The Arrogance of Knowing "The Church is True"

[_Runtu]

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!

Not long ago, my daughter came home from a fireside and announced that her generation was the most valiant of all because they were reserved for the last day when the world would be at its most wicked. I said, "Yeah, they told us the same thing when we were kids." She wasn't pleased.

At least she wasn't told, as I was, that I was born into a white, American, LDS family because I had been valiant in the premortal life. I must have done something right, I was told, or I might have been a black African (perish the thought) without the gospel in my life.

So, yes, I understand that some "doctrines" can be considered arrogant. That one certainly is.

[_wenglund]

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.

Since actions often speak louder than words, I think a far better gauge of infallibility than the example you gave is how closely the members conform their lives to the admonishings of the living prophet. Undoubtably, the membership as a whole are far from perfect in following him. So, in practice, the living prophet is nowhere near considered infallible.

But, even that gauge is, ironically, fallible. Fallability is not just about whether one has yet fallen or not, but also the possibility of falling in the future.

Besides, there are various ways and various degrees to which the living prophet may be considered fallable, whether while acting in the capacity as prophet and/or as a fellow human. For example, while I believe the prophet is very well spoken (far more eloquent than me), I think there have been times (particularly when talking impromptu like in public interviews) when he could have phrased things better. I don't see this as anywhere close to a serious failing, but it is fallibility nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Since actions often speak louder than words, I think a far better gauge of infallibility than the example you gave is how closely the members conform their lives to the admonishings of the living prophet. Undoubtably, the membership as a whole are far from perfect in following him. So, in practice, the living prophet is nowhere near considered infallible.

But, even that gauge is, ironically, fallible. Fallability is not just about whether one has yet fallen or not, but also the possibility of falling in the future.

Besides, there are various ways and various degrees to which the living prophet may be considered fallable, whether while acting in the capacity as prophet and/or as a fellow human. For example, while I believe the prophet is very well spoken (far more eloquent than me), I think there have been times (particularly when talking impromptu like in public interviews) when he could have phrased things better. I don't see this as anywhere close to a serious failing, but it is fallibility nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One can believe the prophet is always right but still fail to follow, can one not? That's a measure of commitment and faith and says nothing about whether the prophet is right or wrong.

In my experience, a living prophet is never considered wrong in his "official" pronouncements, such as conference addresses. And though a prophet could theoretically "fall," no one I know believes that the living prophet has ever done or said anything wrong in his official capacity as mouthpiece of the Lord.

If you think about it, the president of the church faces tremendous pressure just because of the expectations placed on him.

[_Scottie]

Since actions often speak louder than words, I think a far better gauge of infallibility than the example you gave is how closely the members conform their lives to the admonishings of the living prophet. Undoubtably, the membership as a whole are far from perfect in following him. So, in practice, the living prophet is nowhere near considered infallible.

But, even that gauge is, ironically, fallible. Fallability is not just about whether one has yet fallen or not, but also the possibility of falling in the future.

Besides, there are various ways and various degrees to which the living prophet may be considered fallable, whether while acting in the capacity as prophet and/or as a fellow human. For example, while I believe the prophet is very well spoken (far more eloquent than me), I think there have been times (particularly when talking impromptu like in public interviews) when he could have phrased things better. I don't see this as anywhere close to a serious failing, but it is fallibility nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One can believe the prophet is always right but still fail to follow, can one not? That's a measure of commitment and faith and says nothing about whether the prophet is right or wrong.

In my experience, a living prophet is never considered wrong in his "official" pronouncements, such as conference addresses. And though a prophet could theoretically "fall," no one I know believes that the living prophet has ever done or said anything wrong in his official capacity as mouthpiece of the Lord.

If you think about it, the president of the church faces tremendous pressure just because of the expectations placed on him.

I went on a date a couple of months ago and the subject of "any 2 people living righteously could be happily married" came up. Since this was a first date, my current disbelief didn't come up, so she just assumed I was TBM. I let her believe this. Anyways, we debated this "doctrine". I disagreed with it, while she held that it was true. Finally, she said, "Well, the prophet said it, so it must be true." I said, "No, I still disagree with it." She actually gasped. I'm not kidding. She was absolutely flabbergasted that someone would dare disagree with something the prophet said!! I tried to explain that it was ok to disagree with a prophet, but she wasn't about to hear it!! After all, if we couldn't trust the prophets, then what was the point? I couldn't agree more with that statement.

[_wenglund]

Understandably, I think some members and former members may be confusing "self-worth" with various things such as self-accomplishment, self-appreciation, opportunity, responsibility, etc.

To illustrate this in a way that may be better understood, let me hark back to the collegiate analogy previously mentione.

Were I to have been told in college that I was "special", and the reason I was there was because I was more valient in high school than other students, I suppose I could interpret this to mean that I am better (in terms of self-worth) than those students who didn't gratuate nor went on to college, and in that sense it would be arrogant of me to think in that way.

However, were I to interpret it to mean that I was successful in accomplishing my high school goals, while other did not, and humbly appreciate what I had accomplished, and acknowledge the opportunities as well as increased responsibilities college may now afford me, and lovingly yerning for those less fortunate (meaning those who may not as yet have the same percieved opportunities as me because they didn't graduate or go on to college) to share in the blessings and opportunities that college may afford, then I don't see this as arrogant thinking.

What makes the difference between arrogance and not, is in seeing oneself as "better" than others, rather than reasonably acknowledging that one may be "better off" than others.

So, it isn't teaching that one is "special" and "valient" that is arrogant, but interpreting (or misinterpreting) that teachings in arrogant ways--i.e. in terms of self-worth. In other words, arrogance isn't inherent in the teaching, but in the way some people interpret, or misinterpret the teaching.

I think this is important to realize because it exposes the vulnerability of certain individuals to misinterpreting perfectly reasonable things in arrogant ways--as perhaps further evinced by how some people ironically now look arrogantly down their noses at the LDS and LDS teaching which they arrogantly misinterpreted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

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.

By what means do you determine that a current prophet might be wrong, that a previous prophet might be wrong?

[_Who Knows]

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.

By what means do you determine that a current prophet might be wrong, that a previous prophet might be wrong?

I'd also like to know if the prophets of the scriptures could be wrong as well? Could the scriptures then be wrong?

[_The Nehor]

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.)

That story has been passed around for some time, attributed to multiple speakers. It finally settled down until BKP released a general letter to the Church to be read in Sacrament Meeting and Zone Meetings that the story was false, that he did not say it and furthermore he did not believe it. I found it funny because the letter was read minutes after a Zone Leader who ticked me off to no end had related it as a motivational exercise.

[_wenglund]

One can believe the prophet is always right but still fail to follow, can one not? That's a measure of commitment and faith and says nothing about whether the prophet is right or wrong.

True, but one's commitment and level of observance can also be a function of the degree to which one believes and thinks the prophet is right.

In my experience, a living prophet is never considered wrong in his "official" pronouncements, such as conference addresses.

I don't know about "never", but I would agree that it is not common for members to verbally disagree with "official" pronouncements, though they may not consider the pronouncement to perfect in every way. But, even still, there is a host of "non-official" things the living prophet may say and do that some mebers may thing is wrong to one degree or another.

And though a prophet could theoretically "fall," no one I know believes that the living prophet has ever done or said anything wrong in his official capacity as mouthpiece of the Lord.

Even were that true (I have some reservation about it), the potential to fall makes the prophet fallible.

If you think about it, the president of the church faces tremendous pressure just because of the expectations placed on him.

I agree, though I wouldn't classify those expectations as "infallable", just very high.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_KimberlyAnn]

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.

Thank you, Canuklehead, for sharing your EFY lesson with us. I had those same lessons and was told the same stories. I was told that I was a part of the greatest group of people who have ever existed - that I was valiant in the pre-existence and saved to come forth during the most important time in the history of the world. Also, like you, I was told of the awe in which I would be held in the hereafter. Those teachings do indeed instill a subconscious arrogance of which most members aren't aware, but of which many outsiders are.

I've really enjoyed your posts so far! Welcome to the board!

Kimberly Ann