The Arrogance of Knowing "The Church is True"

[_Scottie]

Okay. But, can you respect that reasonable people may rationally interpret and weight the evidence differently than you, and thus find good cause to accept the so-called extraordinary claims about how to live one's life?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I can accept that people DO interpret the evidence differently than I do, but I vehemently disagree with that interpretation.

I have to admit that I can't help but thinking that people who know all of evidence against the church, yet still believe in it, are being irrational. Of course, since they usually justify their belief in the church based on an appeal to a fundamentally emotional experience, they probably wouldn't have any problem with recognising that it's an irrational belief, right?

I started a thread at MAD a month ago that basically asked if you didn't have your testimony, and knowing the evidence you do know, would you still be Mormon.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=26062&st=0&p=1208220925&#

Many members said they probably would not believe it. The testimony was the one key factor that they couldn't refute.

[_Runtu]

I started a thread at MAD a month ago that basically asked if you didn't have your testimony, and knowing the evidence you do know, would you still be Mormon.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=26062&st=0&p=1208220925&#

Many members said they probably would not believe it. The testimony was the one key factor that they couldn't refute.

I remember that thread, and I thought then as I do now that most members of the church would agree that their faith rests on their testimony, not on any external evidence. The realm of apologetics seems to be to make the veracity of Mormon claims plausible; it's not about finding evidence that supports Mormonism, but evidence that might support it.

Of course, if people admitted that their faith rested solely on their testimony, there would be no apologetics, no FARMS, and Pahoran would spend his spare hours torturing cats or something. ;-)

[_Bond...James Bond]

Of course, if people admitted that their faith rested solely on their testimony, there would be no apologetics, no FARMS, and Pahoran would spend his spare hours torturing cats or something. ;-)

It's called multi-tasking Runtu....sheesh. ;o)

[_Runtu]

Of course, if people admitted that their faith rested solely on their testimony, there would be no apologetics, no FARMS, and Pahoran would spend his spare hours torturing cats or something. ;-)

It's called multi-tasking Runtu....sheesh. ;o)

Heh. Gives new meaning to the phrase "typing with one hand." ;-)

[_Canucklehead]

It also applies generally to parents, school teachers, doctors, politicians, advocacy groups of all strips, or just about anyone confidently or dogmatically exressing their opinion (like you). However, I don't know that I would call it "arrogance".

Wait, are you saying that I'm confident or that I'm dogmatic?

To me, "arrogance" has more to with artifical inflation of self-importance, rather than lovingly offering guidance and direction for people's lives.

Agreed. Although not everyone on the receiving end of the purported "loving guidance" sees it that way.

Do you also think it "arrogant" for universities to have admittance requirement for undergraduate and graduate programs? Do you think it "arrogant" for the medical profession and other highly skilled occupations to have licensure requirements?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wait, are you comparing the standards set for keeping quacks from practising medicine to the exclusion of parents from seeing their own children be married (what is supposed to be the happiest day of their lives)???

I DO think that it's arrogant that Joe Schmo temple-recommend holder can attend the wedding of a fellow ward-member, but the very parents who raised their child from a baby are excluded becuase... becuase why? Because they haven't done enough to warrant seeing it? Because they're not holy enough to enter the temple?

Call me dogmatic if you must, but please don't try to compare temple marriage exclusion to medical professional standards.

[_Canucklehead]

I started a thread at MAD a month ago that basically asked if you didn't have your testimony, and knowing the evidence you do know, would you still be Mormon.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=26062&st=0&p=1208220925&#

Many members said they probably would not believe it. The testimony was the one key factor that they couldn't refute.

I remember that thread, and I thought then as I do now that most members of the church would agree that their faith rests on their testimony, not on any external evidence. The realm of apologetics seems to be to make the veracity of Mormon claims plausible; it's not about finding evidence that supports Mormonism, but evidence that might support it.

Very true. As far as my own immediate family is concerned, they don't even really need to see the evidence which might support it. They're content with just assuming that such evidence must exist somewhere.

[_Who Knows]

in my opinion, the problem isn't that the church excludes non-members from the temple - i have no problem with that. The problem is that the church says you can't have a normal wedding, and then get sealed in the temple the next day.

[_Scottie]

in my opinion, the problem isn't that the church excludes non-members from the temple - I have no problem with that. The problem is that the church says you can't have a normal wedding, and then get sealed in the temple the next day.

Isn't it required in some areas that you HAVE to have a civil wedding with proper authority before they will recognise the marriage?

[_Canucklehead]

in my opinion, the problem isn't that the church excludes non-members from the temple - I have no problem with that. The problem is that the church says you can't have a normal wedding, and then get sealed in the temple the next day.

I can agree with that. Either way, it still amounts to excluding parents from what should be the happiest moment of their childrens' lives (which I find arrogant ;) ).

[_Some Schmo]

I think it's arrogant for church leaders to think it's their business to know all the dirty little details of a person's life and make judgment calls based on that knowledge. If that's not institutionalized arrogance, I'm not sure what is.

Sure, the general rank and file of the church may not be arrogant, but the leadership certainly is encouraged to participate in some arrogant practices.