charity wrote: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."
That was Newton, though, rather than Galileo, no? And it's not just purported, but fairly certain, that he wrote this in a letter to Hooke (1676).
Oh, and he was likely highlighting (sardonically) Hooke's diminutive stature.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Nov 05, 2007 12:35 am, edited 3 times in total.
Pay no attention. Scratch is a liberal who uses ideological mascots like Blacks and homosexuals as clubs to beat the Church and anyone else he disagrees with. Its pure, self serving moral grandstanding folks, and no more than that.
We're still not even sure if this poseur was ever really a Mormon at all (and a few others here many have that problem as well).
And, about those degrees...
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
charity wrote: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."
That was Newton, though, rather than Galileo, no? And it's not just purported, but fairly certain, that he wrote this in a letter to Hooke (1676).
Oh, and he was likely highlighting (sardonically) Hooke's diminutive stature.
beastie wrote: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. Cognitive behaviorists don't believe that. And neither do I. Rational responses are one thing. Irrational responses are another. And don't forget the irrational perceptions.
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.
We go back to Givens. He maintains there is evidence on both side. It isn't intelligence which determines which evidence we believe. There is something else. Givens goes on to further state, paraphrased, 'the choice we makes says more about who we are than about the quality of the evidence.'
Sidetrack here for a second. I think of those who leave the Church there are those who simply wander away. They go from active, to less active, to inactive, to totally missing. There is no big crisis of faith. No anger. No arrogance. But here we are talking about those who go from active to doubting to emotional crisis to leaving. Now that we know who we are talking about, back to the topic.
From many exist stories, we hear this: "I was an active member. But I was never told about Joseph Smith having plural wives." (You could insert any topic here.) Right at this point, the exit stories begin to include feeling deceived. "Nobody told me this." The unrealistic expectation that somehow, someone else is responsible for what you do or do not know, then leads to an unrealistic perception. "They (cue the spooky music) are hiding things from me because they want to deceive me." The arrangance factor is that the person is absolutely sure that his feelings of paranoia are the only possible interpretation. "I know this happened, and you can't give me any other possible explanation for why this knowledge was withheld from me, except that they are lying, they want my tithing money, yada yada."
Please note that I am talking about the individual who leaves with the exit story I have listed above.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
truth dancer wrote: 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~
The discussion has been about LDS who go through the crisit of faith, anger. fighting back.
We go back to Givens. He maintains there is evidence on both side. It isn't intelligence which determines which evidence we believe. There is something else. Givens goes on to further state, paraphrased, 'the choice we makes says more about who we are than about the quality of the evidence.'
We're going around in circles, so I'm going to try a direct question.
Do you view people as arrogant and proud if they do not view the explanations given by apologists - including Given's assertion that there is evidence on both sides - as convincing?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
We go back to Givens. He maintains there is evidence on both side. It isn't intelligence which determines which evidence we believe. There is something else. Givens goes on to further state, paraphrased, 'the choice we makes says more about who we are than about the quality of the evidence.'
We're going around in circles, so I'm going to try a direct question.
Do you view people as arrogant and proud if they do not view the explanations given by apologists - including Given's assertion that there is evidence on both sides - as convincing?
No. Only if they display arrogance and pride by insulting those who still believe. Only if they assert their superiority and enlightenment. Only if they try to destroy other people's faith. Those behavior are the hallmarks of arrogance.
No. Only if they display arrogance and pride by insulting those who still believe. Only if they assert their superiority and enlightenment. Only if they try to destroy other people's faith. Those behavior are the hallmarks of arrogance.
I think you are making an error in causal effects. Isn't it possible that people reject apologia as inadequate simply due to viewing those arguments as inadequate, and then go on to display other irritating characteristics? You seem to be implying that if someone displays certain traits, then they were arrogant in finding apologetics inadequate. There is no clear logical connection.
In addition, the problem with your assertions is that it's impossibly subjective. You are determining who is "asserting their superiority and enlightenment" or trying to "destroy other people's faith". Yet you are just as biased in this situation as the exmormon. Perhaps the exmormon views Mormons as asserting their superiority and enlightenment by sending out thousands of missionaries to persuade others to abandon their own faith in favor of Mormonism. Perhaps they were treated rudely when they visited a place like MAD in an attempt to get help, and experienced apologists asserting their superiority and enlightenment.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
charity wrote:From many exist stories, we hear this: "I was an active member. But I was never told about Joseph Smith having plural wives." (You could insert any topic here.) Right at this point, the exit stories begin to include feeling deceived. "Nobody told me this." The unrealistic expectation that somehow, someone else is responsible for what you do or do not know, then leads to an unrealistic perception. "They (cue the spooky music) are hiding things from me because they want to deceive me." The arrangance factor is that the person is absolutely sure that his feelings of paranoia are the only possible interpretation. "I know this happened, and you can't give me any other possible explanation for why this knowledge was withheld from me, except that they are lying, they want my tithing money, yada yada."
Please note that I am talking about the individual who leaves with the exit story I have listed above. [/b]
Noted. And I wonder, how many of the other explanations for why the LDS Church does not educate its people well are very flattering? Sure, this one may be excessively paranoid, but I have a difficult time finding an excuse for them that is particularly flattering. Negligence is less sinister, but is the end result that much better?
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
charity wrote:No. Only if they display arrogance and pride by insulting those who still believe. Only if they assert their superiority and enlightenment. Only if they try to destroy other people's faith. Those behavior are the hallmarks of arrogance.
Then someone had better revamp the missionary program, because every word of every lesson is designed to destroy another person's faith.