Quaestiones Disputatio

I got in an argument recently that was extremely frustrating. It wasn't even in person. not even on the phone. it was online, for goodness' sake! I think that's what bothered me to begin with. It's hard enough to communicate what you really feel when you're looking at the person and they can hear you and respond immediately. But that's still not the frustrating part. No matter how logical and honest my answers and explanations were, this person continued to accuse me of things that either weren't true, or obviously misunderstood. Even after clarification and interpretation of intentions, no progress was made, in fact, it was more regressive than anything (who's going backward?). I realized that resolution was not this person's motive; it was justification. There was no intention of understanding the other side, and I got caught up in it too! I felt silly for even getting involved in it and started to see my own selfish intentions to "win" the argument (for sake of score keeping and one-up-manship, I'm pretty sure I won, anyway), so i decided to just leave it be. It was easy to see that no good would come of continuing, even if I was right.

Isn't that usually the case with arguments? Can you ever think of a time when you won an argument and then felt like you achieved what you were arguing for? I can think of a lot of arguments I at least think I won, but I never felt good about it afterward because the "loser" never admits to losing. In arguments where even the smallest part of my motivation is to win the argument, I never feel satisfied unless the person with whom I argued also acknowledges my victory. In the spirit of competition there is always a loser. Even when merely self proclaimed, there is seldom a winner. In the rare occasion that one wins an argument to the acknowledgment of everyone involved, what moral justification is there in self gratification? How can you ever feel good for bringing someone else down? You can't be motivated to win an argument without also being motivated to make your opponent lose. It is impossible to morally build yourself up while breaking others down.

When Jesus Commands the Nephites not to have disputations among them about the doctrines he gave, I don't think he's telling them not to talk about or even question them. I think he's commanding them (and us) not to argue about it. As I pointed out, argument seems to be more of a form of competition than truth seeking. I think sometimes we get confused in our attempts to be honest, too. Honesty isn't just saying facts. Half the truth is often a great lie. Oftentimes, our arguments are exactly that: half the truth, because we don't know enough to give all of it. I think honesty is saying, to the best of our ability, what is ultimately beneficial for the people we're talking to. Nothing that isn't motivated by love falls under that category. Saying kind truths is probably the closest to truth we are able to speak. What if our conversations were only focussed on establishing truth and honestly saying kind things to each other? I think there would be a lot fewer negative things to not talk about.

"Always love! Hate will get you every time.
Always love! Even when you want to fight."
-Nada Surf: Always Love