Arrogance and Pride

[_charity]

Charity, do you even know your own religion? Yes, everyone will have the opportunity to accept Mormonism (the "gospel"), but those who do not will be consigned, forever, to a lower kingdom outside of God's and their loved ones' presence. In the end, it's accept Mormonism, or God will cast you out. Even some of those who do accept it in the afterlife, but who rejected it in the current life, will be punished forever by being sent to a lower kingdom (the "good and honorable men of the earth", or something like that referred to in D&C 132). NO alternative belief will be accepted in God's presence. My statement is accurate on its face.

Everyone will have the opportunity to accept the Gospel in full knowledge. If someone did not have that chance here, it will not be held against them on the other side. Those who have a witness of the Spirit here, and deny it, are the ones who will suffer the punishment of not being in God's presence. The idea that someone would be in God's presence while saying, "No, I don't believe in you" (the alternate belief you mentioned) is ludicrous.

A true believer is far more apt to commit human rights abuses than the skeptic--the former empowered by her conviction that God's on her side, the latter less cocksure and more appreciative of diversity.

The Book of Mormon indicates that the best ruler is a righteous monarch. But since we can't be sure a monarch will be righteous, the fall back position is elected rulers.

So you are a monarchist? Right . . . so kings historically have sterling records for respecting human rights? So really what you are advocating is a benevolent dictator (king)? And you think that such a system will respect human rights and civil liberties, as long as, one supposes, they are righteous Mormon?

Of course, I am a monarchist. Jesus is referred to as our King.

Now to the political stuff. You certainly have a gift for misreading what I said. In our earthly political systems the Book of Mormon specifically states that it is only if they are RIGHTEOUS monarchs. And right in that same passage it says you can't depend on mortal men to stay righteous, even if they were in the beginning. So it is better to have political systems where the electorate can change rulers.

You are naïve. We can only hope and do what we can to ensure that people like you never ascend to power.

People like me don't want power.

You a skeptic, bwaaahaaahaa!

You, my dear, are a gullible, naïve true believer.

Since you don't know how my thought processes work or what studying I have done, you just made an incredibly arrogant statemetn.


I’m not angry. I was for a period angry/bitter at having wasted four decades of my life in this quasi-cult.

So, even though you aren't now, you were. Point made. .

But I was more angry at myself for being suckered in and for not having the courage to investigate it more carefully. I was too naïve and trusting. I did visit RfM, for a bit, but haven’t been there for years now.

I don’t come here because I’m angry, I come here as a type of break from my work, and because I enjoy the social network. That said, there’s nothing wrong with anger, per se. Anger can be extremely constructive, and for most people, it is a phase, unlike, it appears, belief in superstitious claptrap is for true believers. All in all, I’d rather be angry than duped.

And many people, again notice I did not use an absolute, will not focus their anger inward, but look for a convenient external target. When you posted on RfM and said it was all your fault for being naïve and trusting, did you get lots of expressions of support? Or did you get more back saying it wasn't your fault. "They" deliberately deceived you

If you don’t believe all apostates are angry, why do you keep falling back on this stereotype? You use it like an economist uses rational choice—it’s the main tool of your trade.

It never ceases to amaze me. I say that SOME ex-mo's are angry. (Which you admit even you were for a while.) 14 ex-mo's chime in with "How dare you say I am angry." I reply to them, "I didn't say YOU were. I said there were ex-mo's who are. So why do you think I am talking to you i fyou aren't?" Sounds, frankly, that these people (the angry ex-mo's)realize they were/are angry, but they are in a state of denial.
[quote="charity wrote:

You're insight, Charity, is kiddie pool deep.

You don't consider all the data.[/quote]

Please, Charity, tell me precisely what data I haven’t considered. I don’t claim to know everything, I only claim to know to a high degree of probability that Mormonism is false. This doesn’t make by arrogant, it makes me a reasonable competent empiricist.

So those of you who depend on logic and present data to form these empricist decisions realize, don't you, that present data will be superceded and modified or eliminated in the future. Sooner or later.

It is no more arrogant than, say, all the Mormons who think that the Baptist Church is false. We all have our beliefs, and many of them state them forcefully. But the humble person is, ultimately, the one who, even in the privacy of their thoughts, is willing to reflect on her beliefs and subject them to scrutiny, to hold them at abeyance to a degree, to respect other people’s beliefs, and, critically, to not attempt to impose them on others, either now or in an imagined hereafter.

Sounds like what I do. I reflect, I subject my beliefs to scrutiny. There are some things I am holding in abeyance, as we speak. I don't impose anything on anyone.

Mormonism as a belief system, in addition to many of its devoted believers, fail every single one of these criteria.[

Wrong again. /quote]

[_charity]

Charity, do you even know your own religion? Yes, everyone will have the opportunity to accept Mormonism (the "gospel"), but those who do not will be consigned, forever, to a lower kingdom outside of God's and their loved ones' presence. In the end, it's accept Mormonism, or God will cast you out. Even some of those who do accept it in the afterlife, but who rejected it in the current life, will be punished forever by being sent to a lower kingdom (the "good and honorable men of the earth", or something like that referred to in D&C 132). NO alternative belief will be accepted in God's presence. My statement is accurate on its face.

Everyone will have the opportunity to accept the Gospel in full knowledge. If someone did not have that chance here, it will not be held against them on the other side. Those who have a witness of the Spirit here, and deny it, are the ones who will suffer the punishment of not being in God's presence. The idea that someone would be in God's presence while saying, "No, I don't believe in you" (the alternate belief you mentioned) is ludicrous.

A true believer is far more apt to commit human rights abuses than the skeptic--the former empowered by her conviction that God's on her side, the latter less cocksure and more appreciative of diversity.

The Book of Mormon indicates that the best ruler is a righteous monarch. But since we can't be sure a monarch will be righteous, the fall back position is elected rulers.

So you are a monarchist? Right . . . so kings historically have sterling records for respecting human rights? So really what you are advocating is a benevolent dictator (king)? And you think that such a system will respect human rights and civil liberties, as long as, one supposes, they are righteous Mormon?

Of course, I am a monarchist. Jesus is referred to as our King.

Now to the political stuff. You certainly have a gift for misreading what I said. In our earthly political systems the Book of Mormon specifically states that it is only if they are RIGHTEOUS monarchs. And right in that same passage it says you can't depend on mortal men to stay righteous, even if they were in the beginning. So it is better to have political systems where the electorate can change rulers.

You are naïve. We can only hope and do what we can to ensure that people like you never ascend to power.

People like me don't want power.

You a skeptic, bwaaahaaahaa!

You, my dear, are a gullible, naïve true believer.

Since you don't know how my thought processes work or what studying I have done, you just made an incredibly arrogant statemetn.


I’m not angry. I was for a period angry/bitter at having wasted four decades of my life in this quasi-cult.

So, even though you aren't now, you were. Point made. .

But I was more angry at myself for being suckered in and for not having the courage to investigate it more carefully. I was too naïve and trusting. I did visit RfM, for a bit, but haven’t been there for years now.

I don’t come here because I’m angry, I come here as a type of break from my work, and because I enjoy the social network. That said, there’s nothing wrong with anger, per se. Anger can be extremely constructive, and for most people, it is a phase, unlike, it appears, belief in superstitious claptrap is for true believers. All in all, I’d rather be angry than duped.

And many people, again notice I did not use an absolute, will not focus their anger inward, but look for a convenient external target. When you posted on RfM and said it was all your fault for being naïve and trusting, did you get lots of expressions of support? Or did you get more back saying it wasn't your fault. "They" deliberately deceived you

If you don’t believe all apostates are angry, why do you keep falling back on this stereotype? You use it like an economist uses rational choice—it’s the main tool of your trade.

It never ceases to amaze me. I say that SOME ex-mo's are angry. (Which you admit even you were for a while.) 14 ex-mo's chime in with "How dare you say I am angry." I reply to them, "I didn't say YOU were. I said there were ex-mo's who are. So why do you think I am talking to you i fyou aren't?" Sounds, frankly, that these people (the angry ex-mo's)realize they were/are angry, but they are in a state of denial.
[quote="charity wrote:

You're insight, Charity, is kiddie pool deep.

You don't consider all the data.[/quote]

Please, Charity, tell me precisely what data I haven’t considered. I don’t claim to know everything, I only claim to know to a high degree of probability that Mormonism is false. This doesn’t make by arrogant, it makes me a reasonable competent empiricist.

So those of you who depend on logic and present data to form these empricist decisions realize, don't you, that present data will be superceded and modified or eliminated in the future. Sooner or later.

It is no more arrogant than, say, all the Mormons who think that the Baptist Church is false. We all have our beliefs, and many of them state them forcefully. But the humble person is, ultimately, the one who, even in the privacy of their thoughts, is willing to reflect on her beliefs and subject them to scrutiny, to hold them at abeyance to a degree, to respect other people’s beliefs, and, critically, to not attempt to impose them on others, either now or in an imagined hereafter.

Sounds like what I do. I reflect, I subject my beliefs to scrutiny. There are some things I am holding in abeyance, as we speak. I don't impose anything on anyone.

Mormonism as a belief system, in addition to many of its devoted believers, fail every single one of these criteria.[

Wrong again. /quote]

[_Coggins7]

You said you were an active member. You should read "Preach My Gospel" as all members have been counseled to do. You would see you are dead wong on that one.

This is utter bunk. Harmony doesn't believe, to the best of my knowldege, as single major doctrine of the Church, support its leaders, or accept as anything but outright fabrication its accepted history

If Harmony is an active member, then she's active in a Chruch in which she has no faith, litttle doctrinal understnding, and, indeed, open hostility (except at church, where she apparantly plays let's pretend).

Now what does all this suggest?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Loren,

There are those who may think you do not reflect or exempify what is a good LDS either.

Maybe it is best not to judge a fellow believer?

Maybe Harmony's bishop is inspired and has received personal revelation that harmony is indeed a follower of Christ, a true disciple.

You never know!

:-)

~dancer~

[_beastie]

Actually, with my behaviorist leanings, I tend to observe defined behaviors. While pride and arrogance may be attitudes and thus internal and not observable, theree are definied behaviors that can be observed. Someone says, "you idiot" and that is a tally in the "insult" column. Someone says "I used to think like you before I got smart" and that goes in the "arrogance" column. Nothing subjective.

Charity, I'm not arguing that some exmormons aren't arrogant - of course they are, just like some believers are. What I am arguing is that you seem to believe that if someone displays arrogant traits, then they rejected LDS apologia and left the church due to that arrogance.

Someone could be the most arrogant individual in the world, and still have left the church not due to arrogance, but rather to having evaluated the defenses of apologists and finding them totally lacking. This is what you don't seem able to recognize.

On the other hand, a missionary shows up at your door, and if you assume that means the misisonary is asserting superiotiy and enlightenment and is there to tear down your faith, that is an irrational perception. The "abandon" idea is ludicrous. No one is asked to leave anything they have, but they are invited to join something they find more attractive.

LDS can be arrogant, too. But that does not relieve anyone else from the responsability to be rational.

Give me a break. A catholic convert to the Mormon church is NOT going to continue attending mass, attending confession, using the rosary. They ARE abandoning one belief system and practices in favor of Mormonism.

But that does not relieve anyone else from the responsability to be rational.

Well, we agree on that. So let me ask this:

Is it possible that an exmormon may have rational reasons for feeling angry after losing faith in the LDS church?

[_beastie]

One more quick thought before work -

This is apparently the sequence of events that Charity has constructed in terms of Kevin's loss of faith:

1 - Kevin engaged in apologia due to pride.
2 - Kevin was bested in an argument by Brent.
3 - Kevin's pride was hurt, his ego wounded.
4 - Kevin abandoned his faith to assuage his ego in order to get positive attention from apostates.

I think that this reasoning reveals more about Charity than it does about Kevin. Charity, can you consider that what occured was that when Kevin was bested in an argument by Brent, he realized that Brent had the better argument and realigned his beliefs accordingly?