"I feel a spirit of contention!"
By Bill McKeever
It is not uncommon for Latter-day Saints to accuse Christians of having a "spirit of contention" when their doctrinal inconsistencies are being discussed. Such a rebuke is meant to make it appear that the Christian is somehow not exhibiting a Christ-like attitude and/or not playing fair.
Being accused of being contentious should be taken seriously only if you really are. If so, kindly apologize. If you feel this label has been unjustifiably used, you might ask how he defines contention and then show him what Jude states in verse 3.
Certainly no Christian should want to appear as mean-spirited; however, we are commanded in Jude 3 to earnestly contend for the faith. Some Mormons assume that Christ never intended for us to question anyone’s religious beliefs. In such situations you might politely remind him that both Jesus and His disciples often made it a point to challenge those they felt had embraced false teachings.
Can we contend without being contentious? I think so.
We are given some basic rules as to how to conduct ourselves when conversing with those with whom we disagree. In Colossians 4:6 Paul tells us that we are to present our message with grace, seasoned with salt. This is an interesting illustration for salt does have a tendency to sting when poured into an open wound. When we present Gospel truths into the wound of doctrinal error, it does tend to be uncomfortable. Because of this we must be sensitive to the fact that the Mormon may be especially defensive. However, bear in mind that declaring the truth, in and of itself, is not biblically wrong.
In 1 Peter 3:15-16 we are told that we should be ready to give an answer regarding what we believe, but it must be done with gentleness and respect (or meekness and fear in the KJV). Admittedly, this can be difficult since some Mormons seem to feel that these passages do not refer to them. Even though Mormon leaders such as M. Russell Ballard said members should be "kind and gentle in our conversations as we express our convictions and feelings," some Mormons ignore this advice and choose to go out of their way to be rude and offensive. While some Mormons purposely use this behavior as a means of absolving themselves of a reasonable response, we must not allow such intimidation tactics to divert our attention away from the topic at hand.
In some cases using their own line can bring some civility back to the conversation. Letting an abusive Mormon know that he has "a spirit of contention" (be sure you smile when you say it) sometimes opens the door for a more meaningful dialogue.
To Contend or Not to Contend?
By Sharon Lindbloom
There's an article in the January, 2006 issue about the fourth LDS prophet, Wilford Woodruff, titled Contending for the Faith. The tag line to this article is, "While contending for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, President Woodruff taught principles relevant for our lives today" (p.20).
I was surprised to find that the article promoted the idea that "contending" is a good thing. Of course, as a Christian I support Jude's exhortation to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). But Mormonism typically shuns contention as being from the devil himself. The Book of Mormon says, "He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me [saith the Lord], but is of the devil, who is the father of contention..." (3 Nephi 11:29).
Some people might say that contention is argument accompanied by anger. However, LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson wrote an article for the Ensign titled The Canker of Contention (May 1989) in which he made the claim that conflicting ideas are "the beginning of contention." This really sums up the usual Mormon-on-the-street understanding of the issue.
Typically, when I have a friendly encounter with a Mormon and we happen to reach a point where he feels at a disadvantage in the discussion, he does one of two things. He either drops the topic and proclaims his testimony of the truth of the Church or he says, "I feel a spirit of contention," and refuses to continue the conversation. I once asked a Mormon "host" at the Orlando Temple Open House how he determined when a discussion became contentious. His answer: A conversation became contentious whenever someone disagreed with him.
My dictionary says "contend" is when someone "asserts something as a position in an argument." Therefore, any disagreement—no matter how friendly or easy-going—would be contentious and, according to Mormonism, would be "of the devil." Thus my surprise when I read the LDS praise for Mr. Woodruff 's public contention for the LDS faith.
