However in my experience, those who use "barbs for those they view as attacking the Church" -- often seem to entirely forget (or downright betray !) the most basic, essential principles of the system they are supposedly "defending"!
This reminded me of the following thread I started at MA&D quite a while back:
Since first coming to this board, a question has arisen in my mind time and time again. How do the "defenders of the faith", here, rationalize their continual attacks on those with whom they disagree? Even if attacked, aren't we taught to not respond in kind? (I do not address this to the non-LDS on this board or those who do not consider themselves LDS any longer.)
I don't think I need to give examples of people who claim to be faithful LDS on this board who are defending the Church who over and over again ridicule, insult, and attack viciously in respond to someone posting something with which they disagree and that they deem to be "anti-mormon crap."
I am truly interested in how these people justify their conduct and how the others who passively agree with these attacks do not call their brethren and sisters to task for engaging in conduct unbecoming a faithful member of the Church. Why does no one have the courage to state the obvious. The defenders here have no toruble pointing out the "wrongs" of those who disagree with them on this board, so why do they ignore the wrongs of their own "team"?
Elder Marvin J. Ashton of the Quorum of the Twelve, in a 1992 conference address entitled "The Tongue Can Be A Sharp Sword" stated,It should come as no surprise that one of the adversary’s tactics in the latter days is stirring up hatred among the children of men. He loves to see us criticize each other, make fun or take advantage of our neighbor’s known flaws, and generally pick on each other. The Book of Mormon is clear from where all anger, malice, greed, and hate come.
Nephi prophesied that in the last days the devil would “rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.” (2 Ne. 28:20.) By the looks of what we constantly see depicted in the news media, it appears that Satan is doing a pretty good job. In the name of reporting the news, we are besieged with sometimes graphic depictions—too often in living color—of greed, extortion, violent sexual crimes, and insults between business, athletic, or political opponents.
Throughout the scriptures a common thread seems to emerge. Let’s consider first the Sermon on the Mount, which to our knowledge was the first sermon Jesus Christ taught his newly called disciples. The overriding theme of the Savior’s sermon, which in many ways is the ultimate handbook on coming unto Him, seems to center around the virtues of love, compassion, forgiveness, and long-suffering—in other words, those qualities that enable us to deal with our fellowmen more compassionately. Let’s look specifically at the Savior’s message to the Twelve. They (and we) were admonished to “be reconciled to [our] brother” (Matt. 5:24), to “agree with [our] adversary quickly” (Matt. 5:25), to “love [our] enemies, [to] bless them that curse [us], [to] do good to them that hate [us], and [to] pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us].” (Matt. 5:44.) We are told, “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt. 5:39.)
It seems interesting that the first principles the Lord Jesus Christ chose to teach His newly called Apostles were those that center around the way we treat each other. And then, what did He emphasize during the brief period He spent with the Nephites on this continent? Basically the same message. Could this be because the way we treat each other is the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
***
If the adversary can influence us to pick on each other, to find fault, bash, and undermine, to judge or humiliate or taunt, half his battle is won. Why? Because though this sort of conduct may not equate with succumbing to grievous sin, it nevertheless neutralizes us spiritually. The Spirit of the Lord cannot dwell where there is bickering, judging, contention, or any kind of bashing.
Even in biblical times James warned us of the necessity to govern our tongues:
“Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
“And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.” (James 3:5–6.)
Once again may I emphasize the principle that when we truly become converted to Jesus Christ, committed to Him, an interesting thing happens: our attention turns to the welfare of our fellowman, and the way we treat others becomes increasingly filled with patience, kindness, a gentle acceptance, and a desire to play a positive role in their lives. This is the beginning of true conversion.
Anyone care to help me understand the rationalization, here?
I should note that I have engaged in some sharp words, here, in response to what I deemed to be attacks on me, personally. I do not rationalize these words, but see them for what they are--my giving in to a weakness of being offended and retaliating in kind. No rationalization. I just did not respond in a manner consistent with the teachings of my Church. from elder Ashton's words, it appears that I am not yet converted and have some work to do. How about you?
How about you who have "bashed" or "made fun" or "ridiculed" or "called names" or "demeaned" or "insulted"? How about you who do it day in and day out on this board purportedly in "defense" of the Church?
If the way we treat each other is the "foundation" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as suggested by Elder Ashton, are you showing that you even undertand the foundation of the Gospel? Shouldn't we understand this foundation and seek to exemplify this understanding before moving to the other issues addressed here on this board? I don't know, just asking.
DCP responded:
I don't know about the others, but, in my case, I justify it on the grounds that I'm a completely unprincipled and vicious swine. I've been assured of that by reliable authorities, and I have no doubt that it's true.
I happen, though, to like the New Testament principle about considering the beam in one's own eye before criticizing the mote in my neighbor's. Good counsel, don't you think?
This was curious, considering what I had already written about my own conduct above.
I responded to DCP:
As you know, sarcasm and pointing a finger back rather than seriously responding evidences a lack of confidence in substantively responding to a serious question. You make light of a prophet's counsel because a serious response causes you some discomfort, I suppose. That is your choice.
Note: Are you suggesting that I have a beam in my eye? In a way, you have made my original point. (By the way, you might want to note the post directly under the OP--it sppears that I did indeed consider my own constributions. Look before you leap.
An interesting argument by Pahoran:
[Y]ou are not entitled to tell me which GA talks to apply to which situations (I am entirely confident that Elder Ashton's talk did not contemplate a situation similar to this one) and you may disagree with that if you choose.
Regards,
Pahoran
A moderator stepped in and stated:
[I]f you don't like the way our LDS posters respond to repetitive insults and inflammatory comments, we could always ban or suspend the people who provoke them. We would see less of those who intentionally upset Mormons for the purpose of condemning them for their human reactions.
Do not start threads about the behavior of our board members in the future. If a rule has been violated, report it. It's interesting how the majority of the whining comes from people who never report anything.
The mod ended up closing the thread with this:
I'm closing this thread. You're not going to dictate how Mormons are supposed to respond to what they find offensive. It is also an insult to those who do turn the other cheek day after day and receive no appreciation for it.
There were several posters who tried to address the substantive issue and some essentially made excuses for why people say what they say. Amazingly, though, some seemed to be in complete denial that Ashton's words even applied to them when they were arguing with those they perceived to be "against" the Church (e.g., Pahoran, whose statement was truly revelaing (above).
Thoughts?