DiscussMormonism.com

Believers often accuse apostates of arrogance and pride. This has never made any sense to me. The apostate is the individual who has gone through the painful process of realizing he/she was wrong about his/her most serious convictions in life. It is the believer who claims that not only is it possible to know the secrets of God and the universe, despite the fact that such secrets have confounded the greatest thinkers of the human species for millennia, but that THEY, the believer him or herself, has access to that very knowledge!

Believers will also, at times, proclaim that they can access information allowing them to know whether or not individual apostates are telling the truth, or are aligned with satan.

I find the hubris, arrogance, and pride in these claims astonishing and, frankly, a little frightening.

I think it is pretty arragont to keep the attitude that you are a god in embryo. I think once you start understand that you are a monkey that can read symbols and understand some abstract thoughts then you are on a path to peace.

Yes, styleguy, there is definitely a big dollop of arrogance and pride in embracing a belief system that teaches one can actually be a god one day.

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.

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”. 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?

So I responded:

So how would you "label" someone who perceives him or herself as qualified to determine the "truly intelligent and educated" from those who "only assume" they are?

Would the words arrogance and pride be appropriate, as well?

And what label could be ascribed to someone who was even willing to associate his/her challengers or critics with satan?

And Charity’s answer was:

So how would you "label" someone who perceives him or herself as qualified to determine the "truly intelligent and educated" from those who "only assume" they are?

I know you think you can determine those here who are "less capable" posters.

Would the words arrogance and pride be appropriate, as well?

I suppose, if those assessments are biased.

And what label could be ascribed to someone who was even willing to associate his/her challengers or critics with satan?

Depends on if the challengers or critics are really associated with satan.[

First, I certainly do feel able to determine who is “less capable” in certain discussions in which I obviously possess more background information than the other participant and they’re making statements based in ignorance. However, being “less capable” in a given conversation does not equate to possessing a “smaller mind” and not being “truly intelligent and educated”. It just means that they’re trying to bluff in a conversation by pretending to know something about a subject they really don’t.

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.

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.

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.

First, in order to be associated with Satan, one must show that Satan exists. He is a fairly recent addition to the story, if I remember right. And since we can't even show that God himself exists, showing that a lesser character like Satan exists is a little difficult.

Second, in order to be able to ascertain if someone is associated with Satan, one must be able to see the invisible and discern the undiscernable. Not an easy task.

Exactly, harmony - yet Charity believes she, or others, is up to the task.

How can that NOT be viewed as arrogance and pride?

Believers often accuse apostates of arrogance and pride. This has never made any sense to me. The apostate is the individual who has gone through the painful process of realizing he/she was wrong about his/her most serious convictions in life.

This is a circular argument, as it assumes that the process of apostasy actually is what Beastie claims it is. It could, however, be something quite different (including a process not of realization, but of rationalization, ending in, not a conclusive realization, but only a belief or assumption that he was wrong).

It is the believer who claims that not only is it possible to know the secrets of God and the universe, despite the fact that such secrets have confounded the greatest thinkers of the human species for millennial, but that THEY, the believer him or herself, has access to that very knowledge!

This assumes, a priori, at the very least that God does not exist, or that if he does, he does not talk to anybody about anything. I find the claim that since the secrets of the universe have confounded the greatest thinkers of the human species, that they need confound any particular member of the human species, if that species member has encountered God, to be at the very best a baseless presumption that again, takes her own world view at face value as somehow conclusive. Even more importantly, one who has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and has, as he/she lives worthy of it, continued and progressive access to knowledge of those mysteries, does, indeed, have access to knowledge those who do not have that privilege lack, and cannot receive in any other way. Then there are Prophets who then have some insights into those mysteries that the greatest thinkers have missed (which doesn't' surprise me. Why should we expect that human beings sitting around thinking for thousands of years, could ever really approach those mysteries except in a most indirect and distorted way, if at all?).

Believers will also, at times, proclaim that they can access information allowing them to know whether or not individual apostates are telling the truth, or are aligned with satan.

I find the hubris, arrogance, and pride in these claims astonishing and, frankly, a little frightening.

[/quote]

The self indulgent conceit and hypocrisy of the above defies rebuttal, so I will forbear. Suffice it to say that we've all seen this, lets call it God envy, before. The spiritually dead have always hissed and spat at the spiritually alive (a class I am not claiming in any unambiguous way to be a part of) haven't they. So the scriptures teach, and so experience confirms. How dare a LDS say he has more knowledge than I a highly educated intellectual, who reads Richard Dawkins books and watches public television, and reads Dialog has? How DARE anyone claim to have heard God, or seen God, or communicated with God when I NEVER HAVE? How DARE anyone claim to have some knowledge of the mysteries of the universe that I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO? How DARE...

Beastie sees hubris, arrogance, and pride in such claims, even when uttered with the utmost humility, because her own hubris, arrogance, and pride have so infected her own thinking and soul that any counter claims from those outside her own world view appear stewed in the same broth.

Thanks for the live demonstration, coggins.

First, in order to be associated with Satan, one must show that Satan exists.

You're here Harmony. Case closed.

He is a fairly recent addition to the story, if I remember right. And since we can't even show that God himself exists, showing that a lesser character like Satan exists is a little difficult.

Can I see that Temple recommend again,Harmony?

Second, in order to be able to ascertain if someone is associated with Satan, one must be able to see the invisible and discern the undiscernable. Not an easy task.

Yes, especially when you've willfully given away all the perceptual tools and means by which you could ascertain those things for yourself. Some of us haven't given those away Harmony, at least, not willingly.

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

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)?