The Arrogance of Knowing "The Church is True"

[_Runtu]

I've been doing a little bit of reading over at MAD. This kind of arrogance is everywhere over there. Notice the arrogance of say, Pahoran. Notice the way he treats people who question.

If you question the truth as they perceive it you are are an idiot who hasn't done their research, or you are just looking for an excuse to be the evil sinner you really are at heart, or you are too weak to live the gospel.

The mindset I've noticed throughout my life: We have the truth and you don't. So it doesn't matter how sucessful you are, how rich you are, how intelligent you are, how much integrity you have, you don't have the truth and we do. So you are wrong, and you will be very sorry in the next life when you find out how wrong you were.

You may be smarter and more sucessful than me, but in the next life I will be elevated over you because I have the truth.

Heaven help me for saying this, but Pahoran and his ilk over on the MAD board are (quite thankfully) not representative of Mormons in general. But they are representative of an extreme view of the very beliefs you outlined, which are unfortunately common in the church.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Who is Pahoran's ilk?

Pahoran was never nasty to me. There were very few people over there that were nasty to me. Now I know I'm going to get the "they were trying to convert you" reply, but I can only base my experiences with the posters on how they treated me.

Even Hammer (I think) sort of got to like me. :)

[_Mister Scratch]

Mormonism seems to me to be all about exclusivity.

Whereas, to me, it seems quite exhilaratingly the opposite.

Oh well.

De gustibus non disputandum est.

Yeah, since, you know---women get the priesthood; Blacks have always been able to get the priesthood; homosexuals are allowed into the temple; women can get into the CK without husband's help, etc., etc., etc.

[_Runtu]

Who is Pahoran's ilk?

Pahoran was never nasty to me. There were very few people over there that were nasty to me. Now I know I'm going to get the "they were trying to convert you" reply, but I can only base my experiences with the posters on how they treated me.

Even Hammer (I think) sort of got to like me. :)

I actually kind of like Hammer. The nicest thing that Pahoran ever said to me was that he was glad I hadn't killed myself. There are a few people over there I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley, but not many.

[_Yoda]

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.

I agree with this.

I guess what frustrates me, as a member of the LDS Church, Dr. Peterson, is that the attitude you describe is in overdrive on the MAD board. And, frankly, I think it shows the Church in a bad light.

I don't have a problem with people bearing their testimony, and declaring their faith. What I do have a problem with is putting down someone else because they believe something different.

And, there is a difference between calmly discussing differences in beliefs, and personally attacking the other person. Unfortunately, I see this all the time on MAD.

I'm not saying that posters on the flip side are innocent, either. And there are some critics on this board who have been outright nasty to posters. You know this all too well because you have born the brunt of a lot of it.

I guess what is frustrating to me is that I do EXPECT more out of Church members. If we are suppose to be messengers of Christ, then we should follow his example.

I think that we have all fallen short in this regard.

[_The Nehor]

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

Holding a belief is not arrogance. I'm with DCP on this.

My arrogant belief that the worst of humanity will experience bliss beyond my comprehension does not make me feel arrogant, it makes me feel love for a compassionate God. The idea of my own exaltation can lead to arrogance but even that is knocked right down by the understanding that I don't deserve it and only because another cared enough to suffer for it can I achieve it.

I have evidence and it keeps accumulating.

[_marg]

Nehor

Holding a belief is not arrogance. I'm with DCP on this.

My arrogant belief that the worst of humanity will experience bliss beyond my comprehension does not make me feel arrogant, it makes me feel love for a compassionate God. The idea of my own exaltation can lead to arrogance but even that is knocked right down by the understanding that I don't deserve it and only because another cared enough to suffer for it can I achieve it.

I have evidence and it keeps accumulating.

Holding a belief is not arrogance. Holding a belief that one has certain universal knowledge on important matters and hence absolutely nothing can alter the truth of those beliefs is an arrogant attitude regarding those beliefs. If we look at a definition of arrogant : Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others, this is the arrogance I refer to.

What could possibly change your notion of your particular God, or your particular afterlife belief? And if your belief is certain and universal then no other beliefs which contradict could possibly be true or superior. Yours must be superior to all other beliefs by virtue of an assumption of being universal and certain.

Is it possible your God doesn’t exist Nehor? By what means could someone else’s belief in God, the afterlife, be shown to be more correct or superior to yours? What criteria would you allow or willingly rely on to evaluate differing beliefs to yours? And before you mention the Holy Ghost by what criteria could you be wrong about that and the “feelings’ you experience and interpret as the Holy Ghost??

I suspect you have no means by which your beliefs could ever be wrong. Your core religious beliefs no matter what, are superior to all others which differ to yours.

[Gadianton]

I am wondering what is motivating the need for some people to stereotype as "arrogant" an entire group of people (the LDS Church) and the beliefs that they hold? Is it love, and desire to better oneself and others? Is it intended to encourage mutual respect? Is it born of humility and an openness to other points of view?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Nehor]

Holding a belief is not arrogance. Holding a belief that one has certain universal knowledge on important matters and hence absolutely nothing can alter the truth of those beliefs is an arrogant attitude regarding those beliefs. If we look at a definition of arrogant : Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others, this is the arrogance I refer to.

What could possibly change your notion of your particular God, or your particular afterlife belief? And if your belief is certain and universal then no other beliefs which contradict could possibly be true or superior. Yours must be superior to all other beliefs by virtue of an assumption of being universal and certain.

Is it possible your God doesn’t exist Nehor? By what means could someone else’s belief in God, the afterlife, be shown to be more correct or superior to yours? What criteria would you allow or willingly rely on to evaluate differing beliefs to yours? And before you mention the Holy Ghost by what criteria could you be wrong about that and the “feelings’ you experience and interpret as the Holy Ghost??

I suspect you have no means by which your beliefs could ever be wrong. Your core religious beliefs no matter what, are superior to all others which differ to yours.

I wouldn't call what you're describing arrogance, I would call it dogmatic.

What could change my beliefs? A series of dreams, visions, impressions, clear thought, and direct communication from God that are more powerful than the ones I've had....i.e. more evidence another way.

If my God does not exist you would need to give me a rationale for how and why someone or something is conveying foreign things into my brain that are always accurate and sometimes prophetic. I would want to know who and why.

As for the Holy Ghost I suppose I would start to think I was wrong if it stopped. Most of what the Holy Ghost sends to me are not best described as feelings. Sensations is closer but still not fully right.

My core religious beliefs have altered on a fundamental level in the past 2 years (the whole time being active in Gospel). The new beliefs are better, more concise and much more useful. This is why dogmaticism in the Church is bad and even worse when it is in me. It stifles the ability to grow.

[_Coggins7]

Holding a belief is not arrogance. Holding a belief that one has certain universal knowledge on important matters and hence absolutely nothing can alter the truth of those beliefs is an arrogant attitude regarding those beliefs. If we look at a definition of arrogant : Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others, this is the arrogance I refer to.

This doesn't follow. According to your own definition, arrogance is a feeling of superiority to others. Mormons (at least those who understand the teachings of their Church) hold no such feelings of superiority, nor have they been taught to. The knowledge we claim to possess we perceive as a privilege and a blessing, which had we been born in other circumstances, we may never have had. Further, we can lose our right to further knowledge, and even lose a grip on the knowledge we have through sin.

Your analysis of LDS attitudes here is high in the clouds marg.

What could possibly change your notion of your particular God, or your particular afterlife belief?

Nothing, any more than anything could chance my notion of the laws of physics (except perhaps being sucked into a black hole, where things work a little bit differently).

And if your belief is certain and universal then no other beliefs which contradict could possibly be true or superior.

True, no other beliefs which contradict that which is true can be true, which is a tautology.

I

s it possible your God doesn’t exist Nehor? By what means could someone else’s belief in God, the afterlife, be shown to be more correct or superior to yours? What criteria would you allow or willingly rely on to evaluate differing beliefs to yours? And before you mention the Holy Ghost by what criteria could you be wrong about that and the “feelings’ you experience and interpret as the Holy Ghost??

But why always ask the believer how he knows while always avoiding the obvious other questions, "what if?" and " Can I know?" I think you make far too many assumptions about the nature of religious conviction and far too few regarding the severe limitations of your own epistemology.