Summary: The scriptures tell us that “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes.” And because of that, everyone has their own opinion of what they think is right or wrong. Therefore, when someone disagrees with what we believe, it is only natural to feel that it’s the other person who is wrong. This can lead to arguments, debates, disputes and contentions. This article examines how the Lord teaches us the proper way to respond to those who see things differently from us.

When Joseph Smith was fourteen years old, he had attended many different churches with his family, and as they did, they tried to determine which one they should join. What made this so difficult was that, although each one preached the necessity of being saved, yet they didn’t agree on what it took to get into heaven. As Joseph Smith pondered on this he said, “The teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible” (JS History 1:12).

Each church Joseph and his family had attended quoted from the Bible to justify their particular belief about salvation, but what Joseph discovered was that each religious sect had their own interpretation of what they thought the Bible said.and this is just as true today. The reason why there are tens of thousands of different Christian denominations in the world is because they each have a different understanding of what the Bible teaches, and each of them are convinced that their interpretation is the only correct one.

But this also happens among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in their understanding of the restored gospel. There are a wide variety of doctrinal and procedural issues among Latter-day Saints where people don’t always see eye-to-eye. One of the most controversial is the issue of same-sex attraction and sexual identity. In addition to this, some members believe that every word spoken by the prophet of the church or one of its apostles is the absolute word of God and should be followed as if it were canonized scripture, while others believe that not everything prophets and apostles say is to be taken as coming from God. Even in the standard works of the church, there are different understandings of what the scriptures teach.

However, this doesn’t happen only in matters of religion but is true in all human beliefs.

For example, people who study history can read the same historical documents and come to opposite conclusions. We see this in the history of the United States. Some will look at the Declaration of Independence which boldly states “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This has been called one of the greatest legal statements to ever have been written by man and is considered to be the cornerstone of all human freedom. In its time, it was revolutionary in its concept and has therefore been described as being inspired by God. As such, this document has become revered and its principles have become the guiding influence in the constitution of other countries.

Yet, at the same time, there are others who claim that those who signed this document were all hypocrites because nearly all of them were slave holders. For them to say that all men are created equal was a lie because black slaves were not thought of as being equal to white people. They had no unalienable rights, and they certainly didn’t have any freedom to pursue their own happiness. To those who hold this view, they consider the Declaration of Independence to be a joke rather than as something that should be revered.

In the field of science, ever since the time of Charles Darwin, it has been the bedrock of biology that all life on earth has evolved from a single cell organism that lived four billion years ago, and the more we learn about plant and animal life, the more evidence there seems to be to support this theory.

And yet, at the same time, there are many noted scientists with Ph.D.s in the fields of biology, genetics, archeology, chemistry, and mathematics, who examine the same evidence and conclude that it doesn’t support the theory of evolution.

For example, in order for one kind of living organism to evolve into another kind of organism, there has to be new genetic material produced. Evolutionists say that this came about by chance mutation over millions of years, but the fossil record doesn’t support this explanation nor has such a change ever been observed in nature. There is evidence to support changes within a species, but no direct evidence exists to support the idea of one animal changing into a completely different type of animal. In fact, the mathematical chances of this happening are so astronomically large as to make it impossible.

Perhaps the greatest area of disagreement is in the field of politics. In America, we have a two-party system – Democrats and Republicans – and they are constantly at odds with one another in their idea about the role of government. One side says that government should exert the least amount of power over its people needed to provide order so as to allow them the greatest amount of freedom to do as they want within the rule of law. To them, this is man’s inalienable right in his quest to pursue his own happiness.

However, the other party believes that the primary responsibility of government is to secure these rights and that without government regulating the affairs of men, the strong will take advantage of the weak to where the rich become more wealthy at the expense of the poor who will become more destitute. Therefore, they say that only a strong government regulating the affairs of man can ensure that everyone is treated equally.

If this tendency exists among the most intellectual and educated, whose careers are dedicated to studying their field of work, then it most certainly exists among those who are not nearly as well informed. Most people are not experts on the U.S. Constitution, evolution, religion or politics therefore, what they know about these subjects comes primarily from what they’ve read or heard from others. As such, their knowledge comes from relying on those who claim to be “experts” in their field.

To illustrate this, in our health conscious culture, people are concerned about their diet. To know what is best to eat, people read books or watch videos produced by medical “experts” who are either certified doctors, clinicians or nutritionists. However, what we find is that they don’t always agree with one another.

For example, one person will say we are to eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, while others say that, whereas fruits are healthy, we should avoid eating them because of their high sugar and carbohydrate content. Some experts say that fructose, which is the sugar found in fruits, reacts differently in our bodies than does sucrose, which is table sugar. At the same time, other experts say that our bodies react exactly the same to either one. Some experts point to medical studies showing that artificial sweeteners pose no risk to our health, while other experts point to different studies showing that all artificial sweeteners are bad for us.

The number of different kinds of diets on the market is staggering and yet each of them are promoted by someone claiming to be a licensed medical doctor who cites numerous laboratory studies to support their particular way of eating as being the best.

The scriptures tell us that “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 21:2). Just like the experts, everyone has their own opinion of what they think is right or wrong, and most people are convinced that whatever their opinion is, it is the only right one. Therefore, when someone disagrees with what they believe, it is only natural for them to feel that it’s the other person who is wrong. This then forms the foundation on which all arguments, debates, disputes and contentions are built because it’s almost impossible to quarrel with someone who agrees with you.

As members of Christ’s restored church, throughout our history, we have had people strongly disagree with what we believe, but feel they have a moral obligation to condemn us for teaching what they think is false, anti-Chrisitan doctrine. They cite Paul’s words where he said, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8-9).

Therefore, when verbally attacked, it is only natural for people to vigorously defend what they believe, where they’re like a boxer in the ring contending against an opponent, giving blow for blow, while hoping for the knockout punch that ends the argument.

However, the Lord has clearly said, “For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. (3 Nephi 11:29). Therefore, “Cease to contend one with another; cease to speak evil one of another” (D&C 136:23).

But how do we defend what we believe without getting into an argument?

In the early days of the church there was a newly converted member by the name of Leman Coipley, who had previously been associated with another church known as the Shakers. Because of his conversion, he had a desire to have the Shakers be taught the restored gospel in hopes of them being converted to his newly found faith. In answer to his request, Joseph Smith enquired of the Lord who told him, “My servant Leman shall be ordained unto this work, that he may reason with them, not according to that which he has received of them, but according to that which shall be taught him by you my servants” (D&C 49:4).

The Lord didn’t tell Leman to go to his former friends and prove that what they believed was wrong. Rather, he was told to “reason with them,” not according to what he had learned from them, but according to what he had been taught by God’s servants.

At another time, the Lord told the elders of his church that they were to “Go unto the eastern lands, bear testimony in every place, unto every people and in their synagogues, reasoning with the people. (D&C 66:7). At another time he called Orson Hyde “to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them” (D&C 68:1).

Later, when a disgruntled member of the church by the name of Ezra Booth began publishing false stories about the church, the Lord told Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, “the time has verily come that it is necessary and expedient in me that you should open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel, the things of the kingdom, expounding the mysteries thereof out of the scriptures, according to that portion of Spirit and power which shall be given unto you, even as I will” (D&C 71:1)

The way the Lord has instructed us to contend for the faith is to reason with people, “expounding all the scriptures unto them… according to that portion of Spirit and power which shall be given unto you… [so] that they may understand” (see D&C 50:10). In other words, instead of trying to prove that what someone else believes is wrong, we’re to explain what it is we believe, and defending those beliefs by showing how the scriptures support them.

What we have to realize is that everyone has their own opinion of what they think is right, and the Lord grants everyone the freedom to believe whatever they want. The apostle Paul taught, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17).

Everyone has the freedom and inalienable right to express what it is they believe, but if contention is of the devil, then peace is from God. Therefore, we should discuss what we believe in a peaceful manner. Rather than arguing with someone, God tells us that we should reason with those who disagree with us and if, after doing that, they still don’t want to accept what we have to say, then we’re to allow them the liberty to believe whatever they want.

The Lord has also counseled, “And in whatsoever house ye enter, and they receive you not, ye shall depart speedily from that house” (D&C 75:20). Instead of staying and continuing to convince people of something they don’t want to believe, the Lord instructs,“ye shall depart speedily,” meaning that we should stop trying to convince them of something they don’t want to accept and leave the subject alone. It takes two people to have an argument, and if one person doesn’t want to participate in a contentious discussion, then an argument can’t exist.

However, this principle doesn’t apply just to matters of religion, but is the pattern we should follow in all our conversations with others.

The only real expert is God, therefore, whatever we or anyone else believes, no matter how much “evidence” is used to support it, unless it comes from God, it is just someone’s opinion. There are highly respected members of the church who write books or produce podcasts, and although what they say may be very scriptural, and they may give quotes from ancient and modern-day prophets, and produce other forms of evidence, in reality, all they’re doing is sharing their opinion of what they believe. That opinion may be one-hundred percent correct, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re merely expressing what they believe to be true.

People are free to disagree with whomever they want because that is their right, but no one can say someone is not allowed to have their own opinion. If someone wants to believe in evolution after hearing reasons why it’s an incorrect theory, then we don’t argue with them. If someone wants to believe that the government should regulate how we live our lives, and they still feel that way after hearing reasons for believing otherwise, then we don’t argue with them. If someone wants to believe that the church of Satan is the only true church on the earth, even after listening to an explanation of what the Church of Jesus Christ believes, then we don’t argue with them.

But what if someone wants to force their views on us? How are we supposed to defend what we believe in that kind of circumstance? In America, we can appeal to the courts and to the voting booth, but where those options are not available, then we stand firm in our beliefs, even if it means facing the threat of harm.

However, most of the time we are not faced with that choice. In the vast majority of cases, there will be many times when we will encounter people who disagree with what we believe on a wide variety of subjects. Even when engaged in political campaigns where we are seeking to promote one candidate or issue over another, the Lord’s way of defending whatever it is we believe is to use the power of reasoning, and employ the principle of gentle persuasion. Instead of condemning what someone else thinks is true, the Lord’s way is to explain what it is we believe, and why. If after doing that they choose not to accept our reasoning, then we are to allow them the freedom to believe whatever they want. That’s what the Lord’s law of liberty is all about.

 

Related articles can be found at The Nature of Man