The Arrogance of Knowing "The Church is True"

[_Yoda]

How often do you hear the disgusting rote line in church about a nonmember that a member knows, "If the only knew what we know, if they only would open their hearts to what we have..."

I think, however, that this can go back to intent. I agree with Book of Mormon. When you think of the term, arrogance, it has a negative connotation. You immediately associate the term with someone who has a superiority complex, or at least, I do.

I have met individual Mormons who definitely do fall into this category, but I have also had close associations with those who don't.

I think that the majority of LDS Church members who truly do embrace the gospel do not think they are superior at all because they have it. They honestly believe that they have the correct pathway back to God and want to share that pathway with others. Is honestly wanting to give that type of gift to others arrogant? I don't think so.

In my opinion, where arrogance and the superiority complex come into play is when an LDS person shares what they have been taught about the gospel with someone else, and that other person rejects it, or says "no thank you, I attend my own Church, etc." If the LDS person puts this other individual down, and says that this person will never get back to God, etc., then yes, that is arrogant. It's not only arrogant, but judgmental, because only God can determine who will return to Him and who won't.

Is Mormonism's teaching that the LDS way is the ONLY way back to God arrogant? In my opinion, yes. However, other religions teach the same thing. This is not a defense of the arrogance, just an observation.

This is actually the piece of Mormonism that I struggle with the most. I have met too many wonderful people who practice other religions, and who have received spiritual confirmations and experiences that, in my opinion, are just as valid as those I have experienced. Will they be relegated to a "lower kingdom" or separated from their families simply because they are not members of the LDS Church? I honestly don't think so.

[_KimberlyAnn]

In my opinion, where arrogance and the superiority complex come into play is when an LDS person shares what they have been taught about the gospel with someone else, and that other person rejects it, or says "no thank you, I attend my own Church, etc." If the LDS person puts this other individual down, and says that this person will never get back to God, etc., then yes, that is arrogant. It's not only arrogant, but judgmental, because only God can determine who will return to Him and who won't.

Is Mormonism's teaching that the LDS way is the ONLY way back to God arrogant? In my opinion, yes. However, other religions teach the same thing. This is not a defense of the arrogance, just an observation.

I also believe the mockery of the Protestant minister that went on for years and years in the temple ceremony was arrogant, and revealed the true LDS belief that they, as religionists, are far superior to others - to the point of institutionalized mocking of other faiths.

And, Liz, in my opinion, the LDS don't have to say out loud that they think people who reject the church won't get back to God in order for their beliefs to be arrogant and elitist. They just have to think it, and they do. It's their doctrine! People who get the message about the Mormon church in this life and reject it have missed their chance. They're not, according to LDS theology, going to be with God in the afterlife. Only Mormons who make it to the Celestial Kingdom get to be with God. It's the same problem with arrogant beliefs of EV's who think everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus is going to hell.

The exclusionary nature of temple weddings, the belief that BIC's are chosen from before birth - they have a "noble birthright" and are "chosen" over others, and the idea that they know with a perfect certainty (as Coggins put it) that they are right and everyone else is wrong, are all examples of the arrogant nature of the LDS faith. Are other religions arrogant? Sure. But as far as I know, very few of them are guilty of the above arrogant offenses and even fewer of them mandate that young boys go door to door spreading the message that all other faiths are incorrect, even other Christian faiths. The only other group I know of which routinely goes door to door announcing that they have exclusive truth is the Jehovah's Witnesses. That should tell the Mormons something...

Mormons themselves may be the kindest people around, but their strongly held certain knowledge that they have the absolute, irrefutable, rock-solid, truth in their religion and no one else has it is arrogant. Realizing that their beliefs are arrogant is the first step toward changing them. In fact, two of my non-Member friends were always put off by the way the Mormons referred to themselves as Saints. That may come as a surprise to Mormons, but calling oneself a saint, does, to many outsiders, seem arrogant. I think members of the LDS church are largely unaware of how their beliefs may be arrogant and I think that if it were pointed out to them, that some of them may reconsider their arrogant religious beliefs, like you have, Liz.

KA

[Guest]

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.

My Mom had to stand outside while I was married. When I came out, she cried and cried. I felt horrible.

[Guest]

With all due respect, my dear Wade, this is an awfully dumb analogy. First of all, having a scuba graduation underwater is stupid on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. The whole point of rites-of-passage such as graduations and weddings is that they are communal ceremonies

Oh come now Scratch. People get married in all sorts of weird places that exclude family members. Underwater, skydiving, on the wings of cropdusters, etc.

I thought the analogy was a good one.

If 2 people choose to marry in a place that excludes others, well, that is their right. How dare we call that arrogant. They could have chosen to have a civil wedding, just as the scuba couple could have chosen to have a dry wedding. How is that the fault of the church?

[_Scottie]

Ok well in this instance, given the context provided by KA I use the word differently. The problem is not claiming a truth, or being snobbish or incapable of thinking well. Rather it is not allowing by virtue of one's attitude for any possibility that one could be wrong. There is absolutely nothing that can overturn or be superior to that belief. And I don't mean that one must be open to all ideas and accept them. Or one can not be certain about something. But if the attitude or methodology that one employs does not allow for the possibility of being wrong, then it will always be superior or right and all other counter opinions wrong or inferior irrespective of reasoning and evidence to the contrary.

I don't see this as arrogance at all! It's fear!

Do you know the cost of even allowing that seed of doubt to creep in? In the TBM mind, it is eternal woe!! It could mean the loss of your family in the afterlife. So very much to risk that most won't even go there.

This concept was so well ingrained in me that I would question the existence of God before I would question the truthfulness of the church. I don't believe that made me arrogant, just scared.

[_Who Knows]

If 2 people choose to marry in a place that excludes others, well, that is their right. How dare we call that arrogant. They could have chosen to have a civil wedding, just as the scuba couple could have chosen to have a dry wedding. How is that the fault of the church?

Because those people aren't being 'forced' to have their weddings there. Let's say the scuba company said that they only way they could graduate scuba school was to have their wedding under water. This would be unnecessarily exclusionary. Likewise, the church says the only way to ensure your eternal salvation is to get married in the temple. Similarly, this is unnecessarily exclusionary.

If the church said something like - you can choose to get married civilly, then do a ceremony in the temple, that would be more comparable to the examples you're proposing. Then the couple would truly have a 'choice' (similar to getting married elsewhere that would exclude others).

As it is, they have no choice.

[_Scottie]

If 2 people choose to marry in a place that excludes others, well, that is their right. How dare we call that arrogant. They could have chosen to have a civil wedding, just as the scuba couple could have chosen to have a dry wedding. How is that the fault of the church?

Because those people aren't being 'forced' to have their weddings there. Let's say the scuba company said that they only way they could graduate scuba school was to have their wedding under water. This would be unnecessarily exclusionary. Likewise, the church says the only way to ensure your eternal salvation is to get married in the temple. Similarly, this is unnecessarily exclusionary.

If the church said something like - you can choose to get married civilly, then do a ceremony in the temple, that would be more comparable to the examples you're proposing. Then the couple would truly have a 'choice' (similar to getting married elsewhere that would exclude others).

As it is, they have no choice.

Good point.

[_Runtu]

When Mormons are told God speaks through their prophets, nothing a current prophet says can possibly be wrong.

This is a gross mischaracterization of LDS belief. We are not inerrantists. Not only do we accept the possibility that prophets can say things that are wrong, but our scriptures even suggest the possibility, point out not a few instance where that has occured, and suggest means for dealing with it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, although there is no doctrinal support for the idea of prophetic infallibility, on a practical level the living prophet is presumed to be infallible in his pronouncements. It's only the dead ones who are capable of human error. Thus, members often dismiss such things as Brigham Young's teachings about the nature of God or the necessity of polygamy, but can you imagine someone getting up in sacrament meeting and publicly rejecting Gordon B. Hinckley's teachings on the appropriate number of earrings for women?

Doctrinally, the living prophet is not infallible; in practice, he is.

[_Canucklehead]

Let me add another personal experience to illustrate how the arrogance of church teachings affected me... O

When I was a teenager, I went to EFY four years straight (for the nevermos, it's a summer program for LDS teenagers, and it stands for Especially for Youth). At EFY, for a week straight, we listened to church speakers tell us how special we are to have been born into the church. They would tell us that we were the most special of spirits who had been held back from coming to earth until this very point in history when the world was at it's most wicked. Only the most valiant spirits were born at this point in history, and only the most valiant of the valiant were born in LDS families.

They would tell stories of how, after this life people would be mingling up in the celestial kingdom, and people would ask "when did you live on earth?" Some would say "I lived in the time of Abraham." others, "I was part of the exodus that Moses led out of Egypt." Then, when it was our turn, we'd say "I was on the earth during the time of Gordon B. Hinkley," and a hush would come over the crowd as every bowed down to us. For they knew that only the most faithful and stalwart had lived during that time. (I am NOT exaggerating in retelling this ... I remember this story so well because everyone present talked afterwards about how STRONG the spirit supposedly was during it. I even remember the layout and the shade of light in the room.)

Because of teachings like this, throughout my whole adolescent life, and into adulthood, I would always (subconsciously) look at the people and classify them according to their religion. I had lots of friends outside of the church, but I always had this subsonscious inability to be their friends COMPLETELY, the way I was friends with other Mormons. I would have this little idea in the back of my mind that they'd be so much better people if only they would have the gospel. I don't know if it was to the point where I consciously looked down on them, but I subconsciously couldn't fully accept them for who they were.

Once I rejected the church, I had the sudden realisation one day that this attitude I'd been walking around with my entire life was a complete farce. I realised the everybody in the entire world is exactly the same as me - there are no super-duper special spirits, no noble and great ones, just people. I realised that everybody has been doing the exact same thing as me throughout all of history - trying to live their lives so that they are happiest.

It was a very humbling experience.

Now before people just assume that I was inherently an arrogant ... um ... sonofagun, I just want to point out that I was the kind of person who would always make an extra effort to ensure that everybody would be included in actibvities, who hated seeing people being treated poorly, and who always stuck up for the underdog. I'm not saying this to brag about how great I am... rather to show how these kinds of teachings can instill an kind of subtle arrogance in pretty much anyone.

[_Scottie]

When I was a teenager, I went to EFY four years straight (for the nevermos, it's a summer program for LDS teenagers, and it stands for Especially for Youth). At EFY, for a week straight, we listened to church speakers tell us how special we are to have been born into the church. They would tell us that we were the most special of spirits who had been held back from coming to earth until this very point in history when the world was at it's most wicked. Only the most valiant spirits were born at this point in history, and only the most valiant of the valiant were born in LDS families.

They would tell stories of how, after this life people would be mingling up in the celestial kingdom, and people would ask "when did you live on earth?" Some would say "I lived in the time of Abraham." others, "I was part of the exodus that Moses led out of Egypt." Then, when it was our turn, we'd say "I was on the earth during the time of Gordon B. Hinkley," and a hush would come over the crowd as every bowed down to us. For they knew that only the most faithful and stalwart had lived during that time. (I am NOT exaggerating in retelling this ... I remember this story so well because everyone present talked afterwards about how STRONG the spirit supposedly was during it. I even remember the layout and the shade of light in the room.)

I remember being told this as well. Which is quite a paradox, because I have no idea how I supported this God. If the choice were given to me now, I would have been part of the 1/3 that rebelled against such cruelty.

God probably scared the $#!+ out of me, so I didn't dare rebel against Him!