Close Topic Options

A Word To The Self-righteous - Page 3

Amonhi:

I don't think I agree with this statement. Every person is at different levels in the Gospel and those who may not want to share certain aspects to others members do not necessarily do it because of Pride or Self-Righteousness but out of love and protection for that member.

I have been in many situations where I have been asked specific questions about certain aspects of Church Doctrine and History, I tried my best to reply BUT if I would share with a specific member who I know struggle with certain issues then it would cause the person to go less active. I would be destroying their Faith. Is that what I want to achieve? Of course not. So It IS a matter of Spiritual Maturity in the Gospel and I do not think it is linked to Pride in a lot of cases but all the opposite.

Self-righteous To Word A

For me its all about when you start to see yourself better than someone else and you cant be told nothing.

A Word To The Self-righteous Studies Doctrine Mormon

Rather off topic, but... There are many major problems that I see here which are not related to pride. The most important is that the person is weak only because they are not centered in the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the rock on which if they build they cannot fall. (D&C 11:24) Instead they are centered/built on doctrines they like to hear. And when they hear something they don't like, they leave. This results in us telling them what they want to hear to manipulate them into staying. Milk is fed to the infants in the world, (not members of the church), who have not yet learned and accepted the Gospel of faith, repentance, baptism and received the Holy Ghost. Once a person has received the Holy Ghost which teaches all things, milk is no longer needed because the person is building on the rock. Milk is for the world who has not received the gospel including the Holy Ghost or rock of personal revelation. Once they are built on the rock, they cannot fall and will not choke on the meat. (D&C 19:21-22, Heb. 5: 12, 1 Cor. 3: 2-3) Another major concern is that a person who thinks they have that much control over another person's salvation does not understand the applicable deference between sin and transgression as related to the atonement of Jesus Christ. I assure you that nothing you or I do can prevent another person from having the fullest opportunity of accepting or rejecting the Gospel, salvation and exaltation. In the end, all choices will be made with a full knowledge of good and evil. If they didn't have such a knowledge, then they would not have agency enough to choose good and salvation and would be as innocent as Adam and Eve in the garden or a new born baby. 2 Ne. 2

Pride is thinking you are superior to others. So, in this case, thinking that you are more able to handle the deep, hard or difficult truths in church history or church doctrines than another person would be considered pride. Any student can learn if the teacher is good enough.
In college, a professor began the class by stating that very few people pass his class. Then he proceeded to express how he had been teaching for years and even students who spent tremendous time studying outside the classroom had a difficult time passing his class. "Very few will get A's and most will get C's. This teacher was being prideful. Although it is hard to see immediately, I will explain.
A student stood up and said to the teacher, "I don't know what your problem is! I am certainly capable of learning, so you must not be a very good teacher! And I am not going to waste my time trying to learn from a teacher that can't teach." With that he walked out.
The teacher had determined that the class was hard and as a teacher he was not at fault for the student's difficulty. Here is his pride. The teacher reasoned, "I am perfect or at least nearly perfect and the students are failing the class, so it must be the students who have the problem."
The problem with pride is you just can't see it. And this teacher was as blind to it as anyone gets. Had the teacher been humble, he would have realized that he was not a very good teacher and worked to improve his abilities to make his students more successful. But he certainly wouldn't have blamed others for his lack.
Pride prevents us from growing and improving by placing the problem outside our control. If the problem is outside our control, then we cannot improve ourselves to overcome the challenge. This places us in a damned state because we cannot improve. An example of this happens when we say, "They are the problem because they are weak in the gospel and they are not ready for the truth." This subtly says that we are perfect or at least capable but even a perfect person like ourselves can't help weak people like this.
In opposition to this, we can be humble and admit that we have control or ability to improve ourselves to overcome the challenge. An example of this is saying, "I do not know how to teach you effectively without challenging your testimony." Placing the lack on ourselves, we humbly admit our weakness and inability without diminishing the other person. This instantly opens us up to the possibility of improving ourselves. We might also refer our questioning friends to someone more capable of answering their questions without threatening their testimony. We also have not lowered ourselves below the other person but have made ourselves equal with them in that we both have a problem. Their problem is lack of knowledge, ours is lack of ability to teach and inspire. Thus we can both grow, not just waiting for them to grow.

Speaking of the elect and Celestial beings, the lord said, "And they shall overcome all things." - D&C 76:60 Humility is the key to overcoming all things. pride prevents us from overcoming and improving.

I am sure this came across very bold and possibly unfeeling. Generally I would not criticize a person for their actions. (I like to stay in the world of theory rather than deal with peoples actual experiences. Although it may seem harsh, I have only positive feelings toward you. I really feel that there is significant application to the topic and some new ideas to hash out. You seem like a very nice person and I hope to not be placed on your bad list. As always, I am open to suggestions and improved ideas. - Amonhi

Edited: Amonhi on 20th Sep, 2007 - 8:08am

Page 3 Self-righteous To Word A

Amonhi:

So are you saying if someone does not know basic additions and subtractions you can teach them Calculus? I suppose we have to agree to disagree on this one. Yes, Pride is to think you are SUPERIOR but when you do NOT think you are superior but you care enough about another brother's testimony as to not damage it then I do not see how that can be considered "pride". Pride should be if I feel I am better than them and they are incapable of learning. In the example given, I do not think they are....I just think a "foundation" needs to be established BEFORE certain topics can be taught. "Line upon line, precept upon precept". When as children start going to school, do we start with the deep stuff or with the basics? We start with the basics right? And then we move slowly towards the deeper topics. The Gospel is not different.

I think the KEY here is the "attitude" on how this is handled. If I think I know better than anybody else and I want to keep all this information for myself to look good, to show off how "bright" I am, if I refuse to teach others because I think they are not worthy of it, then I am being Prideful.

By the other hand, if I really love my brother as I love myself and I have a deep concern towards them, I would not want to do anything that jeopardizes their testimony by sharing something that may cause them to weaken their testimonies. Just like Elder Oaks said "Not everything that is true needs to be shared".

So basically I think that the issue does not reside in the choice of not teaching others but the ATTITUDE behind it, the REASON behind it is what will determine if you are self-righteous or really concerned about the welfare of your brothers and sisters. And if you are concerned about them, you will help them to develop themselves by helping them to study the Scriptures and doing many things that will strengthen their testimony until that point of when you will be able to happily share those things with them. That's what love for your fellowmen is all about and has nothing to do with Pride.

I believe those who may get "offended" by those who may not wish to share certain aspects of the Gospel, maybe suffering of Pride themselves because instead of trying to perceive a brother's good intention, they perceive it as negative.

Now I am aware of people who refuse to share certain doctrinal aspects because of Pride, but it would be unfair to categorize everyone in the same aspect.

Rather off topic, but... QUOTE I am sure this came across very bold and possibly unfeeling. Generally I would not criticize a person for their actions. (I like to stay in the world of theory rather than deal with peoples actual experiences. Although it may seem harsh, I have only positive feelings toward you. I really feel that there is significant application to the topic and some new ideas to hash out. You seem like a very nice person and I hope to not be placed on your bad list. As always, I am open to suggestions and improved ideas. - Amonhi I did not take your post personal in the least. I always enjoy a good debate. I think we are speaking about the same issue but you are concentrating in the action and I am speaking of the intention. There are prideful people who does not want to share because of Pride but others do it out of true love for their fellowmen.

I did not take your post personal in the least. I always enjoy a good debate. I think we are speaking about the same issue but you are concentrating in the action and I am speaking of the intention. There are prideful people who does not want to share because of Pride but others do it out of true love for their fellowmen.

Self-righteous To Word A

Of course not. I am saying that, "Any student can learn if the teacher is good enough." A good teacher can teach everything from basic math to advanced calculus, without confusing the student. A question to ask would be, Could God teach a person who does not understand basic math to master Calculus? If God can do it and we can't then we have need for humility and learning because we have a lack. (There is also a time issue involved, however as I will point out, in real world application this scenario does not exist because a basic math student will never ask calculus questions.)

Rather off topic, but... Here is a neat trick to bring this discussion back into real world application. A student that cannot comprehend the answer will not know enough to ask the question. Simply put, a person who does not know basic additions and subtractions will never ask mathematical questions about Calculus level material because it is not line upon line and precept upon precept. We are only able to ask questions that are in our line upon line progression. So, if a person can ask a question, and it is honestly their question, then they are capable of receiving an answer. I do not believe it is loving, but belittling to withhold assistance, unless of course you are not capable of providing that assistance in which case there is no harm in telling them, "I am not capable of answering your question without challenging your faith."

Listen to the difference in these two statements:
1) "I could tell you, but your not ready or strong enough, (inferring: "like I am"), to know the answer to your question and I would hate to be responsible for you falling away."
2) "When you are more mature in the gospel, like me, you will be able to handle some of the deeper doctrines, until then I suggest you stick with the basics."
3) "I am not capable of answering your question without challenging your faith."
Which one(s) sound(s) more humble to you? Why? (I welcome answers from anyone. Please answer.)
Notice that in #1 and #2, (and in the quotes in my original post on this subject), that a comparison is happening between the "weak faith" member and the "seasoned member". In that comparison the person talking is judging themselves as being more advanced, further along, and more equipped to handle the "deeper doctrines" or "Dark Church History". This has the 2 elements of pride, 1) comparison 2) elevating oneself above another.

Rather off topic, but... The scriptures teach, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." - James 1:5 Should we follow God's example in this or let God do all the teaching himself? I personally could see both options as correct.

Caring for others is not pride. Judging others as less advanced or superior in any way as compared to yourself fits under what Benson referred to as "any other worldly measuring device". Love in the way you are saying and pride are two different things. First one considers another less capable. And after this judgment is made, love kicks in and it makes the judgment feel and look good by hiding the pride with true concern. Without the comparison and judgment there would be no need to protect because of love. If they were considered equals, then they would not need protecting. (It is true that by telling them a doctrine or about negative aspects of church history they may leave the church. But staying in the church because of ignorance isn't much of a salvation anyway. Also, if they are truly seeking, they will find any source that is willing to teach them. In that case, it would be better to point them to the best source possible. If everyone in the church treated a seeker the way you are saying, then they would not receive the information from a faithful source. They would certainly be able to find a willing anti-Mormon to teach them what they want to know. I think that would be worse than the worst case scenario if you taught them what you know.
I do have an interest in this discussion and so perhaps I am not in a good position to look objectively at the situation. A few years back, I watched a discussion between someone I know very well and a RS president. They had a disagreement and after this young lady explained, very reasonably, her view point, the RS Pres. who couldn't argue the point back but was unwilling to agree told this lady, "Well, when you are more mature in the gospel, (Insinuating, "More mature like me"), and you have been in the church as long as I have, then you will understand why it is that way."
I secretly laughed because it was true that the RS President was certainly older than this particular woman who had received her calling and election, which is the promise of exaltation. LOL - How much more mature in the gospel can you get! LOL Hahahaha... (This story still makes me smile.)

You are correct. However, there are 4 questions. 1) If the person asks the question, then isn't the answer in their line upon line progression? 2) Can a good teacher teach a doctrine without causing an honest seeker to loose faith? 3) Is it humble to blame a student/seeker for our in ability to teach a particular thing without increasing their testimony and faith? Could God do it?

I do agree.

Yes. And there is the difference. Sharing Concerns vs Answering Questions. For example, it is one thing to answer a question that a person has regarding an doctrine or church history which is already of concern. (Missionaries call this resolving concerns.) It is quite another to bring up and share things that people are not ready for. This is where "creating concerns" happens. A calculus expert can certainly open their mouth and breach the line upon line protocol by dumping more on a person than they can comprehend. Bringing up anti-mormon arguments with a weak member who is not builsecurelyly on the rock would be a very bad move indeed.

I do agree.

LDS_forever - And if you are concerned about them, you will help them to develop

I do agree. Sharing vs Answering Questions.

Possibly. I have been in situations like that. One of my employees had an experience with some young boys in her ward, preparing for a mission. The boy's had gotten a hold of some talk by Brigham Young that they thought was deep. She asked them about what they were reading and they responded, "Deep doctrine stuff that your not ready for." She was had been a member for 3-4 years I think. I didn't get the idea she was offended, I think she just excused them for their young ageimmaturityy, (Pride?). She and I had very deep discussions. I loved talking doctrine with her! I don't think the boy's meant to be malicious, but they were very rude by comparing themselves to her and judging her.

This brings up another question. If it is prideful to compare ourselves to others and elevate ourselves above others, then is it also prideful to compare ourselves to others and elevate them above us? Some kind of a negative pride or false humility perhaps?

Beautiful! We have an accord, and I agree on the rest.

A Word To The Self-righteous

Amonhi, after reading your post you realize we actually agree on this issue, no?.

I love this new point you brought up:

This is a very interesting point that sometimes we see in the Church. People's perception of humility sometimes it is so odd. One day I was in Sunday School and the teacher asked "How many of you are humble?" Believe me or not, several hands raised up. I wanted to laugh because I reasoned, the fact that you are admitting you are humble...shows your lack of humility. *laughs*

Other members perceive humility someone who is very soft spoken and is willing to take any insult or bashing from anyone. I think the true key to know if someone is humble, is that they are truly teachable. I recall a RS President years ago stating that she does not seem herself as above anyone but just a servant of the Lord but literally, you could not tell her anything concerning her calling because she was quick to get very "offended" and aggressive. Sometimes we fool ourselves when in fact all of us lack humility and we could do much better in that aspect.

We also see this issue when members see a General Authority. They place them in pedestal as if they are not men. It is quite concerning sometimes, specially when you are in Testimony meeting and you hardly hear about the Savior but you hear about the fireside with Elder such and such. Do not take me wrong, I am not trying to put these Brethren down at all but sometimes members tend to kind of "worship" them in a way that I find is dangerous. It is Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world who was willing to die for each one of us who was perfect and who all our "praises" be towards to.

Rather off topic, but... QUOTE A few years back, I watched a discussion between someone I know very well and a RS president. They had a disagreement and after this young lady explained, very reasonably, her view point, the RS Pres. who couldn't argue the point back but was unwilling to agree told this lady, "Well, when you are more mature in the gospel, (Insinuating, "More mature like me"), and you have been in the church as long as I have, then you will understand why it is that way." I secretly laughed because it was true that the RS President was certainly older than this particular woman who had received her calling and election, which is the promise of exaltation. How much more mature in the gospel can you get! Hahahaha... We have a thread in the LDS Mature section that deals with Making your Call and Election Sure. If you decide to upgrade at some point of time, I would love to discuss this issue with you and ask you a couple of questions concerning this particular experience you shared.

We have a thread in the LDS Mature section that deals with Making your Call and Election Sure. If you decide to upgrade at some point of time, I would love to discuss this issue with you and ask you a couple of questions concerning this particular experience you shared.

A Word To Self-righteous - Page 3

I think we do agree. I can see ways in which both side are correct. For example:
Your point: A person with basic math skills will be overwhelmed if someone tried to teach them calculus. - Correct - If you are saying that the Calculus teacher does not cover the line upon line progression between basic math and advanced calculus. This would be a very bad idea.
My Point: A person with basic math skills CAN handle being taught calculus, and nothing is too deep for that person to learn if they have a good teacher. - Correct - If the teacher is Good, then the teacher will cover line upon line from basic math all the way to advanced calculus. This can be done in one lesson.
People have problems in math when teachers jump steps. For example, a teacher teaches steps 1, 3, 4, 7, 10. There are gaps in the students understanding. Teachers jump little steps and so require the students to do practice problems until the student "gets it". The student doesn't always "get it" when the teacher teaches because the teacher skips line upon line steps. Basically the student must practise until until they either memorize 1, 3, 4, 7, 10 or learn 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or some combination of the two.
If the teacher didn't do this, then even a basic math student could learn advanced calculus in 1 day. (Extremely young children do this and we call them genius when actually they had very good teachers. I have been able to test this with real children and have seen 5 year olds progress in one day what average students take months or even a year to understand.)
So, the closer a teach gets to "connecting all the dots" and presenting information in a line upon line format, the better the teacher is at teaching. And the more gaps a teacher leaves, the more likely they are to loose their students.
This means that a good teacher can teach any doctrine without challenging the students testimony. In the case of a weak testimony, a good teacher will not make the problem worse by creating bigger gaps, but will go back and re-teach the student and fill in the gaps that are causing that student to be "lost". Then the teacher can continue on in teaching anything they want. But a good teacher will always teach line upon line so they have the foundation you were speaking of.
I am willing to teach a new member about Blood atonement or what it means to Assent to the death of Christ as long as we cover each step well.
So, it would be prideful for me to refuse to teach a person something they are interested in learning from me, even if it is deep doctrine or dark church history and they have a weak testimony. And the result in the end, if I did it correctly would be that the person would have a stronger testimony.
A teacher who could not do this would be wise to consider their lack and Admit that they "are not capable of teaching this doctrine without hurting one's faith.

Rather off topic, but... True doctrine or history itself does not destroy faith but proves faith and converts faith to knowledge. If truth destroyed faith, then the faith was faith in false teachings and should be discarded anyway to make room for faith in true teachings.

YES! I agree, humility = teachability, and in a similar way, Pride = unteachable.

This is more prevalent than most people realise and a very big problem as far as personal progression. You will never have to preach that one to me. I think you under stated it.
Question - Is it some kind of reverse pride? One of the problems of pride is that somebody looses or comes up on bottom. In this case, it is us who judge ourselves as being on the bottom. That is not humility! Possibly a form of false humility. But is it pride or is it something else? Low self esteem? Self criticism?

Edited: Amonhi on 21st Sep, 2007 - 8:57pm

A Word To Self-righteous Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

"Pride goeth before destruction."

Ref. (Prov. 16:18. KJV Bible)