good too, Steve.  But you posted your reply a few seconds
    before mine got posted (well, you _are_ a little closer to SHR than I am).
    I deleted mine so I could take a look at your note before replying.
    
    It would be real nice if the conference keeps up this way.
    
    Take care,
    
    Frank

================================================================================
Note 384.7                    BIBLE BANGING BASHING                       7 of 7
RICKS::SHERMAN "ECADSR::SHERMAN 225-5487, 223-3326"  46 lines  30-MAY-1991 22:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think you might be referring to D&C 66:7 or maybe D&C 68:1.  In each
    of these scriptures, there is commandment for a missionary to reason
    with people.  There is also command to expound upon the scriptures.
    I note that "reasoning" is encouraged, while "contention" is not.
    
    What's the difference?
    
    I suppose that the difference between "reasoning" and "contention" has
    to do with whether or not love is felt and exercised by at least one of the
    participants.  This reminds me of Luke 24:15-32.  It was obvious that in 
    this situation there were several "shaking up" type of questions, responses
    and maybe even little insults exchanged (verses 18 and 25).  But, the 
    spirit of the discussion was one of peace and "burning of the bosom" 
    (verse 32).  This was in spite of remarks on both sides where offense 
    could have been taken.  I suspect that Christ felt constant love for
    the two brethren and threw out an insult in verse 25 for "shock value".  
    The insult thrown out in verse 18 was probably done as an expression of 
    pain, ironically out of pain in the loss of Christ.
    
    The spirit of contention is probably evident when there is no love felt
    on either side of a discussion.  Offenses are easily taken.  Attacks are 
    easily provoked.  Learning is a pretty much a lost cause.  As a
    missionary, I was keen on making sure that I felt love for the person
    that answered the door I was knocking on.  I was yelled at and
    physically thrown out.  Dusted myself off and laughed it off,
    reassuring myself that they didn't really have anything against me
    personally (they didn't know me personally, obviously) and just weren't 
    ready to hear yet.  (Similarly, I realized that those who accepted the
    Gospel and expressed love toward me, a stranger, were really
    expressing the love that they have for the Lord whom I represented and
    which love I shared.)
    
    Hey, I've been offended by things written against the Church and
    against the Lord.  That's a natural response.  It's also a response
    that I have duty to replace with love.  We're talking real love.  Not
    lip service or some sugar coating for hate or hypocrisy.  None of this
    mote in the eye stuff.  
    
    For what it's worth, I define "love" as an attitude of looking for and 
    appreciating good.  It is a decision and not something that magically 
    happens.  "Hate" is the decision to look for and reject the bad.  No magic 
    to that either.  Contention can happen when both parties decide to hate 
    during a debate.  Reasoning can happen when at least one party decides to 
    love during a debate.
    
    Steve

    
    Nothing will content him who is not content with a little.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                 Ray

    RE; Last note
    
    Does Ray suggest we should be content with " a little"? The whole
    history of humanity is one of being discontent with "the little
    portion" and wanting more.  Even the Pilgrim's basic motivation was for
    more freedom.  And J. Smith wanted "more truth" on the correct church.
    
    This aphorism seems erroneous because Mormonism's prime directive is
    "progression", or seeking more, more truth, more righteouness, greater
    spirituality, greater service, not just "a little" of each of these.
    
    My thoughts, only.  
    
    Paul
    
    Paul

    Well, I'm content.  I like it so much that I'm working to be even MORE
    content ... :^)
    
    Happy New Year, y'all!
    
    Steve