Arrogance and Pride

[_harmony]

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.

Anger is a natural reaction, when one has been cheated.

[_beastie]

Terryl Givens wrote that there is evidence on both sides. He called one a life of credible belief, and the other a life of dismissive denial. Obviously, it isn't a matter of the smart chose one side and the less smart chose the other side. Both sides have incredibly intelligent people in their camps. This tends to support Dr. Givens' thesis.

(Let's leave out of the discussion those people who are not well educated in Church history and aren't really interested enough to learn about it, but have faith and testimonies.)

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.

You're just repeating yourself, this time invoking Givens. What you are saying is that people who do not find apologists' explanations to be adequate are proud and arrogant.

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. This is pride. Many develop an attitude of condescesion toward those who still are believers. This proves that pride is involved.

It does not prove that pride was the cause of the loss of faith at all.

In addition, your phrase "know it all" is silly. There are many questions left to settle, I don't know a single exmormon who would contest that. What you're really saying is that they believe they have proven, to their own satisfaction, that the claims of the church are not true, and that is settled for them. And that galls you enough to label them arrogant and proud.

Are people who have proven that the Jehovah's Witness claims are not true to their own satisfaction also proud and arrogant?

[_beastie]

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 surprises me that someone who has studied psychology seems to believe that anger is only a sign of pride. It is also a valid reaction to being harmed or injured, and can compel people to take action for justice. How do you reconcile the concept of righteous indignation with your statement, for example?

You should also consider the fact that many LDS, at least in my experience, have the tendency to project anger onto exmormons when the exmormon him/herself may feel none.

I also think anger is a completely normal phase in the grief cycle for someone who has lost something significant, like an entire world view. To stay stuck in that cycle is another matter.

[_harmony]

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.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Isn't that an understatement? After all, was it not the BYU psych dept. that was showing porn to gay students, and zapping their genitals with electricity in an effort to "cure" them?

[_Coggins7]

We could talk about how pride enters into many situations where sin, taking offense, etc. is involved. But for the purposes of this discussion, I will limit the response to what happens when someone has some kind of "intellectual" problem with what the Church teaches. Pride is almost always in there right from the beginning. "I learned this thing. People tell me I am wrong, but I know I am right and you can't tell me any different." That is pride. I have seen ex-Mormon posters here declare that "I once thought like you did, but then I became enlightened. And you are blind, brainwashed, etc." Pride. Feelings of being brighter, more enlightened, better than others is pride.

The real irony of all this, which completely escapes Beastie, is that she is a living, breathing representation of precisely that which she claims to see in others. Her criticisms of the Church and its people are as vicious, mean spirited, and tendentious as any I've ever seen in the genre.

She also seems to have a penchant for calling names...a characteristic "brights" like herself are not supposed to have (although Dawkins excels in the same himself, especially when speaking about the benighted Christians which are the special focal point of his righteous fury in most cases).

[_Coggins7]

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.

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?

[_Chap]

How long is the moral browbeating of people who's religious views you do not share going to go on?

Oh, you just have 'religious views' do you Coggins? Funny, I thought you had a direct line to The Truth, straight from HF himself - your 'testimony' is what they call it where you come from, isn't it?

If however all you have are some modestly held and purely personal 'views' for which you claim no status or validity other than that they are your private opinion, I am sure most posters on this board would allow you to live in peace, should you express the wish that they should cease to molest you, as you evidently feel they are doing.

Would you like us to leave you alone? You have only to say.

[_guy sajer]

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.)

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.

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're insight, Charity, is kiddie pool deep.

[_charity]

It surprises me that someone who has studied psychology seems to believe that anger is only a sign of pride.

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.

It is also a valid reaction to being harmed or injured, and can compel people to take action for justice.

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.

How do you reconcile the concept of righteous indignation with your statement, for example?


"Righteous indignation" is not anger. Look at what Christ did in chasing the money changers from the temple. He sat down, braided a quirt or whip, and then drove them out. He didn't go in screaming and yelling and waving his arms. It obviously was not anger.

You should also consider the fact that many LDS, at least in my experience, have the tendency to project anger onto exmormons when the exmormon him/herself may feel none.

I think that is probably correct in some instances.

I also think anger is a completely normal phase in the grief cycle for someone who has lost something significant, like an entire world view. To stay stuck in that cycle is another matter.

The following paragraph is from Elizabeth Kubler Ross, who did the pioneering working on the stage of grieving.

"This stage presents itself in many ways: anger at your loved one that he didn't take better care of himself or anger that you didn't take better care of him. Anger does not have to be logical or valid. You may be angry that you didn't see this coming and when you did, nothing could stop it. You may be angry with the doctors for not being able to save someone so dear to you. You may be angry that bad things could happen to someone who meant so much to you.

"You may also be angry that you're left behind and you should have had more time together. You know intellectually that your loved one didn't want to die. But emotionally, all you know is that he did die. It was not supposed to happen, or at least not now."

Do you notice all the irrational thinking there?