Sheesh, I don't know. I mean, people feel like they *know* when the Spirit has told them some thing or other and there could be some other person who *knows* they're dead wrong... I don't know how to explain it. People are so easily deceived nowadays and there's all manner of thoughts going on all the time. How am I absolutely certain that I'm not being deceived?

I was at a Mall with my sister and BIL yesterday and it came up how much information we receive on a daily basis as contrasted with folks who lived just a generation ago - we were discussing the link to stress, actually - but I don't know.

I guess when people think they're right, it's natural to want to convert people to the right way, so everyone can be right. And to some it's very IMPORTANT to them to help others see the light. Others are more content for them to go their own way and let them do what they will...

Roper, I know where you are coming from. I have had this very dilemna myself. And I think just letting it go, whether it be out of courteousness or something else, is the best path followed.

It tends to irk me a lot when people insist on what they think is right and I know they are not on an issue, but frankly it is not worth the discord, disharmony, ill feelings, etc. Pride most often gets in the way, and the same could also be said of us whether we are in the right or not. I tend to let the things go, I would rather have the friend, harmony, or whatever than an enemy.

Sun Tzu referenced something like this in the Art of War. Let your enemy have a way of escape/way to save face. Backing an enemy into a corner with no means to escape can create a real problem.

I think the only time to insist on something that is right is if it is wrong the eyes of revealed doctrine, our own personal morals, our covenants, the Spirit. Even in those situations it can be tricky, especially if someone has had something "revealed" to them.

I think the biggest issue is pride, and it is not worth the potential troubles that can grow out of such things.

I have spent most of my adult life pushing the buttons of people who think they're right no matter what. Comes from growing up in a home in which mom was always right, to the point of the ridiculous. Often mom is right, further she's entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but when that right is used to coerce unnecessarily, it can be very harmful, and almost always leaves a mark.

Quite honestly there's nothing I enjoy listening to more than a well-reasoned debate between two people who think they're right. I am very sympathetic to those who, even if I disagree with them passionately, think through their position and can discuss the topic intelligently without getting tripped up by their emotions. The fact that they can remain civil is for me just as interesting and a great learning experience as whatever the topic may be over which they debate. And while I push buttons, I suppose I'm always a little disappointed when they fall for my jabs... as expert as I may be at jabbing. :)

I learned to appreciate discussions online. Back in the days when usenet was all there was for discussion, and anyone could enter the discussion. Back then, we had certified antimormons who would pop in and carpet bomb the mormon newsgroup with all the most nefarious and horrible things you could imagine. We got pretty adept at letting their attacks go, and returning fire where it made sense. Most of the time the opposition would fly in, launch their attack and you'd never hear from them again. Once in a while there would be someone who would come in, and would make it their mission to change everyone's minds. I remember one fellow who claimed to be a Calvinist. He was very antimormon, very very well trained in theology, and knew how to words like ousia, and henotheistic, and such, and he was very fond of accusing those who debated with him of "bearing false witness" whenever someone got lazy and misrepresented something he'd said. He never tired of disagreeing with everyone and stuck around for a long time, scouring the scriptures for quotes to disprove the mormons, etc. Ironically, he left the group after a couple years, when someone actually caught him in a lie (they had saved old messages) and they turned his accusations of bearing false witness about on him in such a blatant way that he just up and left. That was interesting, because I think he was so set on being right that when he'd been discreditted he had to leave. There were many times when I would get into a lengthy discussion and get annoyed or they'd get my goat, but there were also a few saints that NEVER lost their cool. They were always perfectly diplomatic and confident in what they believed, but not the least bit disagreeable or contentious. These were Masters I still admire. It made me realize that no matter what others think of my beliefs, it's okay, I can disagree and still remain civil. This was an idea that'd never occurred to me.

I admit that often I still don't take that tact with folks--preferring the more volatile path (often because it seems to be the only way to get people to respond, or to actually discuss things above the level of the trite sloganeering primary answers folks give), but I try to keep it in mind. I also think that's why, in regards to moderation, I tend to be very open to any sort of disagreement or discussion, cuz well... I deeply admire those who can do it well, despite the rhetorical mortars going off all around them, and I think that everyone deserves a chance to lose their cool, realize they have egg on their face, and then decide how they'll react to the group in the face of being flawed.

We all make mistakes... right?

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 09:35, 2007-06-25

Could some things be right for one person or group of people but not right for another?

An example:  My position on immigration differs from everyone on this forum (except for maybe Ray--I've got your back, buddy.)  Because of where I live, and the children I teach, and the saints with whom I attend church, and the places where I buy groceries, get my vehicle inspection, etc., I feel more connected to the immigrant perspective than the law enforcement perspective.  And I'm sure that's the right position for me to take.  Apparantly, that's not the right position for others who have a different way of seeing the issue.  Can both perspectives be right?  Or is one necessarily wrong?  Or most likely, are they all wrong together?

That was good, ray. Even better than the rock/river poem dealie-bob. IMO.