harmony wrote:beastie wrote:It surprises me that someone who has studied psychology seems to believe that anger is only a sign of pride.
She got her degree from BYU. Let's be very charitable and say that their psych department leaves a bit to be desired.
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.
beastie wrote:This is one of those times that talking with a certain type of believer feels like bizarre-land.
guy sajer wrote:
Believers are convinced that they and they alone know truth and that all those who disagree with them will be punished forever. This is not humility, this is arrogant hubris.
This is not true about LDS. Other denominations of Christianity teach this. We teach that everyone has a true opportunity to accept the truth in full knowledge. Some even after this life is over.
I'd say it's actually the opposite. True believers have always tended to have a resolute assurance that they're right and everyone else is wrong. This belief, in turn, has empowered them, in their own minds, to seek to impose their truth on others, peacefully if possibly, forcibly if necessary.
When has any LDS forced his belief on anyone? Are you not familiar with Article of Faith #11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
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.
I ask a general question. Let's assume we can choose one of two people to serve a "king," with full coercive power of the state at her disposal. Who would people annoint as king, a true believer, or a skeptic?
To my way of thinking the true test of humility is whether one would seek to impose a set of beliefs on others. Truly humble people would not deign to do so. The arrogant would take the opportunity, perhaps convinced that they're doing God's will in the process.
And the person who is arrogant does not have the Spirit with him.
If the Mormon Church were to assume the power of the state, to what extent do we expect that it would, over time, continue to respect the full slate of civil liberties and rights? (Hint: A rhetorical question.)
Here is a rhetorical question for you. To what extent are the full slate of civil liberties and rights God's laws or Satan's laws?charity wrote: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.
And THIS is the true believer, not the skeptic. You've just described the true believer in dogmatic religion.
Skeptics aren't true believers. That is why they're called skeptics.
I am skeptic. I test things out. But then maybe your idea of a "true believer" is different than mine.charity wrote: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.
It is the LDS church who claims to have all the answers.
They are the ones who claim to know all about God...
So?that he is a man with flesh and bones.
And?They are the ones to claim to have the FULLNESS of the gospel.
So?They are the ones who claim to have the very power and authority of God.
Yes...It is non-believers who make no such claims.
By definition...I know of no non-believers who would begin to suggest they have the fullness of the truth or who could describe God and the eternal.
Except for one point. People like Richard Dawkins, for one example, do claim to have a fullness of truth in the sense that they claim to have certain knowledge about the existence of God and other religious truth claims, except that they are the obverse of those claimed by believers.So, are those who leave Scientology, the Ralians, the FLDS, and Islam the ones who are prideful? Or the ones who believe they have all the answers the ones who are prideful?
charity wrote:harmony wrote:beastie wrote:It surprises me that someone who has studied psychology seems to believe that anger is only a sign of pride.
She got her degree from BYU. Let's be very charitable and say that their psych department leaves a bit to be desired.
No, I did not, harmony. I got my master's degree in psychology from Portland State University.
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.