If You Were Wrong, Would You Want To Know It?

[Lightbearer]

This is typical Mormon arrogance in action. "If you don't get the same answer I did, well, you're just wrong!" You can certainly believe the church all you want, but when you start your "we're the only one with all the truth" arrogance, you will be called on it.

AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN! The truth is hard sometimes, I suppose thats why you must call me arrogant. I have had 40 years as a TBM and I still have my testimony and I will never apologize for that.

[John Williams]

AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN! The truth is hard sometimes, I suppose thats why you must call me arrogant. I have had 40 years as a TBM and I still have my testimony and I will never apologize for that.

Your having a testimony wasn't the arrogant part.

[BishopRic]

You're wrong.

It's an indefensible generalization. And you didn't apply your generalization to just this statement; you said it was typical Mormon arrogance.

Now, instead of backpedaling on something so obviously indefensible (I've been in the Church longer than you and I don't hear that kind of remark all the time), you compound it by another generalization inferring that only some of the more intelligent people don't make that statement. Just digging yourself in deeper.

Would you like to reconsider? If not, please provide concrete justification for your generalization.

No, I just think this is denial. Are you saying you don't hear "I know the church is true, I know it is God's one and only true church on the earth today, I know God speaks to his people through his prophet on earth today?"

This is arrogance...if it is no longer the case, I will retract -- I haven't attended for 10 years.

[javadave]

Why would one want to know if something wasn't true if his entire belief structure and personal relationships revolved around said fallacy?

As it says in D&C 131:6 - it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

[Deborah]

Why would one want to know if something wasn't true if his entire belief structure and personal relationships revolved around said fallacy?

As it says in D&C 131:6 - it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.

No one disputes this which has been clearly pointed out. Of course LDS believe what they have is true.

And why do anti-Mormons love to quote Mormon scriptures?

[Zoidberg]

No one disputes this which has been clearly pointed out. Of course LDS believe what they have is true.

And why do anti-Mormons love to quote Mormon scriptures?

Of course, LDS people shouldn't be allowed to quote anti-mormons, either.

[jwhitlock]

No, I just think this is denial. Are you saying you don't hear "I know the church is true, I know it is God's one and only true church on the earth today, I know God speaks to his people through his prophet on earth today?"

This is arrogance...if it is no longer the case, I will retract -- I haven't attended for 10 years.

I've asked you twice for concrete evidence for your generalization about typical Mormon arrogance.

So far, all you're doing is tap dancing around the question. You made a negative generalization about a group of people and you don't want to retract it.

Let me speak clearly about this since you don't want to own up to your error.

When you make a generalization (like you did), you better have concrete evidence to back it up. Otherwise, your statement is worthless. And generalizations are, by definition, false until concretely proven true.

You haven't done that. Nor can you. It is disturbing that you are so willing to castigate latter day saints for generalizations they make, but will not acknowledge yours.

Your unfortunate post on this had to do with a response to a specific statement. Your response made the same error of generalization that you claimed the poster was making.

That's what I'm talking about here and that's what you're avoiding answering. A simple retraction will do; if you continue to try to support your indefensible generalization, your credibility will suffer.

In addition, it is offensive that you try to justify your generalization by saying that the bearing of a basic testimony by a latter day saint is inherently arrogant. If that's the basis on which you haven't attended for 10 years, then your perspective is seriously messed up.

[BishopRic]

I've asked you twice for concrete evidence for your generalization about typical Mormon arrogance.

So far, all you're doing is tap dancing around the question.

No, I answered it very directly. Please re-read.

You made a negative generalization about a group of people and you don't want to retract it.

nothing to retract.

Let me speak clearly about this since you don't want to own up to your error.

I'm not about "who's right and who's wrong...if you need a fight, go to the boxing gym.

When you make a generalization (like you did), you better have concrete evidence to back it up.

I stated clearly what my experience was...and told you specifically what I heard ad nauseum in church. If you don't hear it, maybe you go to a very unique ward. I told you, if it is not said anymore, I will retract it. So my question to you is, do you hear it still?"

Otherwise, your statement is worthless.

To you maybe.

And generalizations are, by definition, false until concretely proven true.

Again, do you not hear in church what I said? If you and other LDS here say it is not said anymore, I will retract it.

You haven't done that. Nor can you. It is disturbing that you are so willing to castigate latter day saints for generalizations they make, but will not acknowledge yours.

Getting a bit defensive, aren't you?

Your unfortunate post on this had to do with a response to a specific statement. Your response made the same error of generalization that you claimed the poster was making.

That's what I'm talking about here and that's what you're avoiding answering. A simple retraction will do; if you continue to try to support your indefensible generalization, your credibility will suffer.

I'm not interested in gaining credibility from you.

In addition, it is offensive that you try to justify your generalization by saying that the bearing of a basic testimony by a latter day saint is inherently arrogant. If that's the basis on which you haven't attended for 10 years, then your perspective is seriously messed up.

Simple, I think it is arrogant of anybody to "testify" that theirs is the only correct path for everybody, and that others that get a different answer than what they do are just wrong.

Simple...and arrogant.

[nana]

And why do anti-Mormons love to quote Mormon scriptures?

I am not anti, let me clarify that before my next comment.

Maybe because that is what Mormon's use to prove their point to anti's who do not believe in Mormon scriptures. Those who believe and quote Mormon scriptures to those who do not believe them to be scripture are wasting their breath. Maybe anti's are using them to prove their points.

Round and round we go, where it stops no one knows.

[jwhitlock]

No, I answered it very directly. Please re-read.

nothing to retract.

I'm not about "who's right and who's wrong...if you need a fight, go to the boxing gym.

I stated clearly what my experience was...and told you specifically what I heard ad nauseum in church. If you don't hear it, maybe you go to a very unique ward. I told you, if it is not said anymore, I will retract it. So my question to you is, do you hear it still?"

To you maybe.

Again, do you not hear in church what I said? If you and other LDS here say it is not said anymore, I will retract it.

Getting a bit defensive, aren't you?

I'm not interested in gaining credibility from you.

Simple, I think it is arrogant of anybody to "testify" that theirs is the only correct path for everybody, and that others that get a different answer than what they do are just wrong.

Simple...and arrogant.

Well, there you are.

Thanks for the insight on your motivations and perspectives. I now know the following about you:

- You feel that Mormons are typically arrogant.

- You feel that a testimony of the restored gospel is arrogant.

- When nailed down on an indefensible statement, you won't retract.

It's sad to so often find that when people leave the Church, they have to justify themselves in such ways. It's always the other person's fault, isn't it.

[Deborah]

Maybe because that is what Mormon's use to prove their point to anti's who do not believe in Mormon scriptures. Those who believe and quote Mormon scriptures to those who do not believe them to be scripture are wasting their breath. Maybe anti's are using them to prove their points.

Round and round we go, where it stops no one knows.

It is one thing for a Mormon to quote their own scripture and quite another for someone who mocks the scriptures from the get-go to quote them to prove a point to the Mormon, which they usually fail to do because they don't understand what they are quoting to begin with.

[nana]

It is one thing for a Mormon to quote their own scripture and quite another for someone who mocks the scriptures from the get-go to quote them to prove a point to the Mormon, which they usually fail to do because they don't understand what they are quoting to begin with.

But it is ok for a Mormon to quote their scripture to an anti who mocks the scripture, because the Mormon understands what they are quoting?

[ProvoGirl]

Well, there you are.

Thanks for the insight on your motivations and perspectives. I now know the following about you:

- You feel that Mormons are typically arrogant.

- You feel that a testimony of the restored gospel is arrogant.

- When nailed down on an indefensible statement, you won't retract.

It's sad to so often find that when people leave the Church, they have to justify themselves in such ways. It's always the other person's fault, isn't it.

I just got on here and obviously, I'm a big nobody to the regulars, but if I may put in my 2 cents here.

It seems to me you are making many assumptions about Bishopric and I don't believe that they are quite accurate.

I didn't read where he said that Mormons are typically arrogant. What he stated was a response to another poster 'Lightbearer' where she/he made the comment, "However no experience that tells a person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is of God. And nobody can leave the Church without leaving God, it is His Church. "

That statement, IMHO is indeed a little arrogant and seems to be by my experience quite typical from Mormons...mostly Utah Mormons. What it says is that NOBODY can receive a spiritual signal/message/awakening from God, unless they are Mormon. If they aren't (Mormon), then they are not 'with' God. And heaven forbid, if they are Former-Mormon...Well, that's the worse kind because they have "lost the Spirit", dontchya know, and couldn't possibly experience anything spiritual.

OK. Before you get all in a tither (not sure what that is ) I'm just making an observation from my experience. That, being a 52 yr. old BIC, born and raised in Ut. County....Yes, a Provo Bulldog....raised by great, active parents, held many callings from RS Presidency, YW's, a lot of Primary. I am no "ANTI", not in the least. I have close friends that are Former Mormons and close friends that are TBM.

I have heard exit stories from EXMO's that were extremely spiritual and brought a tear to my eye. I have heard testimony from my active friends where I had the same feeling.

When I hear a statement like the one above, I cringe with embarrassment. I am often told by members that live outside of Utah, that Mormons in the mission field are different and don't have that kind attitude. That the arrogance displayed so often is usually from the "Utah Mormons". Maybe that is true....I don't know.

Finally, having a testimony of the Restored Gospel isn't arrogant. Believing that if a person doesn't, or believes differently, or changes their belief from the Mormon religion, is "leaving God", or "not with God", is, yes...very arrogant......This, IMHO.

[jwhitlock]

I just got on here and obviously, I'm a big nobody to the regulars, but if I may put in my 2 cents here.

It seems to me you are making many assumptions about Bishopric and I don't believe that they are quite accurate.

I didn't read where he said that Mormons are typically arrogant. What he stated was a response to another poster 'Lightbearer' where she/he made the comment, "However no experience that tells a person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is of God. And nobody can leave the Church without leaving God, it is His Church. "

That statement, IMHO is indeed a little arrogant and seems to be by my experience quite typical from Mormons...mostly Utah Mormons. What it says is that NOBODY can receive a spiritual signal/message/awakening from God, unless they are Mormon. If they aren't (Mormon), then they are not 'with' God. And heaven forbid, if they are Former-Mormon...Well, that's the worse kind because they have "lost the Spirit", dontchya know, and couldn't possibly experience anything spiritual.

OK. Before you get all in a tither (not sure what that is ) I'm just making an observation from my experience. That, being a 52 yr. old BIC, born and raised in Ut. County....Yes, a Provo Bulldog....raised by great, active parents, held many callings from RS Presidency, YW's, a lot of Primary. I am no "ANTI", not in the least. I have close friends that are Former Mormons and close friends that are TBM.

I have heard exit stories from EXMO's that were extremely spiritual and brought a tear to my eye. I have heard testimony from my active friends where I had the same feeling.

When I hear a statement like the one above, I cringe with embarrassment. I am often told by members that live outside of Utah, that Mormons in the mission field are different and don't have that kind attitude. That the arrogance displayed so often is usually from the "Utah Mormons". Maybe that is true....I don't know.

Finally, having a testimony of the Restored Gospel isn't arrogant. Believing that if a person doesn't, or believes differently, or changes their belief from the Mormon religion, is "leaving God", or "not with God", is, yes...very arrogant......This, IMHO.

From post #63, by Bishopric:

This is typical Mormon arrogance in action.

Bishopric made an indefensible generalization and then tried to justify it. One should be very careful in the use of words such as "typical" and have some concrete evidence (rather than subjective experience) to back it up.

I found it interesting that he would decry the generalization that lightbearer used by using another generalization himself - and then try to justify himself.

The only point I addressed was his generalization as quoted above. He dug the rest of the hole himself.

There were no assumptions on my part in the process. My post was a summation of what he said himself. I invite you to go back and read in more detail from the beginning.

As a side note, Utah Mormons are nowhere near a majority nor totally representative of the membership of the Church. Even though I live on the east coast, where I grew up, the time I spent in Utah (7 years) was enough for me to know that generalizations about Utah members, while convenient to make, are often not entirely accurate.

[ProvoGirl]

From post #63, by Bishopric:

Bishopric made an indefensible generalization and then tried to justify it. One should be very careful in the use of words such as "typical" and have some concrete evidence (rather than subjective experience) to back it up.

I found it interesting that he would decry the generalization that lightbearer used by using another generalization himself - and then try to justify himself.

The only point I addressed was his generalization as quoted above. He dug the rest of the hole himself.

There were no assumptions on my part in the process. My post was a summation of what he said himself. I invite you to go back and read in more detail from the beginning.

As a side note, Utah Mormons are nowhere near a majority nor totally representative of the membership of the Church. Even though I live on the east coast, where I grew up, the time I spent in Utah (7 years) was enough for me to know that generalizations about Utah members, while convenient to make, are often not entirely accurate.

A generalization? Perhaps. Indefensible? Maybe by your perception. You know, "There is no reality, only perception."

I would imagine that Bishopric was referring to many personal experiences he has had or witnessed while being an active member and those experiences would be enough for him to make the statement he did. Reading the statement, I would imagine, triggered memories of his experience. Is that "indefensible"?

And, from what I read that was not the only point you were addressing, this 'generalization' thing.

You did make another assumption.

You assume that Bishopric believes that anyone who has a testimony of the Gospel, is arrogant. You don't know that he thinks that. Yet you assume that he does.

You also assume that when someone leaves the LDS Church, they are looking for someone to blame.

"It's sad to so often find that when people leave the Church, they have to justify themselves in such ways. It's always the other person's fault, isn't it."

That statement in my opinion, is just as much if not more of a generalization as anything that that Bishopric said.

It seems to me, that there is much of this Generalization stuff, all the way around on here.

[Avatar4321]

Your having a testimony wasn't the arrogant part.

Yeah, just sharing it is

[jwhitlock]

A generalization? Perhaps. Indefensible? Maybe by your perception. You know, "There is no reality, only perception."

So nothing I say has any validity because you can dismiss it as "only my perception"? That's not a very good argument - especially since I demonstrated that he did say what you said he didn't.

I would imagine that Bishopric was referring to many personal experiences he has had or witnessed while being an active member and those experiences would be enough for him to make the statement he did. Reading the statement, I would imagine, triggered memories of his experience. Is that "indefensible"?

Are you and Bishopric related somehow? You skirt around the question just as he did. I'll explain it yet again, even though I've done so previously in this thread - and in response to your post.

The word "typical" is a generalization. He applied it to Mormons and qualified it with arrogance. It's really that simple. Are you trying to defend such a generalization also?

And, from what I read that was not the only point you were addressing, this 'generalization' thing.

You did make another assumption.

You assume that Bishopric believes that anyone who has a testimony of the Gospel, is arrogant. You don't know that he thinks that. Yet you assume that he does.

From Bishopric's post #78

No, I just think this is denial. Are you saying you don't hear "I know the church is true, I know it is God's one and only true church on the earth today, I know God speaks to his people through his prophet on earth today?"

This is arrogance...if it is no longer the case, I will retract -- I haven't attended for 10 years.

This is a basic testimony of the gospel. And he said it was arrogant. Did you miss this in your reading? There was no assumption on my part.

You also assume that when someone leaves the LDS Church, they are looking for someone to blame.

Try looking again at post #78. He said he hadn't attended for 10 years. Because members of typical Mormon arrogance (gee - other people). And this arrogance came from those members who would bear their testimony of the gospel. No assumptions there, either.

But, then again, you're entitled to your perspective. Please just back it up with facts, where possible.

That statement in my opinion, is just as much if not more of a generalization as anything that that Bishopric said.

I could well use the same argument here that you've tried to use in your defence of Bishopric. Did you really understand what lightbearer was saying? Or was it just your perspective?

[ProvoGirl]

Did you really understand what lightbearer was saying? Or was it just your perspective?

I understood completely...through my perspective.

[hokuman]

First, I made many sacrifices to join the LDS church. Some were tough because it happens that the Church of Jesus Christ was so different than the church of hokuman would have been. But, because I know (another topic), I made them. It does not mean that everyone who knows (not believe) the truth and are not willing to make those sacrifices.

Second, at some point everyone has to find out the truth themselves. That is the purpose of the Holy Ghost: the Spirit of Truth. Some are just satisfied with the witness that Jesus is the Christ. Some look for a Church that falls in line (as close as possible) with their own bias', beliefs and theories. Others wonder if the Church Christ established is still on the earth. If that Church is still on the earth than be prepared for items or doctrines that are far from what you think they should be.

Good luck. Always pray for the truth.

Play nice

[JNclone]

First, I made many sacrifices to join the LDS church. Some were tough because it happens that the Church of Jesus Christ was so different than the church of hokuman would have been. But, because I know (another topic), I made them. It does not mean that everyone who knows (not believe) the truth and are not willing to make those sacrifices.

Second, at some point everyone has to find out the truth themselves. That is the purpose of the Holy Ghost: the Spirit of Truth. Some are just satisfied with the witness that Jesus is the Christ. Some look for a Church that falls in line (as close as possible) with their own bias', beliefs and theories. Others wonder if the Church Christ established is still on the earth. If that Church is still on the earth than be prepared for items or doctrines that are far from what you think they should be.

Good luck. Always pray for the truth.

Play nice

Yes, but the logic doesn't work the other way round, does it? Here is what I mean;

1. If there is a God, and if he chooses to reveal himself to humanity, then it is possible that some of the things he reveals will be unexpected, and perhaps counter-intuitive. Therefore the fact that the content of religion X is (in everyday terms) bizarre and inconvenient to its practitioners does not necessarily mean it is false. That is a very old argument, well stated in Joseph Butler, 1736 "The analogy of religion, natural and revealed, to the constitution and course of nature." It is not a stupid argument, although in my view it has severe limits.

But ....

2. The fact that the content of religions Y and Z are (in everyday terms) bizarre and inconvenient to their practitioners does not make them more likely to be true.

So the fact that some objectors to the CoJCoLDS find its tenets bizarre, and that some of its practioners find that being LDS causes them problems, does nothing to prove that the beliefs of the CoJCoLDS are true. The same is, after all, true of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses - which most people on this board believe, like me, to be false.

[Lightbearer]

Simple, I think it is arrogant of anybody to "testify" that theirs is the only correct path for everybody, and that others that get a different answer than what they do are just wrong.

Simple...and arrogant.

Let me make one last comment about my original post. According to the dictionary the definition of Arrogance is as follows:

ar

[Maidservant]

3DOP, thank you for your thoughts and testimony. I felt a good spirit.

[merlin0152]

Hey guys, I appreciate the passion that seems to drive a lot of these responses. But I've noticed that no one is really stepped up to the plate and answered these questions that I've posed in one of my earlier posts. We aren't trying to get into "your right or your wrong" argument here, just establish the plausibility of each of the concepts. It would be nice to start with a concrete 'yes' or 'no' type answer to each statement (quoted below in bold) and maybe a breif explanation if applicable for each one.

I. I doubt any of us would agree that God is capable of lying to you. Have you considered if there is anyone else that might?? Revelation 12:9 says that the Devil will "lead the world astray". Is it possible the Devil could tempt your "heart" in order to lead you astray? Jeremiah 17:9 says the "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Consider the plausibility of this....if it's plausible, how confident are you about a feeling within your heart?

II. Is this how we are instructed to test? The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were held in very high regard & considered "of Noble Character" by the Apostle writer himself, and were shown here qualifying Truth by "examining the scriptures", not praying to God about it. Why do you suppose this is the case? Is this an example for everyone to imitate?

III. Have you prayed in order to qualify or disqualify:

Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Juche, Judaism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Neo-Paganism, or Scientology (as you know the list could go on and on)?

Or can we simply disqualify these Faiths and others that sprout up periodically based on our Faith and trust in the Bible?

Summary:

I broke this up into 3 sections (I), (II), & (III) each I think with it's own questions to answer.

I. Is it plausible, according to scripture, that Satan could manipulate us by our 'hearts'?

II. What is our test according to scriptural example? Is it safe to say that the example shown would alleviate the potential of a subjective heart/emotions being manipulated?

III. Are we not forewarned by Paul himself that 'New Testaments' would crop up and try to lead us astray? What does he say is the Gospel that we are to obey? In the most simplest of answers, what other instructions or gospels are we instructed not to obey? From whom might 'any other gospel' be presented to us?

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say on the subject.

In Christian Love,

Merlin0152

[bluebell]

can we simply disqualify these Faiths and others that sprout up periodically based on our Faith and trust in the Bible?

No.

Is it plausible, according to scripture, that Satan could manipulate us by our 'hearts'?

Yes.

What is our test according to scriptural example?

sorry, this can't be answered with a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

But i would say, off the top of my head, that one test is to go by 'their fruits' as Christ taught that that is how we will know whether or not something is of God.

Is it safe to say that the example shown would alleviate the potential of a subjective heart/emotions being manipulated?

No, i don't think that's safe to say. For one thing, what is 'good fruit' to one person is sometimes 'bad fruit' to another.

Are we not forewarned by Paul himself that 'New Testaments' would crop up and try to lead us astray?

No, paul never says to be aware of new testimonies of Christ coming in to lead us astray.

What does he say is the Gospel that we are to obey?

Gospel of Christ.

In the most simplest of answers, what other instructions or gospels are we instructed not to obey?

Those not of Him

From whom might 'any other gospel' be presented to us?

From anyone. You, me, Pastor john down at the four square church or bishop jones from an LDS one.

Paul himself tried for quite some time to get people to believe 'another gospel' than Christianity and happily tossed Christians in with the lions in the name of God.

Good intentions doesn't mean we can't be lead astray.

[structurecop]

II. Is this how we are instructed to test? The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were held in very high regard & considered "of Noble Character" by the Apostle writer himself, and were shown here qualifying Truth by "examining the scriptures", not praying to God about it. Why do you suppose this is the case? Is this an example for everyone to imitate?

Most Hebrew bible scholars would agree that the Bereans must have a very poor understanding of the Hebrew bible in order to be swayed to such an understanding of Messianic expectations -- unless, of course, they were searching a different set of scriptures altogether.