Arrogance and Pride

[_cksalmon]

Lucifer's masonic priesthood symbols in the LDS endowment

Staying up late at night watching Paul and Jan Crouch sit in those big gaudy golden chairs and talk to experts on "the cults" are you?

I appreciate your bringing up the Crouchs. I place the LDS endowment ceremony on the same level.

Now, the insight I posted came from a 20-year Mormon (Rauni Higley--who translated for the LDS corporation) who went through the temple literally hundreds of times--and it was this particular insight, she has stated, that compelled her seriously to question the truth claims of Mormonism.

I haven't been through the ceremony. You tell me. Are the symbols on Lucifer's garments not identical to the symbols on LDS garments?

CKS

PS. Anyone else?

[_Coggins7]

They may be, since Lucifer seemed to have retained his use of Priesthood symbolism after his fall, and nothing in Church teaching indicates the symbols have ever been changed. However, his retaining of the symbols would have been of no use to him, as he had lost his authority to use the Priesthood (it can only be handled upon the principles of righteousness). Of course, in LDS theology, Lucifer was the "Lightbringer", a great spirit and holder of the Priesthood in the preexistence. After his fall, be begin to counterfeit everything. That's what he does.

The source of your claim is obviously another brick in the wall, and should know better than to try this kind of stuff on knowledgeable LDS. There are a number of present Mormons who have also had extensive experience in Masonry, and they have written about it. They say that although there are some similarities in the use of symbols, those similarities are far outweighed by the differences.

Oh, and by the way, I've been in the Church one heck of a lot longer than Higley, and clearly, know much more about its teachings than he does. So if you have any further questions, you now know to whom to turn.

Or don't you...

[_beastie]

Again, Beastie alters the use and meaning of terms in mid-stream. The same people who say that they know the Church is true, in Beastie's difficult to negotiate semantic world, become those who castigate others who do not share this "belief".

Either Beastie really doesn't understand the difference between belief and knowledge, or she's just being intellectually sloppy. Or, there is a third possibility. Perhaps this is really all about the further submergence on the testimony she says she once had beneath an ever growing layer of complex rationalizations so that faithful LDS can continue to be characterized as among the worst kinds of people one could possibly know, while the humble and demure Beastie suffers under the grinding black boot of LDS apologetics.

How long is this self serving psychological charade going to continue Beastie? How long is the moral browbeating of people who's religious views you do not share going to go on?

Coggins, I will give you this. I thought that, by now, I had seen it all with LDS apologetics and defenses. But you've taken it to a new height, in your attempts to insist the word "belief" is inappropriate in terms of LDS.

It is KNOWLEDGE.

Heh. Wasn't this thread about arrogance and pride? Coggins continues to produce both at a prodigious level. I assure all readers I have not paid or encouraged him to make this performance.

[_harmony]

Better, though still not great.

Yes, yes...I'm sure you're the expert.

I'm also sure BYU's programs are perfectly fine.

In some fields, yes. Psychology isn't one of those fields. But charity doesn't have a worthless BYU psych degree, so it's a moot point.

[_Coggins7]

In some fields, yes. Psychology isn't one of those fields. But charity doesn't have a worthless BYU psych degree, so it's a moot point.

1. A Psychology degree from BYU is worthless based upon what criteria?

2. What knowledge or expertise allows you to make that judgment?

3. Any number of Pych degrees form any number of schools, even the Ivy league, are "worthless" in the sense that Psychology is a field especially given to intellectual fads and trendy ideologies and little can come from therapeutic modalities based in such paradigms.

4. Your mother wears combat boots.

[_cksalmon]

They may be, since Lucifer seemed to have retained his use of Priesthood symbolism after his fall, and nothing in Church teaching indicates the symbols have ever been changed. However, his retaining of the symbols would have been of no use to him, as he had lost his authority to use the Priesthood (it can only be handled upon the principles of righteousness). Of course, in LDS theology, Lucifer was the "Lightbringer", a great spirit and holder of the Priesthood in the preexistence. After his fall, be begin to counterfeit everything. That's what he does.

The source of your claim is obviously another brick in the wall, and should know better than to try this kind of stuff on knowledgeable LDS. There are a number of present Mormons who have also had extensive experience in Masonry, and they have written about it. They say that although there are some similarities in the use of symbols, those similarities are far outweighed by the differences.

Oh, and by the way, I've been in the Church one heck of a lot longer than Higley, and clearly, know much more about its teachings than he does. So if you have any further questions, you now know to whom to turn.

Or don't you...

So, I take it, the answer is "Yes." I'm not trying to try any kind of "stuff" on knowledgeable LDS. I was merely asking a question. You've answered it as fully as I can probably expect.

And Rauni's a she, by the way. The "he," I suppose, would be her husband, Dennis.

I suppose Lucifer, in endowment-ceremony-fashion, merely co-opted the identical garment signs. And, I suppose, that that even makes some sort of sense for a believing LDS.

Like I said, in bizzaro-world, even insults are compliments.

CKS

[_charity]

I'm responding to Charity's statement:

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.

If I read her correctly, she is asserting that those who believe in the LDS church do so because of humility, unlike non-believers.

Does she similarly assert believers of other religions remain believers because of humility? And those who release belief are prideful?

And, she suggests LDS believers approach life with an attitude of humility admitting they do not know everything.

I'm suggesting the LDS church is the one who claims to know the answers. They claim to HAVE the very power and authority of God, to understand THE PLAN, to know all about God, to have the FULLNESS of truth, to be in communion with God, etc. etc. etc.

I have yet to see such claims from non-believers.

~dancer~

I don't know what other religions claim as the basis for their belief. LDS claim a spiritual witness, which cannot be had without being humble. I don't know if other religious groups have humility as a requirement of belief. Similarly, I don't know why other people stay within other religious groups. I suspect there are multiple reasons. People tend to be diverse. even within groups.

It is possible to have answers without being arrogant about it. Gallileo is purported to have said, "If I see further than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

[_beastie]

I am a cognitive behaviorist. To the cognitive behaviorist, anger is a product of learned behavior both from past experiences and from modeling by others; genetic predispositions; and a lack of problem solving ability.

Anger is internal. It does not come from any experience outside. The angry man hits his wife, not because of what she did, but because of what he thinks she has done to him. That she has in someway attacked his ego. His pride is hurt.

It is the irrational perception of the world that causes the anger, even though most angry people tend to blame their anger on some person (Joseph Smith) or some thing (the Church).

When the model is examined, cognitive behaviorists see that an irrational perception (“It has to be the way I think it is”) combines with a low frustration point (“my way or the highway”). This “I always have to be right” is pride.

Anger is a completely normal, and at times, rational response to harm. I have a very hard time believing all cognitive behaviorists deny this as you seem to. And in fact, that is not what you are doing because you add this:

Only when the reaction is based on rational perceptions. Children who tend to be bullies tend to think that incidental behaviors are purposeful and intended to harm them. They react with anger when they get bumped standing in line, for instance, thinking the other child did it on purpose. Irrational perception.

So here is when the rubber hits the road. Anger can be a valid reaction when it is based on rational perceptions. So you simply do not believe that exmormons have rational perceptions.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Charity...

I don't know what other religions claim as the basis for their belief. LDS claim a spiritual witness, which cannot be had without being humble. I don't know if other religious groups have humility as a requirement of belief. Similarly, I don't know why other people stay within other religious groups. I suspect there are multiple reasons. People tend to be diverse. even within groups.

I think your comment helps explain many of the problems folks have with your ideas. With all due respect Charity, perhaps if you understood more about other beliefs, religions, and faith traditions you may have a better idea of why others cannot embrace your ideas.

It is possible to have answers without being arrogant about it. Gallileo is purported to have said, "If I see further than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

This is not the problem.

The problem is your assertion that non-believers do not believe because they are prideful unlike believers who are humble.

Do you not see the difficulty with this?

Are believers in other religions the humble ones, and non-believers the prideful ones when it comes to belief in FLDS. or Scientology, or Catholicism?

Why the double standard?

The LDS church claims to have the answers, know God, understand the plan of the universe, have the power and authority from God, and be the chosen and elect of God, while non-believers for the most part admit to having little understanding of that which seems beyond our ability to comprehend.

You think that non-believers in the LDS church are prideful evidenced by their non-belief, but seem to have a different opinion when it comes to non-believers of other religions.

Can you not see that the dynamics are the same regardless of what religion it is we are discussing?

The same reasons one releases belief in the Ralians, Scientology, Amish, FLDS, or any other religion, are the reasons folks let go of belief of the LDS church.

I do not think it is because of pride but because the beliefs/doctrines/teachings do not make sense.

Admitting one was wrong is often considered a humbling experience.

~dancer~

[_Mister Scratch]

Certainly, a BYU psych degree carries with it the taint of those Mengele-esque, homophobic experiments. The whole affair really gives Tuskeegee a run for its money, in my opinion.