Arrogance and Pride

[_charity]

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.

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.

[_charity]

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.

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.

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.

[_charity]

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?

This is one of the oldest whiner complaints. "The Church didn't tell me, sniffle sniffle." Turns out little miss whiney pants talked with her buddies through Sunday School classes. Skipped most of seminary because she just couldn't be bothered, and never cracked a book on any Church subject.

Think of this: You go to school, never read the assignments, skip class 3 days a week, and don't study for the tests. You get a failing grade, and then whine "The teacher didn't teach me. It is all her fault!"

The Church does more to educate its people than most. We have Primary, Sunday School, seminary for every high school student. If they don't live near a seminary, they can do home study. Institue classes for college students. We are continually admonished to study. And then we always get the victims. "It isn't my fault. They didn't teach me."

One of my colleagues on the faculty where we both taught would tell her students, "I am not here to teach you. I am here to faciltate your learning. What you learn is up to you. You paid your tuition. It is your job to get your money's worth." I agreed completely with that.

[_harmony]

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?

This is one of the oldest whiner complaints. "The Church didn't tell me, sniffle sniffle." Turns out little miss whiney pants talked with her buddies through Sunday School classes. Skipped most of seminary because she just couldn't be bothered, and never cracked a book on any Church subject.

Think of this: You go to school, never read the assignments, skip class 3 days a week, and don't study for the tests. You get a failing grade, and then whine "The teacher didn't teach me. It is all her fault!"

The Church does more to educate its people than most. We have Primary, Sunday School, seminary for every high school student. If they don't live near a seminary, they can do home study. Institue classes for college students. We are continually admonished to study. And then we always get the victims. "It isn't my fault. They didn't teach me."

One of my colleagues on the faculty where we both taught would tell her students, "I am not here to teach you. I am here to faciltate your learning. What you learn is up to you. You paid your tuition. It is your job to get your money's worth." I agreed completely with that.

*yawn* Same ol', same ol'. I suggested a little meat be put into our Sunday School lessons in my interview with my bishop today. He agreed, and then called my husband to be Sunday School President! Too funny!

[_charity]

*yawn* Same ol', same ol'. I suggested a little meat be put into our Sunday School lessons in my interview with my bishop today. He agreed, and then called my husband to be Sunday School President! Too funny!

Yep. The anti's keep putting up the same ol' arguments, they get the same ol' answer. The right answer to the argument doesn't need to change.

Spicing up the old boring lessons on doctrine, eh? I suppose you are so perfect you don't need to hear that same old stuff anymore, and want to move on. Sorry, harmony, the rest of your ward probably needs those lessons. If they want spice, why don't they watch Maury and his perennial stories about women who sleep with so many men they haven't a clue as to who the fathers of their babies are.

Have I judged your ward members as being less than perfect? Yes. Because I think a translation of whole ward would be noticed and make the news.

[_harmony]

*yawn* Same ol', same ol'. I suggested a little meat be put into our Sunday School lessons in my interview with my bishop today. He agreed, and then called my husband to be Sunday School President! Too funny!

Yep. The anti's keep putting up the same ol' arguments, they get the same ol' answer. The right answer to the argument doesn't need to change.

Spicing up the old boring lessons on doctrine, eh? I suppose you are so perfect you don't need to hear that same old stuff anymore, and want to move on. Sorry, harmony, the rest of your ward probably needs those lessons. If they want spice, why don't they watch Maury and his perennial stories about women who sleep with so many men they haven't a clue as to who the fathers of their babies are.

Have I judged your ward members as being less than perfect? Yes. Because I think a translation of whole ward would be noticed and make the news.

If you knew my Sweet Pickle, or my bishop, or even me, you'd know how wide of the mark you are.

[_guy sajer]

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.

And just what believers are theses guy?

True believers in dogmatic religion, including, but not limited to: evangelical Christians, Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses, certain Catholics, Muslims.

[_guy sajer]

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.

Jesus Horatio Christ, 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.

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.

I am refering to true believers in general. The LDS are not forcing their belief on anyone, true, but only because they live in a society that does not allow them to do so. They were less respectful of civil liberties when they had control of the government and had independent coercive powers, as is seen during the Joseph Smith and BY periods. Even then, once this life is over, then, according to Mormon doctrine, those who do not accept Mormonism will be assigned a lower kingdom (punished forever). In the end, it's accept Mormonism or be punished enternally. That's a pretty damned coercive system.

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?

By God but you are naïve.

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

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.

Oh, geez, thanks for this bit of wisdom. I guess this means that true believing Mormons lack the spirit, which means, of course, you too Charity. Mormon doctrine, and your many, many posts, reek of arrogance.

For what it is worth, BY was a true arrogant prick--a megalomaniac of the first order. The only spririt this guy had was the spirit of lust and power.

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?

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 what the f*** does this mean? You sound like some Obi-Wan Kenobi like pop philosopher spouting nonsense.

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.

You a skeptic, bwaaahaaahaa!

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

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.

Ah yes, the angry Ex-Mo. And this from the person who assured us just the other day that she was really, really trying to understand us apostates.

You don't think there are angry ex-mo's? I take it you have never visited RfM. I have never said all ex-mo's are angry. I know some that aren't. I know some that are. Don't you?
I’m not angry. I was for a period angry/bitter at having wasted four decades of my life in this quasi-cult. 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.
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.

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

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

Oh God that’s rich. 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.
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.

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

[_guy sajer]

[quote="charity]Yep. The anti's keep putting up the same ol' arguments, they get the same ol' answer. The right answer to the argument doesn't need to change.[quote]

One can imagine, say Holocaust deniers, making a similar statement.

I imagine that critics have making the same arguments against the Holocaust deniers for some time now.

So, enlighten us, Charity. What are the same ol' arguments and, more importantly, what are the same ol' answers that so decisively prove the arguments to be faulty? And note, these answers must be convincing enough that even objective observers would concede their effectiveness. The standard is not whether doubting believers find the answers comforting, or whether true believing apologists, with an emotional, professional, or other stake in the question, find them convincing.

[_cacheman]

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.'

I disagree with the overall premise that Dr. Givens puts forth. His proposal leads to an "either/or" end result, when in reality everyone has varying degrees of credible conviction and dismissive denial in many aspects of their life. We are all part believer, and part disbeliever. What we believe in just might be different. I completely agree with the idea that our beliefs and disbeliefs are a reflection of what's most important to us, that's just common sense. If our beliefs don't reflect who we want to be, then something is wrong.

In his paper, Dr. Givens frames this dichotomy in the context of belief or disbelief in Christ and the role of Joseph Smith in restoring Christ's gospel. In this context, he attaches merit and moral significance in the decision to believe. That's his perspective, and he has a right to believe that, but I feel that it is more complex than the "either/or" scenario that he presents.

Just some of my thoughts for what they're worth.....

cacheman