DiscussMormonism.com

Does anyone else find it arrogant that so many Mormons claim certain knowledge regarding their concept of God and the truthfulness of their church? What kind of pomposity leads people to believe that investigators who pray about a religion and come to a conclusion that is not true aren't praying hard enough or are sinful or misled by the devil? What kind of snobbery is it to assert that Mormons are privy to the truth about God, and not only privy to truth, but chosen people by virtue of their valor in some kind of pre-existence that no one remembers?

According to Mormonism, anyone who investigates the LDS religion and comes to the conclusion that it's not true is wrong and any member who prays about doctrine or proclamations from the prophet and finds they don't agree is wrong, in spite of all the so-called encouragement of the members to think for themselves and pray to know the truth of all things. The problem is, the Mormon church and it's leaders determine what's true and the only correct answer from God is the answer that the Mormon patriarchy says is correct. Is that not the height of arrogance?

The fact is no one can know that Mormonism is true. They can believe it and they can hope it, but they cannot know it. In fact, the vast preponderance of evidence points to the fact that Mormonism is not true and it can much more reasonably and reliably be stated that one can come much closer to certain knowledge that Mormonism is not true than knowledge that it is true.

Behind the veneer of humility so often portrayed by Mormon leaders lies the some of the greatest arrogance one can possess: The certain knowledge that they're right and everyone else is wrong.

KA

KimberlyAnn wrote:Does anyone else find it arrogant that so many Mormons claim certain knowledge regarding their concept of God and the truthfulness of their church? What kind of pomposity leads people to believe that investigators who pray about a religion and come to a conclusion that is not true aren't praying hard enough or are sinful or misled by the devil? What kind of snobbery is it to assert that Mormons are privy to the truth about God, and not only privy to truth, but chosen people by virtue of their valor in some kind of pre-existence that no one remembers?

According to Mormons, anyone who investigates Mormonism and comes to the conclusion that it's not true is wrong and any member who prays about doctrine or proclamations from the prophet and finds they don't agree is wrong, in spite of all the so-called encouragement of the members to think for themselves and pray to know the truth of all things. The problem is, the Mormon church and it's leaders determine what's true and the only correct answer from God is the answer that the Mormon patriarchy says is correct. Is that not the height of arrogance?

The fact is no one can know that Mormonism is true. They can believe it and they can hope it, but they cannot know it. In fact, the vast preponderance of evidence points to the fact that Mormonism is not true and it can much more reasonably and reliably be stated that one can come much closer to certain knowledge that Mormonism is not true than knowledge that it is true.

Behind the veneer of humility so often portrayed by Mormon leaders lies the some of the greatest arrogance one can possess: The certain knowledge that they're right and everyone else is wrong.

KA

I guess I can be quite forgiving of this kind of arrogance. I was thinking today about my characterization of the Book of Mormon as a bad and rather obvious hoax. Is it arrogant of me to express bluntly that assessment of Mormonism? Or does it just mean I have strong feelings about it?

I agree with you that no one really "knows" that Mormonism is true, but then Mormonism has sort of appropriated the word "know" as a substitute for "strongly believe" or "have had spiritual experiences that reinforce my belief." Once you decode the word, you realize that it's not necessarily any more arrogant than an Evangelical's knowing they are "saved."

Hi KA. As someone on the outside looking in it doesn't seem any more arrogant than my EV neighbors. I understand that they know the "truth" and must share it. I think in order to do the work of Christ (in their view) they must believe and tell others of that belief. I don't find it arrogant although it quite possibly is? I wonder if they think I am arrogant when I say that my views are different than theirs and I absolutely do not believe in certain things? I'm not sure.

Is it any more arrogant than your own current position that the Church isn't true? Just the other day, you said that your certainty of this was greater than your conviction of the truthfulness of Mormon claims had ever been.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Is it any more arrogant than your own current position that the Church isn't true? Just the other day, you said that your certainty of this was greater than your conviction of the truthfulness of Mormon claims had ever been.

I agree with you, Dan. Where we veer into arrogance is where we refuse to grant the possible validity of others' experiences and beliefs. I've seen that on both sides of the divide, unfortunately.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Is it any more arrogant than your own current position that the Church isn't true? Just the other day, you said that your certainty of this was greater than your conviction of the truthfulness of Mormon claims had ever been.

My certainty is greater now because I have evidence backing it.

And basing opinions on facts isn't arrogance. Basing opinions on supposed divine revelation and then claiming that despite all evidence to the contrary that one has, to quote several Mormon participants on this board, "certain knowledge" is, indeed, arrogant.

KA

Runtu wrote:I guess I can be quite forgiving of this kind of arrogance. I was thinking today about my characterization of the Book of Mormon as a bad and rather obvious hoax. Is it arrogant of me to express bluntly that assessment of Mormonism? Or does it just mean I have strong feelings about it?

I agree with you that no one really "knows" that Mormonism is true, but then Mormonism has sort of appropriated the word "know" as a substitute for "strongly believe" or "have had spiritual experiences that reinforce my belief." Once you decode the word, you realize that it's not necessarily any more arrogant than an Evangelical's knowing they are "saved."

I think that when Mormons use the word "know" in this context, it's more than just "strongly believe". It's "I strongly believe and I'm 100% certain that I cannot be wrong about this". When a Mormon "knows" the church is true, they are 100% confident that this judgment cannot possibly be wrong. The church not being true as an impossibility.

This is why exmos and exbelievers like you and me were stuck in this rut of believing in the LDS church and having to rationalize away all the evidence that it wasn't true. We "knew" it was true, and therefore its not being true was an impossibility. That impossibility required that something that looked like evidence of the church not being true had to be suspect somehow. Either it was a lie, or "taken out of context", or we rationalized it away somehow, but certainly it couldn't possibly be (gasp) true. That's impossible!

In my case, and I believe from past conversations in your case too, that it wasn't until I admitted to myself the very possibility that the church might not be true, that I was ever able to really look at the evidence on its own merits. That is, I had to admit to myself that I didn't really know the church was true. Admitting that is tantamount to denying one's testimony, which is something to be feared and loathed by any card-carrying TBM. To be human and sin is one thing, but to deny one's testimony? Who wants to be seen as having done that? Which believer wants to risk denying one's testimony?

That's why the word "know" is so problematic. As long as you believe, and constantly reinforce in your mind the fact that you "know" the church is true, you cannot ever really approach the evidence that the church isn't actually true with any kind of objectivity until you deny your testimony. This is why it's so hard for most TBMs to see the light on this stuff. To be able to deny your testimony you have to have some kind of inkling that your testimony is wrong, and you have to not squash that inkling, but entertain it, and build up the intestinal fortitude to admit that you don't really "know" the church is true after all, and basically deny your testimony, and then let your testimony sink or swim based on the actual evidence, and not just on past repetition, indoctrination, and reinforcement.

barrelomonkeys wrote:Hi KA. As someone on the outside looking in it doesn't seem any more arrogant than my EV neighbors. I understand that they know the "truth" and must share it. I think in order to do the work of Christ (in their view) they must believe and tell others of that belief. I don't find it arrogant although it quite possibly is? I wonder if they think I am arrogant when I say that my views are different than theirs and I absolutely do not believe in certain things? I'm not sure.

I think it is more arrogant than the EV's, but yes, even they are arrogant, but this isn't a board about EV's. It's a board about Mormonism.

Most of the EV's I know think Christianity is the truth and really don't care what brand people choose. They are much less legalistic, in general, though there are bound to be exceptions, than Mormons about what church one attends or the specifics of belief past the belief in Jesus as the Savior. Mormonism is much more arrogant in how it has all the truth to such an extent that they dead dunk other Christians in order to save them. They honestly believe they have the only truth and that they are a chosen people - I heard what a chosen person I was all the time when I was a Mormon. I was more valiant than everyone else before my birth. That is what I was taught and it's incredibly arrogant, in my opinion.

KA

KimberlyAnn wrote:My certainty is greater now because I have evidence backing it.

Whatever.

I have evidence, too.

KimberlyAnn wrote:And basing opinions on facts isn't arrogance.

Having opinions as such isn't arrogance at all, in my view. It's the manner in which you hold them and express them that makes you arrogant or doesn't make you arrogant.

KimberlyAnn wrote:Basing opinions on supposed divine revelation and then claiming that despite all evidence to the contrary that one has, to quote several Mormon participants on this board, "certain knowledge" is, indeed, arrogant.

Believing Latter-day Saints like myself regard personal revelation as evidence. (I have other evidence besides, but I don't discount my own personal spiritual experiences.)

That you hold a different opinion about the evidentiary force (or lack thereof) of personal revelation doesn't make believing Latter-day Saints arrogant. How you hold and express your opinion, and how they hold and express theirs, is what makes for arrogance or humility in this regard.

It seems . . . well, rather ironic to brand people who disagree with you "arrogant" because they don't share your opinion.

Sethbag wrote:That's why the word "know" is so problematic. As long as you believe, and constantly reinforce in your mind the fact that you "know" the church is true, you cannot ever really approach the evidence that the church isn't actually true with any kind of objectivity until you deny your testimony. This is why it's so hard for most TBMs to see the light on this stuff.

Very well said. That's what I meant by appropriating the word. In essence, the word as "practiced" means really strong belief or conviction, but because the word is "know," most people associate that strong belief with absolute knowledge on the order of knowing that the sky is blue. Thus, as you said, all evidence to the contrary is weighed against the "knowledge" and usually found wanting.

If you think about it, however, the word "know" is wrong, and most of us, even as believers, understood that we weren't really talking about knowledge. The warnings against losing your testimony or the injunctions to strengthen your testimony make no sense if they are applied to knowledge. You can't lose your testimony that the sky is blue, and no amount of study or prayer can increase your knowledge of that fact. Knowledge in a Mormon sense is strong conviction, not absolute knowledge.