Can a Christian contend for the faith without cultivating a spirit of contention? That, my friends, is the million-dollar question behind an old Mormon Coffee post that still deserves a careful answer. If defending a belief and stirring people to anger mean exactly the same thing, then the objection has force. But if scripture distinguishes those activities, we ought to respect that distinction before announcing a contradiction.
Personally, I believe this is where Sharon Lindbloom’s argument misses the mark. Her January 2006 article places Jude’s call to defend the faith beside the Book of Mormon’s condemnation of contention and treats the shared vocabulary as evidence of inconsistency. Yet Jude 3 and 3 Nephi 11:29–30 need to be read in their respective contexts. The question is whether they address the same conduct in the same sense, not whether an English word appears in both.
Let us examine the argument in the order Lindbloom presents it: the article about Wilford Woodruff, the scriptural comparison, Russell M. Nelson’s conference address, the Contender Ministries correspondence, her personal experiences, and finally the dictionary definition. I am not asking readers to accept the Restoration before considering this response. I am asking that Latter-day Saint sources receive the same contextual reading that any Christian would want applied to his or her own beliefs.
What Was Wilford Woodruff Contending For?
Lindbloom’s objection begins with Aaron L. West’s “Wilford Woodruff: Contending for the Faith,” published in the January 2006 Ensign. West introduces Woodruff as a man whose search for the apostolic gospel shaped his acceptance of the Restoration and his subsequent discipleship. The article’s introductory line states its purpose plainly:
“While contending for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, President Woodruff taught principles relevant for our lives today.”2
West begins with Gordon B. Hinckley’s counsel to cultivate a living testimony of the Restoration, then invites readers to consider that Restoration through Woodruff’s experience. His account describes a young man who attended religious meetings, questioned ministers about the gifts and teachings of the New Testament church, and sought something more than an assurance that those things belonged to a vanished age. According to West, Woodruff recognized the message he had been seeking when he heard Latter-day Saint missionaries and was baptized and confirmed on December 31, 1833.
The article then connects Woodruff’s use of Jude 3 with his determination to find and embrace the truth. It proceeds through teachings concerning the Restoration, Christ’s Atonement, Joseph Smith, priesthood, obedience, the Holy Ghost, family responsibilities, missionary service, and temple and family history work. Its closing exhortation concerns the kind of faithful men and women the Saints should become. Taken together, these themes establish the devotional setting of the phrase “contending for the faith”; the article is commending conviction and covenantal faithfulness.
A reader may dispute Woodruff’s understanding of apostasy or reject his conclusion that the gospel required restoration. Those are substantial theological disagreements, and they deserve substantial answers. But disagreeing with the object of Woodruff’s conviction does not demonstrate that the act of defending it violates a prohibition against angry contention. Those are separate claims, and Lindbloom’s argument needs to establish the connection rather than assume it.
Does Jude 3 Contradict 3 Nephi 11:29?
Lindbloom explains her surprise by contrasting Christian defense of the faith with what she understands to be the Latter-day Saint prohibition. She writes:
“My surprise comes from the idea promoted within the article that ‘contending’ is a good thing.”
After affirming Jude’s exhortation, she continues:
“But Mormonism typically shuns contention as being from the devil himself.”3
There is a fair question underneath that comparison. Religious communities should explain how they distinguish legitimate defense from sinful controversy, especially if members sometimes invoke “contention” to avoid uncomfortable questions. A prohibition applied selectively could become a double standard: our challenges count as testimony, while another person’s challenges count as hostility. Latter-day Saints ought to take that possibility seriously and examine their own conduct.
But demonstrating that such a double standard can occur is different from demonstrating a contradiction between these texts. Lindbloom cites the opening portion of 3 Nephi 11:29, which condemns the spirit of contention, without including the verse’s description of hearts being stirred to anger. That omission leaves the reader without language directly relevant to the distinction she is challenging. Let us restore the surrounding passage and see what the argument can actually bear.
Read the Whole Passage: 3 Nephi 11:18–41
In 3 Nephi 11:18–27, the risen Christ calls Nephi and others forward, grants them authority to baptize, and explains how baptism is to be performed. The setting is concrete. Christ establishes an authorized practice and directs the people away from disputes over that practice. Verse 28 broadens the instruction to disputes concerning the points of His doctrine and explicitly refers to disputations that had already occurred among them.4
Verses 29–30 then identify the spirit and conduct being condemned: Satan stirs people to contend with anger, and Christ rejects the stirring of hearts against one another in anger. We do not have to insert that qualification into the passage to rescue it. It is already there. An interpretation that treats the text as a ban on every reasoned disagreement must explain why this repeated description of anger should carry so little interpretive weight.
Notice also what Christ does next. In verses 31–41, He declares His doctrine: repentance, belief in Him, baptism, the witness of the Holy Ghost, childlike humility, and building upon His rock. He also warns against establishing something else as His doctrine and commands the people to proclaim His words. The chapter therefore combines a rejection of contention with authoritative doctrinal correction and a commission to teach.
That combination matters. Christ does not resolve the problem by making truth optional or forbidding anyone to identify an error. He establishes what His disciples are to believe, practice, and proclaim while rejecting the spirit that turns doctrinal differences into angry antagonism. My reading is that this permits principled defense while condemning the hostile disposition and divisive disputation described in the passage. It is an interpretation grounded in the chapter’s movement, not merely an appeal to one convenient phrase.
Jude Calls for Faithfulness Amid Corruption
Now let us give Jude the same attention. Jude 3–4 urges believers to defend the received faith because ungodly people have entered their community and are corrupting its life and teaching. The threat is already within the fellowship. Consequently, the answer cannot rest on a rigid distinction in which Jude concerns only outsiders while 3 Nephi concerns only insiders.5
The stronger distinction concerns the object and character of the struggle. Jude calls for fidelity to the apostolic faith; 3 Nephi rejects anger-driven contention while affirming Christ’s doctrine. Jude himself places restraint beside confrontation in verse 9 and closes with instructions concerning faith, prayer, divine love, and compassion in verses 20–23. His severe warnings do not turn the command to defend the faith into unrestricted permission for personal abuse.
That is why I do not accept the proposed contradiction. A believer can oppose corrupt teaching without cultivating hatred toward the person who teaches it. A disciple can correct an error without treating humiliation as the goal. Both obligations can operate within the same religious community and in conversations across religious boundaries. Neither text supplies an exemption from Christian conduct when the other person happens to belong to a different church.
Did Russell M. Nelson Define Every Disagreement as Contention?
Lindbloom anticipates the distinction between argument and anger, then appeals to Russell M. Nelson’s “The Canker of Contention.” Delivered during the Sunday afternoon session of general conference on April 2, 1989, and printed in the May Ensign, this address becomes an important part of her case. She writes:
“Some people might say that contention is argument accompanied by anger. However, LDS Apostle Russell M. Nelson wrote an article for the Ensign titled The Canker of Contention (May 1989) in which he made the claim that conflicting ideas are ‘the beginning of contention.’ This really sums up the usual Mormon-on-the-street understanding of the issue.”6
Does it really establish that general understanding? Nelson’s address treats contention as a spiritual and relational danger, connects it with pride, and invokes 3 Nephi 11:29–30. His reference to conflicting ideas occurs within his account of the premortal rebellion, where Lucifer seeks to overthrow God’s plan and human agency. It describes that conflict; it does not by itself define every disagreement between human beings.7
Fairness also requires acknowledging the address’s strong warnings about dissent, attacks on Church leaders, and controversy over doctrine. Some readers may find those warnings sweeping or worry about their application to sincere questioning. That is a legitimate issue to discuss. A careful response should not reduce the entire address to a lesson about polite manners.
Nevertheless, Nelson expressly allows believers to “respectfully disagree without being disagreeable.” His practical counsel joins compassion, restraint in speech and writing, humility, and love of God and neighbor. Whatever questions remain about the boundaries of dissent, the address cannot accurately be summarized as an absolute prohibition on disagreement.8
Here is the interpretive problem with Lindbloom’s use of that source. She takes a phrase from a particular theological narrative and uses it to support a universal rule that another part of the same address qualifies. I regard that as selective quotation with a misleading effect. The criticism concerns how the quotation functions in her argument; it does not require speculation about whether she intended to mislead anyone.
And it still does not establish what the ordinary member generally believes. A claim about a sermon’s meaning and a claim about widespread popular understanding require different kinds of evidence. Even a sound interpretation of Nelson’s words would not, by itself, demonstrate how most Latter-day Saints understand or apply them.
The Missing Contender Ministries Correspondence
Lindbloom next introduces an example from correspondence once hosted by Contender Ministries. According to her account, a Latter-day Saint wrote on November 16, 2005:
“Argument, no matter what kind, is a form of contention.”9
There is an evidentiary limitation here that should be stated plainly. The link preserved in the MRM article points to a page whose filename is 20051115soc.php. At the time of this revision, following that link leads to unrelated material on the domain rather than the correspondence. The full exchange has not been recovered for this article, so Lindbloom’s report remains the source for the statement and the November 16 date.
Without the original exchange, we cannot examine what prompted the statement, what the writer meant by “argument,” or how Contender Ministries answered. Perhaps the writer meant any reasoned defense of a proposition. Perhaps the writer was using “argument” in the everyday sense of a quarrel. The surviving sentence sounds sweeping, and it is fair to acknowledge that, but the missing context limits how confidently we can interpret the exchange.
Even if we accept the quotation exactly as reported, it demonstrates at most that one unidentified correspondent expressed that view. It does not establish official Church doctrine, a representative understanding among members, or the meaning of 3 Nephi 11. There is no need to accuse Lindbloom of inventing the letter. There is equally no justification for treating an unavailable individual exchange as decisive evidence about an entire religious community.
Do Personal Encounters Establish What Most Latter-day Saints Believe?
Lindbloom then moves from the correspondence to her own experience. She reports that members sometimes bear testimony or end a discussion after perceiving contention, and she interprets these responses as occurring when the member feels disadvantaged. She also recalls a temple open-house host who, in her account, equated contention with someone disagreeing with him.10
Let me be clear: those encounters may have happened substantially as she describes them. Some Latter-day Saints may confuse discomfort with contention, and some may avoid difficult questions by appealing to the spiritual tone of a conversation. If a member regards every disagreement as morally suspect, that member’s approach deserves correction. Defending the faith should never require pretending that every defender handles criticism wisely.
The difficulty begins when personal experience is made to carry a claim about “most Mormons.” The post offers no representative research or basis for estimating how common these reactions are across the membership. That makes the conclusion insufficiently supported. It is a hasty generalization if the reader is expected to move from the reported encounters to a general rule about Latter-day Saints.
We should also distinguish an observed action from an inferred motive. Ending a discussion is observable; feeling intellectually defeated is an interpretation. A person might disengage because an objection is difficult, but also because the exchange has become repetitive, antagonistic, exhausting, or unproductive. Without the conversations themselves, neither Lindbloom nor I can settle that question merely by describing who stopped talking first.
Fairness Must Work in Both Directions
Consider a hypothetical exchange in which a critic moves from Joseph Smith to the Book of Abraham, then to plural marriage, DNA, temples, and the First Vision before allowing time to examine any answer. The sheer volume of objections can prevent meaningful discussion. That is a problem with the method of that particular conversation; it would not justify announcing that Evangelical Christians generally engage in bad faith. The same restraint should govern claims about Latter-day Saints.
I am not suggesting that Lindbloom used that approach in the encounters she recounts. The point is that conversational breakdown has more than one possible explanation, and standards of fairness should remain consistent. A questioner should examine tone, persistence, and assumptions; a respondent should examine whether “contention” has become a convenient label for a question he or she would rather not answer.
No person owes another person indefinite participation in a theological debate. At the same time, a testimony does not automatically answer a historical objection, and ending a conversation does not make the objection disappear. We can respect a person’s decision to disengage while continuing to examine the argument on its merits. That approach preserves both human dignity and intellectual accountability.
When a Dictionary Definition Becomes an Equivocation
Lindbloom closes by appealing to a dictionary definition of contend as asserting a position in an argument. From there, she reasons that any disagreement, however friendly, would be contentious and therefore condemned by Mormonism.11 At first glance, the reasoning may appear straightforward. But its conclusion depends on carrying one meaning of a word into a setting where that meaning has not been established.
A person can contend for a championship, contend that a proposition is true, or become involved in bitter contention with a neighbor. Those expressions share vocabulary without necessarily describing the same behavior or moral condition. A dictionary’s recognition of one legitimate use does not establish that every related use must have an identical meaning. Context determines which sense is operating.
This is the equivocation at the center of the argument. Lindbloom moves from contend as maintaining a position to contention as the conduct condemned in 3 Nephi, then treats them as interchangeable. But the scriptural passage describes anger stirred against others, and the Nelson address she cites explicitly recognizes respectful disagreement. Her conclusion needs the very equivalence those sources give us reason to question.
Calling the problem an equivocation is more useful than simply declaring victory through a fallacy label. The reason the inference fails is identifiable: a neutral act of asserting a proposition has been assigned the moral character of hostile contention without sufficient textual support. That is also why the objection creates a false choice between defending the faith and obeying Christ’s warning. The texts allow a third possibility—defending the faith in a manner consistent with discipleship.
Latter-day Saint Apologetics and the Responsibility to Defend Truth
The historical setting supplies further context. By January 2006, FAIR, then known as the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, had existed since 1997. FARMS, the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, also had a substantial scholarly history. For that period, those are appropriate institutional references; the Maxwell Institute name belongs to a later development in March 2006.12
The existence of apologetic organizations does not prove that every argument they publish is correct or that every contributor avoids contention. Nor should independent apologetics be confused with an official declaration of Church doctrine. Their relevance here is narrower: reasoned responses to criticism were an established part of Latter-day Saint religious life when Lindbloom expressed surprise at the idea of defending the faith.
West’s article is even more directly relevant because it appears in the very Church publication under discussion. Its positive presentation of Woodruff’s conviction should prompt us to ask how its language fits the scriptural prohibition. It should not be dismissed as an inconsistency before considering whether the publication distinguishes faithful advocacy from contentious behavior. The contextual reading offered here accounts for both.
Persuasion, Meekness, and Conviction Belong Together
That reading also fits Doctrine and Covenants 121:41–43. In its teaching about priesthood influence, the passage emphasizes persuasion, patience, gentleness, meekness, sincere love, kindness, and knowledge. It also allows reproof under the direction of the Holy Ghost while requiring increased love afterward. Correction and charity belong within the same moral framework.13
The New Testament likewise brings defense and restraint together. First Peter 3:15–16 calls believers to give an answer for their hope with meekness, reverence, and a good conscience. Second Timothy 2:23–26 rejects quarrels while instructing the Lord’s servant to teach and correct opponents gently. If teaching an opponent necessarily meant sinful contention, that instruction would defeat itself.14
These passages do not require theological indifference. They require discipline in the exercise of conviction. I can believe a criticism is mistaken, demonstrate why I think it is mistaken, and ask searching questions about its assumptions. What I cannot do is assume that defending a true proposition makes every tactic I use righteous. That obligation applies to Latter-day Saint apologists and their critics alike.
To Contend or Not to Contend? Read the Context
After following Lindbloom’s argument through its sources, I do not find the contradiction she proposes. Jude’s call to preserve the faith and 3 Nephi’s rejection of angry contention address distinguishable conduct. Nelson’s address permits respectful disagreement. The unavailable correspondence cannot bear a general claim about Church teaching, and personal anecdotes do not establish how most members understand a doctrine. The final dictionary argument then collapses meanings that the relevant contexts distinguish.
That conclusion leaves room for legitimate criticism of Latter-day Saint behavior. Members should answer questions honestly, acknowledge gaps in their knowledge, and avoid using spiritual language to dismiss every challenge. Apologists should correct their own errors and quote opponents fairly. We do not strengthen the Restoration’s case by demanding standards from critics that we refuse to apply to ourselves.
But Latter-day Saints are not required to become theological pushovers in order to avoid contention. We can examine competing interpretations, defend what we believe, and correct claims that fail to account for the evidence. The responsibility is to do that work with enough humility to distinguish fidelity to Christ from the desire to win at another person’s expense.
So, yes, contend for the faith. Read the whole passage, follow the source, and test the reasoning. Then bring the same care to the person across the conversation. If this discussion has challenged your understanding, consider reading Jude and 3 Nephi 11 together and sharing which parts of their counsel should shape the way Christians disagree.
Annotated Endnotes
Notes follow Chicago notes-and-bibliography conventions, using full citations at first reference and shortened citations afterward. Annotations explain the relevance or limits of the evidence. Biblical quotations and references use the King James Version unless a quotation from another author indicates otherwise; scriptural passages are cited by canonical divisions rather than page numbers.
- Sharon Lindbloom, “To Contend or Not to Contend…”, Mormon Coffee, January 6, 2006, preserved on the Mormonism Research Ministry website. Annotation: The current page supplies the author, title, date, and argument addressed here. “Original” identifies the source post, not a verified claim that it was the first entry ever published on the blog. ↩
- Aaron L. West, “Wilford Woodruff: Contending for the Faith,” Ensign, January 2006, 20–25. Annotation: The introductory line and the sections “Searching for the True Church,” “Contending for the Faith,” “Teachings of President Wilford Woodruff,” and “Words of Warning and Encouragement” establish the article’s devotional purpose. Woodruff’s experiences and baptism date are summarized here from West’s account. This response does not claim independent examination of every historical source cited by West. ↩
- Lindbloom, “To Contend or Not to Contend…”, paragraph beginning “My surprise comes.” Annotation: The two excerpts identify the perceived inconsistency. Lindbloom quotes the beginning of 3 Nephi 11:29, ending before its description of anger. Inner quotation marks have been adjusted to fit the surrounding quotation. ↩
- 3 Nephi 11:18–41, in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, online English edition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Annotation: Verses 18–27 concern baptismal authority and practice; verse 28 refers to previous doctrinal disputes; verses 29–30 connect contention with anger; verses 31–41 declare Christ’s doctrine and command its proclamation. The conclusion concerning legitimate defense is the author’s contextual interpretation of this sequence. ↩
- Jude 3–4, 9, 12, 20–23 (KJV). Annotation: Verses 4 and 12 place the corrupting persons within the community’s life. This rules out an exclusively external-threat reading. The treatment of restraint and compassion is a reading of Jude’s argument as a whole, without suggesting that his language is uniformly mild. ↩
- Lindbloom, “To Contend or Not to Contend…”, paragraph beginning “Some people might say.” Annotation: This paragraph links Nelson’s phrase to a claim about typical member understanding. Those are distinct propositions and require separate evaluation. ↩
- Russell M. Nelson, “The Canker of Contention,” Ensign, May 1989, sections “Creator of Contention,” “Origin of Contention,” “Leaders of the Church,” and “Divine Doctrine”; address delivered April 2, 1989. Annotation: The phrase about conflicting ideas appears in the premortal-rebellion discussion. The sections on Church leaders and doctrine contain the strong warnings about dissent acknowledged in the article. ↩
- Nelson, “Canker of Contention,” section “Steps to Supplant Contention.” Annotation: The statement permitting respectful disagreement is explicit. It rebuts an interpretation that categorically equates every disagreement with sinful contention, without settling every question about how the address’s counsel should be applied. ↩
- Unidentified correspondent to Contender Ministries, reportedly November 16, 2005, quoted in Lindbloom, “To Contend or Not to Contend…”, paragraph beginning “An online letter.” Annotation: This is an indirect citation. The original target preserved by MRM is
www.contenderministries.org/mail/20051115soc.php; checked October 1, 2026, it redirects to unrelated content rather than the letter. The date comes from Lindbloom, not an independently examined original. No claim is made that every possible archival copy has been ruled out. ↩ - Lindbloom, “To Contend or Not to Contend…”, paragraphs beginning “It’s been my experience” and “I once asked.” Annotation: These passages report the author’s recollections. The present response does not deny that the encounters occurred; it challenges the move from those accounts to a population-wide claim and the certainty assigned to another person’s motives. ↩
- Lindbloom, “To Contend or Not to Contend…”, final paragraph. Annotation: Lindbloom does not identify the dictionary, edition, or entry beyond the quoted definition. The critique addresses her inference from that definition; it does not attribute it to an unverified dictionary source. ↩
- FAIR, “About FAIR,” accessed October 1, 2026; Brigham Young University, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, “Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies,” accessed October 1, 2026; “Maxwell Institute Formed, Will House BYU Studies,” Ensign, January 2007. Annotation: These sources establish FAIR’s 1997 founding, FARMS’s earlier institutional history, and the March 2006 change from ISPART to the Maxwell Institute name. They provide historical context, not proof that any particular apologetic argument is sound or authoritative. ↩
- Doctrine and Covenants 121:41–43, online English edition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Annotation: The immediate subject is the proper exercise of priesthood influence. Applying its ethic of persuasion and love to apologetic engagement is the author’s application, not a claim that the passage was originally written as a debating manual. ↩
- 1 Peter 3:15–16; 2 Timothy 2:23–26 (KJV). Annotation: These passages pair readiness to answer and correct with meekness, patience, and rejection of quarrelling. They supply New Testament parallels to the distinction between faithful defense and contentious conduct. ↩
Faith & Reason | LDS Covenantal Apologetics is an independent platform and is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Interpretations expressed here are the author’s. Readers are encouraged to examine the linked sources and consult official Church publications for authoritative statements of Church teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment