Note: I was trying to put this post up last week while we were in Hawaii on vacation, but on Friday morning, we were awaken at 3:00 in the morning with the news of the great earthquake in Japan. This affected us in two ways. First, being a block from the ocean on the Kona side of the Big Island, we were in the Tsunami zone. The trouble was, no one came to evacuate us from the complex we were staying in and the Civil Defense sirens didn’t sound. We were glued to the TV and watching the reports of 1 to 3 foot swells hitting the beaches. Seemed like no big deal. We were on the 3rd floor so we were not in any danger. We did have our whale-watching trip canceled and the Luau we were to attend was canceled because the place holding it sustained major damage. There was some considerable damage to the businesses along the beach front and a large 3 story house was washed out into the bay and another house moved totally off its foundation.
But, more important was the fact that the son of the other couple with us is serving in the Japan Sendai Mission. Needless to say, this was a source of considerable concern to all of us, especially his parents. However, we all independently felt that he was OK. Playing the waiting game to find out his status was long. Calls to the Church Missionary Department yielded absolutely no information. It was assumed they would not say anything about individual Missionaries until they knew about all the Missionaries. Soon after, the other 4 Missions reported their missionaries were accounted for. But the Sendai Mission had not because most communications were down. But, on a missionary moms email list, we were finding out independent of the Church Missionary Department the numbers of Sendai Missionaries accounted for. 20%, then, 50% and then 80% and so on. Some folks are very well connected in Japan and elsewhere and were getting reports about individual Missionaries as well. Parents began to report hearing from their Sons and Daughters.
Well, finally, at about 7PM Hawaii, our friends received an email from the their son. Not only was he safe, but was many miles away from the trouble areas. They were able to speak to him by phone shortly after. And then we learned that all the Missionaries were safe. That was a great relief to all of us. So, now on to the blog post.
**********************************
In our Priesthood meeting the last week of February, we discussed President Dieter Uchtdorf’s talk from the last General Conference entitled “Pride and the Priesthood.” 
The talk was patterned or expanded upon President Ezra Taft Benson’s famous 1989 Talk “Beware of Pride.”
I thought President Uchtdorf’s talk was an excellent reminder of the problem with pride. But one important part struck me that afternoon.
It was a scripture quote that he used, found in Proverbs 13:10:
“Only by pride cometh contention.”
While we’ve recently seen a number of articles in various publications touting Mormon blogs, be it mommy blogs, or Church-oriented blogs, much of the conversations on blogs is quite contentious. One only need review many of the postings here on Wheat and Tares to see that.
Those of us who are permabloggers here know exactly which topics will generate the most comments and I will admit to using that knowledge to determine what to write about from time to time. The comments tend to be quite contentious as each side claims superior intelligence, reasoning, command of the facts, God being on THEIR side, etc.
I suppose if we all agreed it might be quite boring to read through 100 comments of “I agree with you.” But, especially where the Church is concerned, one might think we were all on the same side.
Not true. Because someone took the trouble to classify Mormons in the same manner as the USDA classifies meat, many of us speak from different sides of the aisle, so to speak. So, while we might share a common religious organization, we might not share much else.
So, what of this contention? Is it prideful to be contention as Proverbs states? Or, is it just normal human nature? Would agreement make for a boring world?
I would not be asking for totally agreement. But nice would be nice. And that I think is possible.
Wheat & Tares 
I think we commentators may be in agreement that there’s something wrong with the formatting of your comment and that it shifts way to the right. 🙂
I’m trying to fix this…
Thanks for fixing it. Can you tell what the problem was?
It’s tough to express a differing opinion about subjects about which we feel passionate–i.e. politics and religion.
We have a few examples of civil political debate in our country. I especially enjoy David Brooks and Mark Shields on PBS.
I can think of no examples of civil religious debate within Mormonism. Our culture is very black and white and an opinion which may be at variance with something a church leader has said is wrong, wrong, wrong and should be vigorously put down.
Human nature? Pride? Seems those two are inextricably linked. (Natural man and enemy to God; overcome come by subjecting one’s will to the Father…)
The real question is whether disagreement equals contention. I think we can disagree without contention. But often we don’t.
Contention and disagreement do not have to be the same thing – most couples have ongoing disagreements – problems that they will NEVER solve during their marriage. The key is how they handle this problems. I can see “contention” with others in the same way – many of us are never going to agree on some issues, but we can certainly still be kind… and sometimes even learn from each other.
“It’s nice to be nice to the nice”
-Frank Burns
don’t know mo,
One of my favorite TV lines of all time. We quote that one a lot.
Yes, contention and disagreement do not need to be synonymous. But when it does, that is where the pride factor seems to kick in….
Jeff,
Good post. And good to hear your friend’s missionary is ok. My son is in Southern California (about 150 miles inland) and my wife (bless her heart) was worried about the tsunami. I can only image the fear when your son or daughter is in the heart of the earthquake/tsunami.
Agree, it is the best Frank Burns quote ever….
As one of the more controversial commentators, I will say the following as it relates to pride. It is good to have an opinion and good to stand up to that opinion as long as that opinion holds up to truth. Pride enters the equation when you are presented with the truth and you are not willing to change your stance. In other words, you fight just to fight; or argue just to argue. Sometimes, however, it is hard to determine what the truth is, which is what keeps us coming back presenting our view of things. It is always good to have good minds (that would even included Dan) on the other side to sort through the issues.
We can’t all be yes men.
Once, after a particularly long argument with a friend who is, admittedly, smarter than I am, I uttered the words “Sorry man, I just hate being wrong.”
To which he replied “No you don’t. You hate being proved wrong. If you hated being wrong you would listen to the other side of the argument, engage in discussion, and learn.”
Those words have resonated with me frequently, even ten years later. When we so vehemently know that our side is right and the other side is wrong, then we spend all our time talking and none listening. However when we seek truth and greater understanding, we listen, we consider, and we engage in the dialectic.
The problem with being Mormon is that we have a different idea of (and a lot of baggage with) the phrase “I know . . . “. We build line upon line, precept upon precept over foundations of knowing that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was a prophet, etc. We are often afraid that if the other side of the argument finds a crack in our logic, that the whole facade of what we “know” will come crumbling down. So we fight harder. This becomes especially ironic when the “other side” is also Mormon.
When Jesus “cleansed the temple” (awesome euphemism), that was contention, right? I doubt you could say there was no contention there. And I’m pretty sure we’d say Jesus didn’t have any pride. But we could probably safely assume that the money-changers had some pride. So maybe to produce contention it is enough for just one side to have pride?
Also, what exactly do we mean by contention? Any disagreement at all? Only disagreement that involves frustration, anger, or ill-will? Any disagreement that involves one side’s refusal to accept the other side’s position as legitimate? I think all of these can occur without pride, and should occur at times.
well, as i said above,
” The comments tend to be quite contentious as each side claims superior intelligence, reasoning, command of the facts, God being on THEIR side, etc.”
I doubt this was the case on Jesus’ part.
I agree with those who point out that there are opportunities for discussion that do not require contention, they do require respect.
Strangely there are some in the church who believe there is no place for pride or discussion- just obedience.
There is a problem when respect disapears. I have seen the term troll used on some of the LDS liberal blogs. I think of trolls as helpfull little people who help santa and who I wish to help me at times but don’t.
I enjoy these blogs because they allow discussion that is not allowed in my ward.
Does troll mean something in the blog sense or is it just a put down?
I love it when people disagree with me- I crave rational disagreements, especially in politics. I typically surrounded with people who hold similar views, which while pleasant to talk about world events, it’s boring.
I often hope to find new thought on the internet- but there are few out there that engage in civil discourse while removing emotion.
I think to qualify as “contention* in a Gospel sense one must go far beyond mere disagreement, debate, discussion, etc. As a people we are commanded to both “contend with no man” and to boldly call “all men” to repentance. Calling on *everyone* to repent is bound to ruffle a few feathers.
Certainly when we look at the early days of the Church the mobs who murdered Joseph Smith thought the Saints were contending with them. Which I guess shows that contention is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder as Joseph Smith said he had a clear conscious devoid of all offense against men.
I think we have to make sincere effort to teach truth *and* to not be a jerk while attempting to do it.
RE: #10 B. Russ Thank you for sharing your experience and your friend’s quote about being “proved wrong”. It is an incredibly important distinction to be aware of and one to remember.
It’s a cliche that one can disagree without being disagreeable. I think that’s the obttom line here.