Arrogance and Pride

[_Coggins7]

Why am I still bothering with you? I must feel like wasting time.

It has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. If you believe you were wrong about a most cherished belief, the belief around which you constructed your entire life - that process is humbling.

Get it? You were wrong about something you once believed passionately, and gave your entire life to. You are accepting you were wrong.

That isn't pride.

It has been you, Joan of Snark, who has accused, in essence, all faithful LDS and all defenders of the Church to be full of hubris, pride, and arrogance (as over against your humble, deeply intellectual, and enlightened self) because of no other reason than that they claim to have knowledge you do not. You ascribe to others, many of which are humble followers of Christ, your own hubristic bigotry against them.

This is called projection.

I'll bet you really expect me to accept this pose, don't you?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

beastie: do you think anyone ever left the LDS Church due to an issue with being too prideful?

Do you really think she doesn't?

If she answers yes, then her point still stands and is not diminished in any way. If she says no, then while we disagree with her, it only speaks to her credibiilty, not her point.

My point was it seems as though the issue is very black and white for the OP. Either you leave because of pride or not. Some apologists and critics might give this impression when discussing the issues, and I think it is short-sighted.

[_harmony]

What is, by the way, coming from a Temple recommend holding, active Mormon, all this nonesense about "showing" this and that to be the case?

This implies an entire world view utterly and completely at odds with the Gospel and Church teachings.

Have you asked the GA's to remove your name from Church records yet Harmony (and I again make a huge leap here, assuming you were ever LDS at all)?

*yawn*

Boring, Loran. You can do better. C'mon!

I don't have to assume a Satan in order to pass the TRI, Loran. Surely you know this. Unless, of course, you haven't been in to see your bishop lately.

[_harmony]

It has been you, Joan of Snark, who has accused, in essence, all faithful LDS and all defenders of the Church to be full of hubris, pride, and arrogance (as over against your humble, deeply intellectual, and enlightened self) because of no other reason than that they claim to have knowledge you do not. You ascribe to others, many of which are humble followers of Christ, your own hubristic bigotry against them.

This is called projection.

I'll bet you really expect me to accept this pose, don't you?

Certainly not. I have known many many humble enlightened LDS members. They're Saints in the true sense of the word. They do not, however, hold leadership callings. I think that is one qualification that immediately disqualifies them: they are humble, and thus they are not leadership material in the LDS church.

[_charity]

Charity and I began a sub-discussion in the Book of Mormon intro thread discussing whether or not people who name-call can be assumed to be engaging in that behavior out of frustration due to the fact that they cannot hold their own in the discussion. I stated that it is my belief that the tendency to name-call is not linked to education and intelligence, and while it’s certainly possible that someone begins to name-call out of frustration born from being outgunned in a debate, it is also possible that intelligent, educated people who actually have the upper hand in an argument to name-call out of sheer frustration in dealing with the other person’s ignorance and obstinance on the subject. by the way, I’m not defending name-calling, just questioning whether or not it has a direct relationship to losing an argument or debate. While Charity conceded I may be partially correct, she also stated:

I have found that the truly intelligent and educated people tend to behave better than those who only assume they are the most intelligent and educated people around. The most intelligent and educated tend to undestand just how much they don't know, notwishtanding what they know. The smaller minds tend to get puffed up thinking they know it all. Like I said, arrogance and price come into it.

Did you notice that the quality which differentiated the "smaller mjnds" was arrogance, as opposed to humility? The better educated understand how much they don't know were my exact words.The smaller minds think they knkow it all.
I will stick by that. No one knows it all. The ones who think they do are wrong. And when they begin go try to prove they know more than everyone else, that is certainly a prideful behavior.

I was struck by Charity’s willingness to label others as arrogant and proud at the same time she felt qualified to determine who possesses a “smaller mind”.

"By their fruits ye shall know them." Someone who calls a person who disagrees with him as stupid or an idiot, and then says he is the smartest person in his ward? I don't see a lot of humility there.

It began to remind me of the old saw that believers love to repeat, that apostates lose faith due to pride and arrogance. Then, often in the same breath, they associate the apostate with satan’s influence. Um, doesn’t it take pride and arrogance to not only assume you know THE TRUTH, but to also assume you can know who is influenced by Satan?

We could talk about how pride enters into many situations where sin, taking offense, etc. is involved. But for the purposes of this discussion, I will limit the response to what happens when someone has some kind of "intellectual" problem with what the Church teaches. Pride is almost always in there right from the beginning. "I learned this thing. People tell me I am wrong, but I know I am right and you can't tell me any different." That is pride. I have seen ex-Mormon posters here declare that "I once thought like you did, but then I became enlightened. And you are blind, brainwashed, etc." Pride. Feelings of being brighter, more enlightened, better than others is pride.

And to the extent that any LDS person thinks he/she is better than someone else because of their membership in the Church, that is wrong, too.

And once a person begins to succumb to feelings of pride, they open themselves up to the influence of Satan.

But the portion of her reply that made me want to develop another thread was her assertion that, apparently, it’s ok to associate challengers with satan if they “really are associated with satan.”

In other words, Charity believes that she, or others, can accurately ascertain that information. Of course this had to be her answer, because, on MAD, she used to regularly insinuate that apostates were influenced by Satan.

It take extreme behavior before I think a person is "associated with satan." But by defintion, an apostate has become an enemy of the Church. Simply leaving the Church does not make one an apostate. Fighting against the Church does. Christ is love. The opposite of that statement would be "Satan is hate." When I see apostates displaying hateful behavior, then it seems to be the natural conclusion. Those people who stand near a temple and call a bride a whore, or who mock sacred things are being hateful.

This isn't an intellectual argument. This is hateful behavior. It certainly isn't Christlike. And if it isn't one, it's the other.

This is one of those times that talking with a certain type of believer feels like bizarre-land. I mean, really, how is that the same people who are insisting they can “know” with high certainty that God exists and the Mormon church is the “true” church, the only church with the authority to perform saving ordinances in the name of JC, and the only church led by a “true” prophet can accuse others who do not share that belief as being “arrogant and proud”??
It’s mind boggling.

Those LDS who have testimonies are the most humble people around. They wouldn't have their testimonies if they weren't.

When I lost my faith in the LDS church, I felt more humbled - and almost humiliated - than I had ever felt before in my life. I felt, in every cell of my being, how wrong I had been about my most important belief. This is inevitably humbling, to recognize how wrong you can be. It was painful. I felt anything but arrogance and pride.

Then obviously you weren't one of those who gets prideful. But you aren't everyone. I keep saying this. If something that is said doesn't apply to you, then you shouldn't be offended by it. But you shouldn't deny that it could apply to someone else.

[_beastie]

Did you notice that the quality which differentiated the "smaller mjnds" was arrogance, as opposed to humility? The better educated understand how much they don't know were my exact words.The smaller minds think they knkow it all.
I will stick by that. No one knows it all. The ones who think they do are wrong. And when they begin go try to prove they know more than everyone else, that is certainly a prideful behavior.

No one thinks they "know it all" unless they are mentally ill. What you are really referring to is when posters think they know more about a specific subject than another poster. If there is no basis for that opinion, then it may be based on pride and arrogance, but if there is a real basis for that opinion, then it is just a matter of reality.

"By their fruits ye shall know them." Someone who calls a person who disagrees with him as stupid or an idiot, and then says he is the smartest person in his ward? I don't see a lot of humility there.

You're now describing a very different behavior than was originally being focused on. If someone goes around saying he/she is the smartest person in a group, then yes, that is proud and arrogant. But that's not the behavior you originally described. You were talking about two people debating a certain topic, and one calling the other a name. You said that automatically meant the name caller lost the argument because he/she reverted to name calling out of frustration of not being able to best the opponent. This is what I was arguing with you, not whether or not someone who goes around bragging about being the smartest person in a ward and calls other people names is arrogant. He/she is. I agree with you on that.

We could talk about how pride enters into many situations where sin, taking offense, etc. is involved. But for the purposes of this discussion, I will limit the response to what happens when someone has some kind of "intellectual" problem with what the Church teaches. Pride is almost always in there right from the beginning. "I learned this thing. People tell me I am wrong, but I know I am right and you can't tell me any different." That is pride. I have seen ex-Mormon posters here declare that "I once thought like you did, but then I became enlightened. And you are blind, brainwashed, etc." Pride. Feelings of being brighter, more enlightened, better than others is pride.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. If a person is not convinced by the apologia (and I'm not using the term in a pejorative sense, just in the true meaning) other believers offer, then that means that person is proud and arrogant. They won't accept the defense that you believe is sound.

Is it possible, charity, that they won't accept the defense not out of pride and arrogance, but due to the simple fact that the defense just doesn't make sense to them, or is not convincing?

Here's a clear example: informed people on both sides of the fence agree that Joseph Smith used to use his peep stone to see buried treasure. He then tried to help people obtain that buried treasure with no success. He then used that same peep stone in the same way to translate the Book of Mormon.

Believers offer the defense that Joseph Smith was being trained in the revelatory process.

Now, is it arrogance and pride that leads others to reject this defense, or is it simply that the defense isn't adequate in their eyes?

If you believe that people who don't accept the reasonings that apologists offer for these problems don't accept them due to pride and arrogance, then I suggest it is really you who is arrogant and proud - too arrogant and proud to understand that these defenses are not air-tight, and reasonable people can find them inadequate.

[/quote]

[Tator]

And to the extent that any LDS person thinks he/she is better than someone else because of their membership in the Church, that is wrong, too.

And once a person begins to succumb to feelings of pride, they open themselves up to the influence of Satan.

Didn't you also say that someone who thinks he/she is more "enlightened" than another person is arrogant? How can you make this argument and not realize how it describes you, and every other believer who is dead certain God spoke to him/her and gave you the "truth"? That seems, to me, to be a textbook case of being "more enlightened". And here you once again insinuate that it is possible to know that someone is being influenced by Satan. Wow. That really is enlightened!! You can know what supernatural, invisible being influenced another human being!!

LDS people don't believe they're better than someone else because of their membership in the church - (some) LDS believe they are better because they are chosen and God has revealed information and truth to them that he has not revealed to other religions. Any "one true church" is constructed on a certain amount of pride and arrogance, because these things are all a matter of faith. None of these things can be empircally demonstrated. What you're really saying is that despite the fact that none of these religious claims can be empircally demonstrated to be more "true" than anyone else's religious claims, God has still made it known to you that YOU are right.

This is why I think people who embrace a 'one true' religion ought to avoid accusing others of pride and arrogance.

It take extreme behavior before I think a person is "associated with satan." But by defintion, an apostate has become an enemy of the Church. Simply leaving the Church does not make one an apostate. Fighting against the Church does. Christ is love. The opposite of that statement would be "Satan is hate." When I see apostates displaying hateful behavior, then it seems to be the natural conclusion. Those people who stand near a temple and call a bride a whore, or who mock sacred things are being hateful.

This isn't an intellectual argument. This is hateful behavior. It certainly isn't Christlike. And if it isn't one, it's the other.

You are incorrect in your definition of an apostate. This is the specialized definition that certain MADdites have created for their own purposes. But church leaders use the term "apostate" to connotate someone who rejects church teachings and leaves the fold. The term does not require "becoming an enemy of the church". Moreover, the problem is, of course, figuring out who is an "enemy of the church". Simply criticizing church claims, publicly or privately, does not make one an "enemy of the church", but to many believers, it does.

I do agree that the extreme examples are rightfully identified as "hateful", although the protestors would disagree and claim that they are engaging in that behavior out of love to try and save you. But their reasoning is very similar to yours, and that is why they feel justified acting in this manner. You believe that you can tell who is influenced by Satan, and so do they. The problem is that they believe they can tell Mormonism in general is influenced by Satan.

[_beastie]

Sorry to have to keep cutting up my response, my computer is acting up and won't let me scroll down once I reach a certain length.

Those LDS who have testimonies are the most humble people around. They wouldn't have their testimonies if they weren't.

Of course you realize one can only accept this reasoning if one is a believer in the LDS church. Otherwise, it means nothing, it's just an assertion you make without any real evidence or logic to support it.

Then obviously you weren't one of those who gets prideful. But you aren't everyone. I keep saying this. If something that is said doesn't apply to you, then you shouldn't be offended by it. But you shouldn't deny that it could apply to someone else.

I'm not personally offended, I think you are making a bad argument and am arguing against it.


Of course some people act arrogant and proud regardless of what their beliefs happen to be. They could be an exmormon or believer. What I am arguing against is your other argument, which is that it is the pride and arrogance that causes them to lose faith. To put it simply, your above response seems to assert that if doubters don't accept the apologetics other believers offer as adequate, they are proud and arrogant.

[_beastie]

To go back momentarily to our original disagreement, here is what I'm trying to get you to see:

a person can be a rude, mean, person, and call someone a name, and still be making the better argument in a debate.

You cannot use the name calling as evidence that someone has lost an argument. You have to actually analyze the argument.

[_charity]

Now we get to the heart of the matter. If a person is not convinced by the apologia (and I'm not using the term in a pejorative sense, just in the true meaning) other believers offer, then that means that person is proud and arrogant. They won't accept the defense that you believe is sound.

Is it possible, charity, that they won't accept the defense not out of pride and arrogance, but due to the simple fact that the defense just doesn't make sense to them, or is not convincing?

If you believe that people who don't accept the reasonings that apologists offer for these problems don't accept them due to pride and arrogance, then I suggest it is really you who is arrogant and proud - too arrogant and proud to understand that these defenses are not air-tight, and reasonable people can find them inadequate.

Terryl Givens wrote that there is evidence on both sides. He called one a life of credible belief, and the other a life of dismissive denial. Obviously, it isn't a matter of the smart chose one side and the less smart chose the other side. Both sides have incredibly intelligent people in their camps. This tends to support Dr. Givens' thesis.

(Let's leave out of the discussion those people who are not well educated in Church history and aren't really interested enough to learn about it, but have faith and testimonies.)

So, what is the difference between the two? From what I have seen, the difference is humility, which is the opposite of pride. The believers are willing to accept that they don't know everything, that they can't know everything, and that there may be alternate explanations for the areas of confusion. And until absolute proof shows up, they are able to trust that there will be a resolution in favor of the view of the faithful.

Those who decide that they were wrong and have now come to the right position, have the idea that their reasoning powers are sufficient to settle any questions. That there are, in fact, no questions to settle. They know it all. This is pride. Many develop an attitude of condescesion toward those who still are believers. This proves that pride is involved.

Ask yourself this: When people gain testimonies and join the Church, they aren't angry with those who aren't LDS, or at their former church leaders. But many who leave the Church become angry, at the Church, at those who are still LDS. Anger is an emotion of pride. "I have an entitlement to something, and I am as mad as heck that I didn't get what I was entitlted to." That is pride.