Member Training – Fighting For Liberty Is Contentious?

Member training from September 1st 2025.

In our meeting, I addressed a prevalent lie designed to get people out of the battle: the false equivalency that equates righteous confrontation of evil with ungodly contention. Conspirators sell this lie by twisting scripture and promoting “disagree better” movements to silence us and make us accept wickedness. However, the truth is that we have a heavenly mandate to expose darkness. We see the true example in the Savior, who overthrew the money changers’ tables and called the Pharisees “children of your father the devil,” and in Paul, who publicly withstood Peter to his face for his error. We are to follow this example by judging the situation, reproving a friend with sharpness and then showing an increase of love, while also being unafraid to call out committed enemies for what they are. My goal is to inoculate us against this deception so we can speak boldly on weighty matters and stand united against evil, rather than being silenced by the false idea that we are being contentious.

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

TRANSCRIPT

our father in heaven as we pause end of this day to join together to discuss things of importance that we really care about we're grateful for ben and his efforts for this opportunity to be on zoom for this country that we live in and the things that we understand to be true to protect our liberty we pray that we would have wisdom and thoughtful insight into the things that we can do to continue the legacy that we have inherited And we thank you so much for our Savior and truth and our friendship. We say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. So this is something that comes up a lot, and I want us to be prepared, inoculated ourselves so we don't fall for it, but also be in a position that we can help inoculate others against this lie. It is a lie to, again, as most of the lies that are out there along the lines of... like rapture cult and things along those lines it's designed to get people out of the battle because they don't want to be engaged in things that are wicked and of course contentiousness is not something anybody wants to be a part of and so i i want to address that and so of course because this is a part of building our understanding of the adherence to principles that build free nations and expose the conspiracy that is behind this lie and to build an effective resistance to that conspiracy.

So the lie is that contention is the same as controversy or confrontation. And so that's, you know, they say to avoid contention as if it is the same. And they equate it to anything controversial. That's contentious. Or if you confront evil, that is contention. And so they have this false equivalency between one thing and another that are not actually related. And so that's the lie. And then how do they sell the lie? Of course, they will use Scripture. Satan is very good at using Scripture to get us to do evil. And that sounds counterintuitive because how could he use the Word of God to get us to do wickedness? But it is, of course, very, very common. So I want to give some examples of scriptures we see in Titus. We are told that to avoid foolish questions, genealogies and contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain. So they come out and they say, you know, we need to avoid contention. And it's unprofitable to contend with others. It's in vain. Then we see in Mosiah, the warning, this is, O my people, beware, lest there shall arise contentions among you.

And ye list to obey the evil spirit which was spoken of by my father Mosiah. So to beware of something, and it is evil, right? It's according to evil spirit. Contention is evil. And then we see a doctrine and covenant, section 10. The Lord says, And this I do, that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention. Yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine. And in these things they do err, for they do rest the scriptures and do not understand them. And so because of the ignorance, they engage in contention, which is evil, as we see in this consistent message throughout the scriptures. But because what they do is they use the truth and then they equate it with something that is good. And so therefore they equate good with evil to get you to not do good. How the lie is sold. We see this, right? We're supposed to rather give truth followed by a false equivalency. They say contention is bad.

Therefore, anyone who brings attention to evil is causing contention because of what's going on. So therefore, they are as evil as those doing evil. You see that a lot. We see this, you know, if you're in Utah, this is a national, you might. We've seen in other states, you have this Disagree Better movement across the country where they are trying to say that if you stand up against evil and you call it out for what it is, that you are contentious and that you need to not be so contentious and to accept the evil that is going on around you. From their website, Smart Projects. is to insist on respectful organization. This is critical. We need to build respectful organizations. Even when people don't like each other or disagree vehemently about critical matters, we can still insist that people act with respect. Sadly, a lack of respect is increasingly a problem both in business and personal matters. But what they're saying here is if you call out evil, you are being disrespectful. And so what they're trying to say is that everyone's ideas are on an equal platform and we need to give all ideas a legitimate hearing.

And if we do not do so, we are disrespectful. And so that we need to see this for what it really is. It is to allow evil and to have it be all about reason and debate and that there aren't, you know. that there is nothing that is off the table. And that if we are to say that anything is off the table, we are to assign motives to individuals with proof, then we are being the bad ones. And so they silence us by saying that we are disrespectful or contentious. But the truth is, right, we see in the scriptures, here's a picture of the Savior, a very well -known story that people, if they see this, you know, if this was not the Savior, they would say that this Jesus guy needs to be more Christ-like because he's so contentious. In Matthew we read, And then we see here in John, giving another angle from the same story, it says, He drove them all out of the temple and the sheep and the oxen and poured out the changers' money and overthrew the tables. And the disciples remembered that it was written, the zeal of thine house has eaten me up. And so the zeal, right? And this is, if we were to see this today, you go to the state capitol and you were to start to just toss over the tables of the legislators. get a whip and start beating the snot out of the legislators you would be seen as a you know an extremist and uh somebody that was not very um you know that they did not disagree well and that they were spoiled and they just wanted to have their way and they needed to uh disagree better as what would be seen if the exact same thing was done um in our day to those the equivalent of these people And if Jesus were to go into the legislature or other bodies and to do the same exact thing, they would say that he was not being very Christ -like.

And so we need to know the truth. We need to see that what is called one thing is actually something else. Good is called evil, and evil is called good. And just replace it. If we take out the word Jesus and we say, Carmen went in the temple of God and cast them all out and beat them with a whip, right? It'd be easy to say, oh, that Carmen, she's an extremist. But, of course, it's the exact same thing because of what Jesus did. That's my mom. But this is the follow-up lie, right? They say, well, yeah, sure, Jesus did that, but he's the only perfect judge. Our job is just to love each other and not to actually follow. His example. Our job is to just do, you know, the idea of accept everyone and everyone is the same. Everyone has a seat at the table. Everyone's ideas are just as valid as the others. And so that's the idea that is presented as a response to look at the example of Christ. But let's see if that is that true. Are we not supposed to follow His example? Are we not to judge in those ways? The truth is, wait, we go to the scriptures in Hebrews. For the Lord loveth, for whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. So the idea that love is acceptance of everything is a satanic lie. It is going back to the plan of there is no condemnation.

Everyone is accepted. Everyone gets to go to heaven. no matter what and but this is obviously what is what does the Lord say he says that he he he chastens he corrects he scourges those that he loves that's the truth love is to correct and to bring them into line with the truth love I mean to allow wickedness is actually hate because it brings them away from God and the love of God and so it is actually hatred to do what these people are saying of accepting everyone. D&C 95, Lord says, So again, he says, I love you by bringing correction to you so that you can be forgiven. for those things because if you do not you have no law you just you keep on doing the same thing over again and over again because i don't want to hurt your feelings you can you cannot be brought into uh the way and then we look into back into john um he says the lord says you know if you love me keep my commandments so that's how we show our love or we don't show love by doing whatever we want we don't show love by um allowing others to do whatever they want We show love to God by keeping his commandments and encouraging others to keep his commandments by showing them what his commandments are. That is love. And so what we need to do is we need to start to understand the real biblical definitions of these words so that we can stop being sucked into the lies that lead to the chains, not only the chains of hell, but the chains of tyranny. Because immorality, leaving the laws of God. leads to tyranny. And then John says, and the Lord says again, for I have given you an example that you should do as I have done to you. So again, we debunk the lie that God is the only perfect judge and that we are to leave those things to him.

He says, no, no, no. I'm the example to follow what I have done. You should do as well. And so we are to follow the example of the Savior in all of the things that he does. And again, the truth, you know, how does the Lord talk to those that are engaged in evil? We see here when he's talking to the Pharisees, he says, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees. So he's giving them a warning. He is rebuking them. Hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. So he's saying himself that it is judgment. as well as mercy, that is a weightier matter of the law. These ought ye to have done. He says you ought to have judged and not leave the other things undone. So he's not saying leave out these other things. He's saying you've got to do it all. Ye blind guides, which strain at a net and swallow a camel. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. For ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward. but are within full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness. So if you don't know what a whited sepulcher is, it is one of these, a tomb is where buried, where they bury people, and it is whitewashed to make it look pretty, make it look like it's something, but inside of it is dead people, right? It appears beautiful, but you have these rotting dead corpses and all of them.

That's what he's saying that they are. You guys have an outward appearance, but inside you are dead. Even so, ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. So he's just ripping these guys a nail. He's like, you guys are the worst. He says, ye are of your father the devil, and the lust of your father ye will do. So again, he's calling them children of hell, right? He is engaging and identifying who they are. This is another example of where people, politicians today, Those that are saying that we need to be peacemakers would say that Jesus needs to be more Christ-like because he's calling them names. He's not giving the Pharisees the benefit of the doubt. He's not allowing them to have their own views and engage in civil discussion. No, he's calling it out. You guys are who you are, and people need to know it so they don't listen to you. Because we're not going to give you equal time. Now, Paul, seeing what the Savior said, he is the example. He in the situation with another apostle. So a friend follows the Savior's example of calling out improper behavior and not just letting it stand. I'm going to read this whole chapter. But I think the background and the result is important for us to get this principle. So bear with me. It says, Then 14 years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas and took Titus with me also. So took these apostles.

And I went up by revelation and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run or had run in vain. had to be done by revelation sent you know went privately to certain groups of people but neither titus who was with me being a greek was compelled to be circumcised and that because of false brethren unawares brought in who came in privily to spy out So he's referencing, you know, we've got Titus, who was not born a Jew, and so he was not circumcised at birth. And so when he became a Christian, you have what Paul here calls false brethren. So he's calling these guys out who are members of the church and saying that they are not true. brethren because they are requiring him to do something that um saying that god no longer requires to whom we gave place by subjection no not for an hour that the truth of the gospel might continue with you but of these who seemed to be somewhat whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me god accepteth no man's person for they who seem to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me but counterwise when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, received the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen, And they under the circumcision. And so he wasn't saying to leave those that were circumcised and don't preach to them. But, you know, we have two different circumstances. And so two different scenarios where we have Peter who is teaching, you know, those that were under the original law that they continue to obey that. But those that were not born under that had a different call and commission. Only they that we should remember the poor, the same which I was forwarded to. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed. So you have one apostle coming to another apostle. You have Paul coming to Peter and withstood him publicly in front of everyone because he was to be blamed for requiring a group of people to do something that they were not required to do. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles. But when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all. So he's not like, hey, I'm going to correct Peter in private. We're going to just handle this amongst ourselves. He's like publicly before everyone, if thou being a Jew, live a step in the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews, why compel us now the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law.

For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are also found sinners. Is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ. Nevertheless, I live, yet not I. But Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. So this again would be another example. Why would he bring this up? Why would he make it a public scene? Why would he call out a fellow brother? on this idea that Paul felt so strongly about, following that same example. So the first thing is Paul acts with purpose, right? He doesn't react. He responds. He's not another emotional domino that caves into pressure of just going along to get along. Paul apparently has a high tolerance for the pain and discomfort of others. Can you just imagine how that would be for... It would be difficult for me, I know, that I would be of the mindset of, hey, let's just talk about this off to the side. But he's like, you know, this was done in public, and so it has to be taken care of in public. Number two, Paul takes a stand, and he does so publicly. Peter's error was in public, and so Paul's correction is public. In taking the stand, Paul's primary goal is to bring clarity. to bring beneath the fear of hypocrisy and pressure in order to reveal the fundamental issues for all to see. In other words, Paul is willing to talk about the elephant in the room.

No obfuscation, no clouding the issue, clear and direct speech that cuts to the heart of the matter. It's just like, hey, this is the way it is, let's get to it, and let's address this, and let's get over it. Because as we know, if we don't, what's going to happen? We just allow this to fester. What is the result of letting these things fester? What this means is that we should look for opportunities to move from submerged conflict to open conflict. So we don't want to be people that are passive aggressive. Submerged or open, there is conflict. And submerged conflict doesn't do any good. We need to bring it out in the open, right? Submerged conflict is frequently waged. by subtle emotional and reputational pressure. So that is really something that is what the adversary would do to want to pressure people to act in a way. They just do a whisper campaign to try and put pressure to people to oppose someone. But what we see the example of Christ and Paul is to help me open, right? Instead of seeking to persuade with arguments about what is true and good and wise. Submerge conflict brings pressure to conform based on the feelings of an agreed group. And so, you know, you have these examples of individuals that you want to look good to this group of people.

And so you don't bring these things out because if you bring it out publicly, you'll have an open conflict where people can discuss ideas. But if you do it subversively, then you can just, you know, go after certain people that. you know are in agreement with you and try to do the whisper campaign that way, to try and build subversion that way, which caused the problem. The shift to open conflict involves a candid and frank discussion of the underlying principles in play. So the third thing that, you know, in confronting Peter publicly, Paul is risking escalation, but it's worth it, right? This could cause problems. This could cause a rift. What if he doesn't do it? What he says is a bigger problem if he doesn't act than if he brings it out in the open so the conflict and confusion it's already there nothing is gained by papering over it by muttering peace peace when there's no peace it's already it already existed because you have these two individuals doing two different things and they were both in leadership and so what what good does it do you to ignore the elephant in the room the court The corollary of taking responsibility for one's actions is refusing to take blame for the reactions of others. So we don't want to not do the right thing because we're afraid of what others might do. We should not be afraid of man. We are only to be afraid of God. So being afraid of taking the blame for how others react to what you do is the same thing as not taking responsibility for your own actions. So the optical illusion at Antioch would be that Paul caused the conflict with Peter.

Now, why would you say that Paul, why would somebody say that Paul was the cause of the conflict? Because he was the one that brought it out. Maybe it was under the surface. It wasn't seen maybe by everyone. And so he was the one that showed everyone that this conflict existed. And so, especially in today's world, if you bring out that, hey, so-and-so is a member of Skull and Bones. These people are Satan worshippers and they are seeking to destroy the agency of man. That conflict existed. These people are already engaged in this behavior. Me exposing it isn't causing contention. It's bringing it to the people's awareness, right? The truth is that Paul simply revealed the conflict and tensions that were already present. Paul was not causing contention. He was revealing the contention that already existed. And so Peter is the one that was condemned because he was the one doing the wrong thing in that example. And so when we call out people for doing wickedness, we should not be condemned for calling out the conflict that exists. Them engaging in evil is what needs to be condemned. Now we look at, so the fourth thing is Paul speaks differently to different groups, right? He models both clarity and patience in his confrontation.

He condemns committed heretics like the troublers in Galatia, calling them false brethren and urging them to even castrate themselves because of the evil that they were doing. But he also, in other examples, he helped and he facilitated the circumcision of someone else. And so dealing with people where they are, as opposed to, if we're going to cover it in just a second. and not just condemning someone depending on where they're at. So it's important for us to understand that. So they stood together for truth, right? Christ and Paul are two examples of a willingness to reveal the conflict that's already there. They are not creating contention. What Jesus did to the Pharisees, calling them children of hell, was not contentious. He was revealing the contention that was already there. When he threw over the money changers and whipped them, he was not being contentious. He was revealing the contention that was already there. He showed mercy to those who act without ignorance, though. So that's the difference is being a judge, right? We have to judge those that are acting ignorantly versus those that are acting knowingly and then act accordingly. And then be unafraid to call out false brethren and children of hell. And also, Paul didn't accuse Peter of being a false brother. He didn't accuse Peter of being a child of hell either. But he also was not afraid to call out what was wrong.

And so even if they are not false brethren, if they are not conspirators, if somebody is doing wrong, it is our duty, it is our loving duty to help them see the error of their ways. to bring them into line with what is expected of them. So now what's the difference? So who are you addressing? I kind of just got into that a little bit. But if we look at these two different scenarios where individuals, I'm going to show you two different scenarios where individuals are doing the same exact thing, but one is wrong and one is righteous. And that might seem confusing and contradictory, I would say maybe to the spiritually ignorant or immature, but I think it's very clear when we see it. Can you imagine just a parent, a child does something wrong and you're just screaming at them and you're calling them a child of hell. What is that going to do? Is that going to help the child? Is that going to fix the situation? Of course not. But in this situation where you have this man being arrested for simply seeing him in a parking lot, Calling those arresting him children of hell is a perfectly reasonable response to their behavior. Same exact behavior by the letter, but completely different scenarios. One being wicked, one being righteous. Again, what's the difference? We call out a true friend, not a false brother.

We look at the Doctrine and Covenants section 121. The Lord says, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy. So like an example of a child, or it doesn't have to be just a child, but if you have somebody that is hopefully a friend or an associate that is not wicked, they are just ignorant, and you call them out of their ignorance, if you were to scream at them and to just leave at that, They would esteem you to be their enemy. That would not be helpful and that would be inappropriate. That would be contentious. But at the same time, if you leave them alone in their wickedness, that is equally bad. And so it is important to reprove even friends, but then follow that up if they are friends. You judge them to be a friend and not an enemy. You follow that chastisement with an increase of love. So you can bring them back into the path, back to the Savior. So again, what's the difference? Is it frivolous? Go back to the scripture that conspirators will use to try and silence people. Well, what does it really mean? Avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain.

So here, the contention is with foolish things, right? Things that are frivolous. things that don't matter, and we bring those things up as a point of contention, right? You have those, you know, the guy that lives in his mom's basement, and Independence Day is July 3rd, not July 4th. Do you even know anything? Just the idea of the date of July 3rd or July 4th is inconsequential to the greater point. And to attack someone because they maybe got the date exactly just a little bit off and you're going to make a big deal about it, that is addressing a foolish question and is unprofitable and vain to make a big deal about something so frivolous. Now, if you want to, you know, just bring along and educate someone about, you know, the truth, it doesn't say that you don't educate them about the truth. It's just, you know, you don't mock them for not knowing the exact date of when the Declaration of Independence was signed. We, you know, it just doesn't help. It is foolish. Okay. So, but we do have a heavenly mandate in these things. In Ephesians, we read, and have no fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light, for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. So we see here we have a duty to expose, to shed light on works of darkness, shed light on things that are evil, shed light on people that are evil. That is a heavenly mandate that is not contentious in the evil way. And Timothy, them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear. So when you're rebuking someone before all, you're not causing contention. You're helping others to avoid the sin that these other people are involved in. In C.123, we see that therefore we should waste and wear out our lives and bring them to life. all the hidden things of darkness wherein we know them. So that's not just a light thing.

That is something that is heavily engaged in over and over and over again to shed light on evil. It means you have to judge the evil and you have to confront that evil. And then in Ether, Koronai says, you Gentiles, last days, people in our day, it is wisdom in God that these things, these conspiracies should be shown unto you. that thereby ye may repent of your sins, your sin of allowing these murderous combinations to get above you, and even the work of destruction come upon you, even the justice of the eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction, if ye shall allow these things to be. So not only are we to call them out, but we are to stop them from happening. And so that is, how can you do that if... Calling out evil is contentious. How can you do that if stopping evil is contentious and evil and something that we're not supposed to do? So obviously calling out evil, calling out wrongdoing and stopping evil and wrongdoing is not contentious, is not evil. Otherwise, we could not follow the heavenly mandate. So if calling out evil is contentious and evil, how can we obey these commandments? We need to remember to speak boldly on these weighty matters. And don't fall for the lies meant to silence you.

Know these principles so that you can make sure that you're inoculated and inoculate others against them and so that we can stand united with as many true brethren as possible in defense of righteousness against those that are trying to silence us in calling out the wickedness and the evil in the world under the guise of avoiding contention. I'm just trying to figure out how to stop share. Okay. So we've got a few more minutes before our time is up. So I wanted to leave up to open to some comments or questions from anybody that's come on tonight. Any thoughts? Anybody else wants to share with us? I do want to say something. Okay, go ahead. I have been in that position where it's a super contentious thing there. There have been public officials that have been doing the wrong thing. And I really didn't have any problems telling them they were doing the wrong thing because they were lying to the public. And so I figured that I needed to come back at them in public. And you could feel it in the room. And I did it repeatedly, actually. There was a certain political person doing a lot of things wrong in our county. And I would just go on purpose to call him out. And it got to be a thing. And I found that people were appreciative that somebody would say it. And it did seem contentious, but it wasn't for me because I was just saying what was true. And they've done this and this is incorrect. And this is what the law says or whatever.

And just he would get upset. Like there was some, but it was recorded meeting. And it ended up being like, I couldn't even go any place. that people wouldn't say, saw the meeting. Good job. And I realized, and then I didn't like to do it at all. But I realized other people were counting on me to say something as long as this situation was happening. It mattered what I did. And still, I get a lot of comment back about these things. But I realized I wasn't contentious at all. I didn't go there to say, you dirty dog. I went to say, this is what's right and this is what you're doing. So people, we can't let this happen. So I just want to put that out there that it's not contentious to say the truth. And there are people watching and they gain strength from what you say. And there were other people able to stand up because they knew I had their back. Yep. Absolutely. Thank you, Pam. And even if you did say that, you know, Jesus called them children of hell. I think that could have been said, but not on the recording. There you go. Mark, you have your hand up. Yes, I have a few points here I'm going to go quickly through. Mostly, I think it's to expand on what you've been presenting. It's a very important subject. One of the definitions of contentious, some of the definitions can be godly, and some are not godly. And you're pointing out some of the ungodliness of it and being petty, arguing. But one of the definitions is just apt to contend. If you're asserting something, that's considered contentious in some of the definitions. The big point is, some of the definition is debating, being argumentative, debating. Debating is a tool that's used, among so many other tools, to arrive at truth. And part of that arriving at truth can be exposing evil.

Just to jump back a little bit to Paul and Peter's disagreement. Disagreement is in itself per se, it is not evil in any way. It's how you disagree and over what you disagree. It's mainly over how in a true mature debate, a person has the opportunity to present their assertions, their arguments. The other person has the opportunity to rebuttal. Then that person that gave the original assertion can rebut that. They usually go back two or three times so that the case can be made. And from that kind of debate, truth can be arrived at. And part of that truth is to expose evil and expose godliness. One more important point I wanted to make is, let me look at this definition here one second. So in North Webster's 1828 Dictionary, one of the definitions, it's a fourth one, he says of content, contention, which is the contentious is derived from, is eagerness, zeal, ardor, vienance, excuse me, vienance of endeavor. And this is the end worthy of utmost contention to obtain. So acting contentious depends upon whether it's evil or not. So the end of the act may not be evil. And this leads me to the last major point I want to make here. Yeah, real quick, so make sure we get everybody in that wants to before we end. Scripture, Revelations 3. I assume everybody or at least most of us are familiar with it.

Chapter 3. 15 and 16, it reads, and this is from John, the inspired word of God. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other. So because you were lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I'm about to spit you out of my mouth. And that could possibly mean you will not be saved to damnation. That's debatable. But what he's saying here is you need to be contentious in certain ways according to some of the definition of contentiousness. Thank you, Mark. Who else has a comment or question? I'd love to hear from as many of you as we can before we finish up. I think if I do correct anyone, if I haven't prayed for that correction to occur, then I've left out a lot of power in getting that change to happen. Yeah, seeking the Lord's will on that situation is important. Sometimes it's good to sit on things to make sure you're acting in an appropriate manner, for sure. Yeah, and I've made huge change happen through prayer. I mean, like, beyond what anybody would even believe. But I collected the evidence. And prayer did it. That's awesome. I'm always afraid to contend with people. One of the reasons is they might not have the information or the smarts to understand that they're saying things that they don't know.

Lots of people take the attitude that they know everything, and so when you try to discuss things with them, they have the attitude that you're wrong just because you're questioning them, even though you might be discussing a step where they're concerned with an outcome. It's really hard to argue with people and get to the point where you say, well, you're just ignorant. I called one of my sons ignorant, and then I made a bet with him that if he could find the standard in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, if he could find the word democracy in them, I'd give him $100. He had to pay me 50 for every time I said Republic. That gets me. Being very kind, you could have bid him a million dollars. I want to admit how important right there in the beginning what you said, Alan, was referring, I think, to a principle that we also need to understand is not casting our pearls before swine. And that takes judgment. We have to know who is swine to not cast pearls before.

All you have to do is talk to some people. you know who the swine is. Ben and Alan, I was going to make that same point you were just making, Ben, but it's also important, most of the time when I've debated, you know, thousands and thousands of times with people, others are listening. So it's one thing to not cast your pearl before swine, but if you have people that are not swine around you... your argument often needs to be defended because you're standing for something godly. And if you walk away from that argument, they may be led to believe, well, there is no argument defending the godly position you're taking. So often I'm in groups of 10, 25, even a couple people. overhearing the debate or on the radio. Many times it was extremely important to me to try to argue the point, even if I'm talking to somebody that I don't think there's a chance, excuse the phrase, a chance in hell they're going to change their position. I'm doing it for the other people listening.

So keep that in mind when you want to give up a debate. Who else is listening? Not just the person you're debating with. Thank you. Alan from Canada, I'll give you the last. commenter and then i'm really glad i made it for this i made a special effort when you uh gave kind of a preview of the topic um i've seen many cases in public meetings where somebody had the courage to say something that might be a little uncomfortable or call out something that wasn't quite right and it it brings courage to other people that that know that something is right and needs to be changed. And it's amazing how often you'll see people rally to the cause. If you just have somebody who calls out something that's wrong or evil or something like that, it really is heartening to see that play out in front of you in a situation. So it's not just the case of loving the people that... your rebuking or calling out, but it also is showing love for your colleagues or your compatriots so that they feel courage in bearing witness of truth. Yep. Absolutely. Thank you, Alan. That's a great final comment. Let's have our closing prayer.

Rod, I don't know if you're available to unmute. Would you be willing to give us our closing prayer? Yep, I can do that. Thank you. Heavenly Father, we're grateful for the training that we've had tonight, things we've been able to learn about and discuss. We pray that we may have a spirit with us in all that we do. Please help us to recognize any ways that we might be deceived in our own lives and to replace those things with truth and help us have the courage to do the same for others around us and to help to lead others to the truths that we discover in our own lives. We're grateful for the scriptures. the examples of all those who have gone before us. We pray that we may be filled with thy spirit and that the way may be opened before us to accomplish good things in thy name. And we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.