The Arrogance of Knowing "The Church is True"

[_KimberlyAnn]

I can't help but poke in again.

I see the mention of "these" people and Mormons and their beliefs. Weren't the majority of you once "these" people?

Yes, I was a Mormon. That's how I know some of their beliefs are elitist and arrogant. I believed those elitist, arrogant things, too. And like the vast majority of Mormons, I wasn't arrogant about most things. I was pleasant and helpful, but I still held beliefs that, looking back, I realize were arrogant.

What about your beliefs made you arrogant?

I was taught that I was chosen in the pre-existence, because of my valor, to be a member of the Mormon church. I started out preferred over others. I defended the elitist and exclusionary practices of the Mormon church. I believed I had special knowledge that others didn't have, which was sacred, and that only if others were "good" enough, they could have it, too. I held many beliefs of which I am now ashamed.

Why are there questions asked of others that belong to a group when you yourself were once a part of this group? Don't you already hold the answer?

Why? That's what this board is for! Most all of us are either Mormons or former Mormons who are discussing Mormonism. And yes, I know about Mormonism because I was a Mormon for thirty-two years, so I do hold some answers of my own, but not the answers of others. That's why I ask them for their opinions.

**edited to add** I didn't see one person on this thread admit to being an arrogant person. Did I miss it? If you were a Mormon and believe Mormons are arrogant step up!

Actually, yes, I did say I was taught arrogant things and on another thread started about me by Coggins, I did, indeed say that I arrogantly believed I held the only truth when I was a Mormon.

KA

[_Runtu]

I think you are confusing intents with unavoidable and indirect outcomes of intents. To me, the intent for both temple weddings and the scuba graduation, isn't to exclude, but rather to perform the respective ceremonies in ways and areas that have been deemed most fitting to what is being ceremonialized. What better place to graduate from scuba diving class than in the very environment where the scuba instruction is most applicable? Same goes for the temple ceremony. Sure, exclusion may unavoidably be a consequence thereof, but not the intent.

I am not confusing intent. My understanding is that the intent is to make the sealing a special and sacred event, and as Who Knows said, I have no problem with that whatsoever. I am not currently "worthy" to enter the temple and have no plans to become such. Thus, I don't demand access to the temple. But it seems odd and arbitrary that in some countries, allowances are made for a separate wedding ceremony to be held before the sealing. But not in the US. I don't think it's evil intent, but the effects are quite heartbreaking, as I hope you would understand.

The same general principle applies to most every wedding. The size and location of the wedding facility may not accomodate everyone wishing to attend. For example, my nephew is getting married in a week in his fiance's parent's back yard in Washington state. Because of the small size of the yard, and the great distance from where many of my family lives, only a few are in a position to attend, and fewer still will be able to attend--not because the intent was to exclude, but because circumstance unavoidably resulted in exclusion.

I don't see anything "arrogant" about any of this (not that you do).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are correct that I don't see anything arrogant in the way it's done, but it makes no sense and has rather cruel effects. When I was married, my sister drove from California just to stand outside the Salt Lake Temple while we were being married. Of course, my mind was elsewhere that day, and it didn't occur to me that it might be hurtful to her.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Why? That's what this board is for! Most all of us are either Mormons or former Mormons who are discussing Mormonism. And yes, I know about Mormonism because I was a Mormon for thirty-two years, so I do hold some answers of my own, but not the answers of others. That's why I ask them for their opinions.

I know what this board is for KA. I really get the impression that you like to whack me over the head that I'm a never-mo. I don't know if that's your intention but it certainly comes off that way. You did the same thing in chat last night mentioning that your perception was accurate because you were a Mormon for so many years.

I have a Mormon in my family. I have issues that deal with Mormonism and come here to learn.

I just see some questions as asking opinions of others and then not really wanting to hear any opinions that differ. I see some of these questions as a way of seeking validation.

And as someone that loves their step-son intensely I find it rather awful that anyone would call him or his beliefs arrogant. I find it rather mean spirited. But that's just me.

[_The Nehor]

I can.

Can you respect that others might find good (non-arrogant) reasons for believing that your belief system is arrogant?

Not really, when I feel snubbed I know it's only because I really want to be on top socially. I would argue you can't see arrogance unless you actually are arrogant.

That must mean that Wade, Cogs, and Dr. Peterson have joined KA in the arrogant club. ;-)

I guess I don't see your point. I can recognize rudeness without being rude; spot dishonesty without being dishonest; and perceive arrogance without being arrogant.

Yes, pretty much everyone is arrogant, now if we could stop fighting about degrees of arrogance we might get somewhere.

[_The Nehor]

Not really, when I feel snubbed I know it's only because I really want to be on top socially. I would argue you can't see arrogance unless you actually are arrogant.

So nobody in the history of the world has ever been arrogant?

This discussion is getting wonky.

No, I'm just thinking pretty much everyone has.

[_Runtu]

Yes, pretty much everyone is arrogant, now if we could stop fighting about degrees of arrogance we might get somewhere.

I'm not arguing about degrees of arrogance. I just thought your statement that discerning arrogance means that you're arrogant was kind of nonsensical.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Why? That's what this board is for! Most all of us are either Mormons or former Mormons who are discussing Mormonism. And yes, I know about Mormonism because I was a Mormon for thirty-two years, so I do hold some answers of my own, but not the answers of others. That's why I ask them for their opinions.

I know what this board is for KA. I really get the impression that you like to whack me over the head that I'm a never-mo. I don't know if that's your intention but it certainly comes off that way. You did the same thing in chat last night mentioning that your perception was accurate because you were a Mormon for so many years.

I have a Mormon in my family. I have issues that deal with Mormonism and come here to learn.

I just see some questions as asking opinions of others and then not really wanting to hear any opinions that differ. I see some of these questions as a way of seeking validation.

And as someone that loves their step-son intensely I find it rather awful that anyone would call him or his beliefs arrogant. I find it rather mean spirited. But that's just me.

Book of Mormon, you're the one who intimated that I already knew the answer, so why was I asking other Mormons or ex-Mormons. You asked if we already had the answer, so I agreed. That's all.

You're taking it so personally. I love my family intensely, too. Most of them are Mormon. I can believe their religious beliefs are arrogant and still love them just the same. They're actually the ones who have a problem with me because I left the church, but I still love them.

KA

[_barrelomonkeys]

Why? That's what this board is for! Most all of us are either Mormons or former Mormons who are discussing Mormonism. And yes, I know about Mormonism because I was a Mormon for thirty-two years, so I do hold some answers of my own, but not the answers of others. That's why I ask them for their opinions.

I know what this board is for KA. I really get the impression that you like to whack me over the head that I'm a never-mo. I don't know if that's your intention but it certainly comes off that way. You did the same thing in chat last night mentioning that your perception was accurate because you were a Mormon for so many years.

I have a Mormon in my family. I have issues that deal with Mormonism and come here to learn.

I just see some questions as asking opinions of others and then not really wanting to hear any opinions that differ. I see some of these questions as a way of seeking validation.

And as someone that loves their step-son intensely I find it rather awful that anyone would call him or his beliefs arrogant. I find it rather mean spirited. But that's just me.

Book of Mormon, you're the one who intimated that I already knew the answer, so why was I asking other Mormons or ex-Mormons. You asked if we already had the answer, so I agreed. That's all.

You're taking it so personally. I love my family intensely, too. Most of them are Mormon. I can believe their religious beliefs are arrogant and still love them just the same. They're actually the ones who have a problem with me because I left the church, but I still love them.

KA

Oh, I wasn't commenting on the arrogant in my last reply to you. I really get the impression that you don't like me to chime in sometimes. Perhaps I misread you?

I just don't really see it as helpful really to sit about labeling people. Americans are arrogant. Texans are pretty arrogant. French are arrogant. Republicans are arrogant. Coggins is arrogant. DCP is arrogant. Tal Bachman is arrogant. Tom Waits fans are really arrogant. I'm arrogant. It just seems really like a nanner nanner.

I'd never walk into a room of like minded people (let's say Libertarians) and ask them their view on something that I already knew and had once held. I suppose it's like those people that quit some awful habit and then are zealous that they are so much better than those that still are addicted?

I just don't see this as dialogue that helps anybody really. Maybe it does? Maybe it's cathartic? I don't really understand it. There seems like there is so much anger directed at LDS here. Is it anger at self that believers were once deluded? I suppose I don't understand where all the anger stems from.

Sometimes it makes me bristle. I just want to go om somewhere now.

[_Mister Scratch]

Yes, pretty much everyone is arrogant, now if we could stop fighting about degrees of arrogance we might get somewhere.

I'm not arguing about degrees of arrogance. I just thought your statement that discerning arrogance means that you're arrogant was kind of nonsensical.

I agree. After all, Christ seemed pretty capable of chastising others for their arrogance. Does this mean that He was arrogant Himself?

[_wenglund]

I think you are confusing intents with unavoidable and indirect outcomes of intents. To me, the intent for both temple weddings and the scuba graduation, isn't to exclude, but rather to perform the respective ceremonies in ways and areas that have been deemed most fitting to what is being ceremonialized. What better place to graduate from scuba diving class than in the very environment where the scuba instruction is most applicable? Same goes for the temple ceremony. Sure, exclusion may unavoidably be a consequence thereof, but not the intent.

I am not confusing intent. My understanding is that the intent is to make the sealing a special and sacred event, and as Who Knows said, I have no problem with that whatsoever. I am not currently "worthy" to enter the temple and have no plans to become such. Thus, I don't demand access to the temple. But it seems odd and arbitrary that in some countries, allowances are made for a separate wedding ceremony to be held before the sealing. But not in the US. I don't think it's evil intent, but the effects are quite heartbreaking, as I hope you would understand.

The same general principle applies to most every wedding. The size and location of the wedding facility may not accomodate everyone wishing to attend. For example, my nephew is getting married in a week in his fiance's parent's back yard in Washington state. Because of the small size of the yard, and the great distance from where many of my family lives, only a few are in a position to attend, and fewer still will be able to attend--not because the intent was to exclude, but because circumstance unavoidably resulted in exclusion.

I don't see anything "arrogant" about any of this (not that you do).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You are correct that I don't see anything arrogant in the way it's done, but it makes no sense and has rather cruel effects. When I was married, my sister drove from California just to stand outside the Salt Lake Temple while we were being married. Of course, my mind was elsewhere that day, and it didn't occur to me that it might be hurtful to her.

I attended the reception of a friend's daughter in SLC just last week. Following the temple ceremony there was a "ring ceremony" at the park where the reception was held, and this for those unable to attend the temple (including, I believe, the Father of the bride, non-member aunts and uncles and cousins, as well as myself--my temple recommend had expired, and I wasn't able to renew it in time). I don't know that anyone was "hurt" or "heartbroken" as a result (I certainly wasn't--though that may just be because I was focused on the joy of the newly married couple, and doing my part to assist therein), but most that I talked to felt blessed and happy because of it all. There wasn't even the least hint that I could see of "arrogance"....just an abundance of love expressed one to another.

I had a similar experience with my nieces wedding/reception in Idaho the week before.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-