Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsAnti-Mormon - Page 4 of 4
There was no need really to state you was - Page 4 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 25th Jul, 2014 - 4:30pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 31 - Views: 2818
Against Mormonism - Mormon Opposition
Anti-Mormon - Page 4
QUOTE It actually says that it is the spirit of contention that is of the devil, not contention itself.
Well Elder Marvin J. Ashton back in the 1970's gave a great talk you can find in the church web site that talks about contention and he said the following.
QUOTE When others disagree with our stand we should not argue, retaliate in kind, or contend with them. We can maintain proper relationships and avoid the frustrations of strife if we wisely apply our time and energies...
Ours is to conscientiously avoid being abrasive in our presentations and declarations. We need constantly to remind ourselves that when we are unable to change the conduct of others, we will go about the task of properly governing ourselves.
How unwise we are in today's society to allow ourselves to become irritated, dismayed, or offended because others seem to enjoy the role of misstating our position or involvement. Our principles or standards will not be less than they are because of the statements of the contentious. Ours is to explain our position through reason, friendly persuasion, and accurate facts. Ours is to stand firm and unyielding on the moral issues of the day and the eternal principles of the gospel, but to contend with no man or organization. Contention builds walls and puts up barriers. Love opens doors. Ours is to be heard and teach. Ours is not only to avoid contention, but to see that such things are done away.
We need to be reminded that contention is a striving against one another, especially in controversy or argument. It is to struggle, fight, battle, quarrel, or dispute. Contention never was and never will be an ally of progress. Our loyalty will never be measured by our participation in controversy. Some misunderstand the realm, scope, and dangers of contention. Too many of us are inclined to declare, "Who, me? I am not contentious, and I"ll fight anyone who says I am." There are still those among us who would rather lose a friend than an argument. How important it is to know how to disagree without being disagreeable. It behooves all of us to be in the position to involve ourselves in factual discussions and meaningful study, but never in bitter arguments and contention...
When one considers the bad feeling and the unpleasantness caused by contention, it is well to ask, "Why do I participate?" If we are really honest with ourselves, our answers may be something like: "When I argue and am disagreeable, I do not have to change myself. It gives me a chance to get even." "I am unhappy and I want others to be miserable too." "I can feel self-righteous. In this way I get my ego built up." "I don't want others to forget how much I know!"
Ours is to conscientiously avoid being abrasive in our presentations and declarations. We need constantly to remind ourselves that when we are unable to change the conduct of others, we will go about the task of properly governing ourselves.
How unwise we are in today's society to allow ourselves to become irritated, dismayed, or offended because others seem to enjoy the role of misstating our position or involvement. Our principles or standards will not be less than they are because of the statements of the contentious. Ours is to explain our position through reason, friendly persuasion, and accurate facts. Ours is to stand firm and unyielding on the moral issues of the day and the eternal principles of the gospel, but to contend with no man or organization. Contention builds walls and puts up barriers. Love opens doors. Ours is to be heard and teach. Ours is not only to avoid contention, but to see that such things are done away.
We need to be reminded that contention is a striving against one another, especially in controversy or argument. It is to struggle, fight, battle, quarrel, or dispute. Contention never was and never will be an ally of progress. Our loyalty will never be measured by our participation in controversy. Some misunderstand the realm, scope, and dangers of contention. Too many of us are inclined to declare, "Who, me? I am not contentious, and I"ll fight anyone who says I am." There are still those among us who would rather lose a friend than an argument. How important it is to know how to disagree without being disagreeable. It behooves all of us to be in the position to involve ourselves in factual discussions and meaningful study, but never in bitter arguments and contention...
When one considers the bad feeling and the unpleasantness caused by contention, it is well to ask, "Why do I participate?" If we are really honest with ourselves, our answers may be something like: "When I argue and am disagreeable, I do not have to change myself. It gives me a chance to get even." "I am unhappy and I want others to be miserable too." "I can feel self-righteous. In this way I get my ego built up." "I don't want others to forget how much I know!"
I believe these words to be true with all my heart. *smile* Love one another as I have loved you said the Savior. True disciples of Christ don't contend one with another.
Love,
RosieMae
Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 22nd Jul, 2014 - 5:12pm / Post ID: #
Anti-Mormon Studies Doctrine Mormon
Name: Brick
Country: 
Comments: When reading a post one cannot see the person's facial expression or tone of voice. If you are a Mormon who is "touchy" when someone questions anything about your faith, then you are going to hear the poster writing in an angry tone. The poster may be as calm as day, presenting questions regarding lack of archaeological and historical evidence---but you are going to hear it as an "attack". As an example, I am very calm and poised right now. Do you still hear anger in my post? Then it really may be how you are hearing it rather than how I am posting it. The less I "question" the "calmer" I will sound to you----the more I question, the angrier I will sound to you. Posts are pretty subjective aren't they? By the way why do administrators always sound so angry?
Page 4 Anti-Mormon
Brick, you don't sound angry but a little childish and very defensive if you ask me. Why? Well, it seems like you have the need to explain yourself when the topic is general in nature...in any case, its good to know you admit being an anti-Mormon, nothing makes me happier that when people admit (Directly or indirectly) what is their true purpose.
Post Date: 23rd Jul, 2014 - 4:13pm / Post ID: #
Anti-Mormon
Name:
Country:
Comments: On the contrary, the replies I have received to my posts are what is truly "defensive". As I explained to the Administrator below (With quite a few smilies I might add)--you are "taking it" as some kind of attack. I am not "anti-Mormon"---nor did I say that or "admit that" as you state. I simply asked some detailed questions regarding archaeological and historical evidence. If you want to read that as being angry or anti-Mormon, so be it. I have questioned Jehovah's Witnesses regarding their "New World Translation" also---when "questioning" something becomes regarded as an "attack" one can well understand the defensive posture the people are taking. When a "belief" cannot be held up to real scrutiny, and any such questions are taken as "attacks", then anything one says becomes "angry" in nature to that kind of listener.
Thankfully, I have received a couple of e-mails from Mormons who really want to answer the questions I have posed----and admit that a few of them are very difficult to answer (Such as why Joseph Smith, living in America in 1820 would "translate" the plates into English used in Great Britain in 1611---and translate word for word Isaiah into that same English---some Mormons are willing to really ask themselves "why"?) If they are willing to question, it is a good thing. Maybe they will come away even stronger Mormons. But you and others Happy, are not willing to seriously consider these things----and only see them as "attacks" from an "angry anti-Mormon" ;D But hey--all I can say is all the best to you!
Post Date: 25th Jul, 2014 - 6:16am / Post ID: #
Anti-Mormon
Name: October
Country:
Comments: I find HappyLDS' response a little childish. True purpose?
Anti: a person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice.
Millions of people in the united states are anti-Mormon. Your response here makes it appear that you hold the unjustifiable opinion that all anti-Mormons are out to get the church (If that were the case, the church would have been obliterated long ago).
Being an anti-Mormon simply means that you are opposed to the teachings, history, practices, or leadership of the church. It doesn't mean that you are actively attempting to attack it. You are probably anti-homosexual. That doesn't mean that you go about harassing gay people (Or at least I would hope you don't.. )
I'm a former Mormon. I am an anti-Mormon; and I insist that those I speak to acknowledge the facts and evidence for every conversation or debate - but that does not mean that I spend my days attempting to convince people to leave the church.
Perhaps you should review the maturity of your own posts before making inaccurate generalizations on opinions that differ from your own.
TOPIC: Anti-Mormon