The Arrogance of Knowing "The Church is True"

[_KimberlyAnn]

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 in 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, because 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 rationalized away somehow, but certain 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?

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.

You are exactly right, Seth, and I cannot tell you how many times I heard from the pulpit, "I know this church is true beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "I know that I know that I know this church is true" or even "I have certain knowledge that this church is true", which was usually followed by the announcement that they'd had some vision or revelation but couldn't share it because it was too sacred...

Mormons think they know, not believe. At least most of the Mormons I know. Coggins and Nehor and Gaz are fairly representative of Mormons I've met who claim a certain knowledge of the truthfulness of Mormonism.

KA

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

Contemporary evangelicals don't, it's true, care much about denominational differences. (Two or three generations back, though, they really did.) But evangelicals draw a much, much starker line, generally, between Christianity and non-Christianity than Mormons do. Non-Christians are doomed to hell.

Go into a representative evangelical bookstore and look for the section labeled "cults," "world religions," "spiritual counterfeits," or some such thing. Note what is said in the publications there about Hinduism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, sometimes Catholicism, and always Mormonism. No comparable literature is produced by Latter-day Saints.

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.

It's fascinating to me to see how people can read the same facts so dramatically differently. Where you see arrogant pride, I see a near-universalism that is charged with love and compassion.

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.

Again, I'm struck by your enthusiasm for pointing at a whole group of people and declaring them all "arrogant."

[_Runtu]

You are exactly right, Seth, and I cannot tell you how many times I heard from the pulpit, "I know this church is true beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "I know that I know that I know this church is true" or even "I have certain knowledge that this church is true", which was usually followed by the announcement that they'd had some vision or revelation but couldn't share it because it was too sacred...

Mormons think they know, not believe. At least most of the Mormons I know. Coggins and Nehor and Gaz are fairly representative of Mormons I've met who claim a certain knowledge of the truthfulness of Mormonism.

KA

I think you're confusing dogmatism with testimony. Dogmatism often is arrogant and unyielding and judgmental. But just because one express a "certain" testimony, that doesn't make a person arrogant. Look at the examples you've given. I'd say Nehor and Gaz are pretty certain they know the truth, but they're not particularly arrogant.

[_Sethbag]

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.

But remember, Runtu, that the idea of "losing your testimony", as warned against by GAs and other church leaders and whatnot, hasn't got anything to do with realizing that the church isn't really true! No, and how could it, since it (in their minds) is impossible for it not to be true? So what does "lose your testimony" mean then, in context? It really means to subject yourself to Satan and be blinded, thus losing your testimony. "Lose your testimony" in the TBM context has nothing to do with true change of heart (and mind) due to new evidence and better argumentation. It has everything to do with being blinded by The Devil and losing sight of something which is nevertheless true. It means you come up short. You don't measure up. Rather than being lead by God, you're being lead by Satan.

In the TBM mindset, in order to seriously consider the evidence that (I believe) shows the church not to be true, you have to be willing to deny your testimony by denying that you actually "know" the church is true. This means, as a TBM, you have to be willing to put yourself in a position of surrendering to Satan and being lead astray by Satan.

And which true-believing Mormon wants to be lead away in chains by Satan?

It's fear of Satan, and having bought into the lie that admitting that you don't know the church is true is somehow akin to putting oneself at risk of surrendering oneself to Satan, that is really at the heart of why TBMs have such a hard time approaching LDS history and "seeing the light" and realizing that the church isn't really true. You have to be able to sit back and realize that thinking objectively about something is [b]not]/b] subjecting oneself to the wiles of Satan. That's really hard to do.

I guarantee you that my mom thinks this way. Absolutely. And many others; in fact, probably almost every TBM I know. They would, whether they would say it this way or not, consider even thinking that the church might not be true and that there's evidence that must be taken seriously, to be to risk putting oneself right into the chains of Satan.

[_KimberlyAnn]

You are exactly right, Seth, and I cannot tell you how many times I heard from the pulpit, "I know this church is true beyond a shadow of a doubt" or "I know that I know that I know this church is true" or even "I have certain knowledge that this church is true", which was usually followed by the announcement that they'd had some vision or revelation but couldn't share it because it was too sacred...

Mormons think they know, not believe. At least most of the Mormons I know. Coggins and Nehor and Gaz are fairly representative of Mormons I've met who claim a certain knowledge of the truthfulness of Mormonism.

KA

I think you're confusing dogmatism with testimony. Dogmatism often is arrogant and unyielding and judgmental. But just because one express a "certain" testimony, that doesn't make a person arrogant. Look at the examples you've given. I'd say Nehor and Gaz are pretty certain they know the truth, but they're not particularly arrogant.

I think their religious beliefs are arrogant.

KA

[_barrelomonkeys]

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

KA, I could only say how I viewed this topic in terms of my EV neighbors, because I have no LDS neighbors. I haven't really experienced much arrogance on these boards. I have met lots of people that believe they're special and hold a truth... I think it depends on how they use that knowledge. As someone that has never been in the Church I just don't view it as that arrogant. I see people that are religious as having a "truth" that they must share. It's part of their belief system... if they didn't believe this "truth" was special they would have no need to share. It just doesn't bother me I suppose?

I'm sorry I brought up the EV connection. You're right this is a board about Mormons, I just thought I'd chime in. I'll just watch from now on.

[_Runtu]

I think their religious beliefs are arrogant.

KA

I would bet money that at least one of them thinks the same about our beliefs.

[_Sethbag]

I think you're confusing dogmatism with testimony. Dogmatism often is arrogant and unyielding and judgmental. But just because one express a "certain" testimony, that doesn't make a person arrogant. Look at the examples you've given. I'd say Nehor and Gaz are pretty certain they know the truth, but they're not particularly arrogant.

I'm not certain how I feel about the word "arrogant" in the context of this discussion. It certainly can be misunderstood, and I think one must be very, very careful about how it is construed and explained.

I think a person overall could be judged not to be arrogant, and yet still maintain some kind of attitude which could be labeled arrogant. I guess it depends what you mean by arrogant. Go back 50 or 80 years in a lot of good TBM Mormon families and you might find some old lady who was the sweetest old lady you've ever met, full of love and compassion, and kindness, but who thought that black people were somehow beneath whites. Overall, because she probably didn't actually know, or interact with any black people, she might be the sweetest thing alive, and nobody would call her arrogant, but what about that belief, fostered by past LDS prophetic utterances about black people? Would not that count as arrogant?

Actually, I do see a certain arrogance in LDS usage of terms like "gentiles" for all non-Mormons, or "mission field" for the entire world except for Utah, and parts of Arizona and Idaho. And ironically, these kinds of terms can be used by a lot of folks who, in every other way, one would never call "arrogant". That's why I'm really not too keen on the whole premise of the thread with the word "arrogance".

[_KimberlyAnn]

Again, I'm struck by your enthusiasm for pointing at a whole group of people and declaring them all "arrogant."

Their religious beliefs are arrogant. Of course, they may not be arrogant about other things, but they do have an arrogant belief system, and the idea that one is more special than others or chosen is arrogant. The concept of becoming eventual Gods while the less worthy will be servants is also arrogant. Mormonism seems to me to be all about exclusivity.

KA

[_Runtu]

In the TBM mindset, in order to seriously consider the evidence that (I believe) shows the church not to be true, you have to be willing to deny your testimony by denying that you actually "know" the church is true. This means, as a TBM, you have to be willing to put yourself in a position of surrendering to Satan and being lead astray by Satan.

And which true-believing Mormon wants to be lead away in chains by Satan?

It's fear of Satan, and having bought into the lie that admitting that you don't know the church is true is somehow akin to putting oneself at risk of surrendering oneself to Satan, that is really at the heart of why TBMs have such a hard time approaching LDS history and "seeing the light" and realizing that the church isn't really true. You have to be able to sit back and realize that thinking objectively about something is [b]not]/b] subjecting oneself to the wiles of Satan. That's really hard to do.

I guarantee you that my mom thinks this way. Absolutely. And many others; in fact, probably almost every TBM I know. They would, whether they would say it this way or not, consider even thinking that the church might not be true and that there's evidence that must be taken seriously, to be to risk putting oneself right into the chains of Satan.

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration in applying this broadly to Mormons (though I do know people who are like your mom, unfortunately). What I think is going on is something a little less dramatic. When you're told that your good feelings are from God and they constitute absolute knowledge, then your testimony becomes reality. The church isn't simply true; it is reality; it is the way the world works. So, when you find evidence that the church isn't what it claims to be, that evidence is literally contradicting reality. And nobody is going to be happy about denying reality. That's what they have the PICU for (as I recently found out). To deny your testimony is to deny God and to deny your basic conception of reality. To steal from Thomas Kuhn, when the crisis of faith comes, it's not easy to redefine your paradigm, much less to dismantle it. It's painful, and sometimes you think you're going crazy. And yes, it is one hell of a humbling experience.