The Arrogance of Knowing "The Church is True"

[Physics Guy]

I think you are confusing intents with unavoidable and indirect outcomes of intents. To me, the intent for both temple weddings and the scuba graduation, isn't to exclude, but rather to perform the respective ceremonies in ways and areas that have been deemed most fitting to what is being ceremonialized. What better place to graduate from scuba diving class than in the very environment where the scuba instruction is most applicable? Same goes for the temple ceremony. Sure, exclusion may unavoidably be a consequence thereof, but not the intent.

With all due respect, my dear Wade, this is an awfully dumb analogy. First of all, having a scuba graduation underwater is stupid on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. The whole point of rites-of-passage such as graduations and weddings is that they are communal ceremonies. With the LDS temple marriage, the Church is re-defining who gets to participate in what are, by most rights, *communal* activities. Further, I think you've got your Church history a bit confused vis-a-vis "intent." The original intent underlying the temple marriage was to protect Joseph Smith's polygamous sealings, and to hide them from the prying eyes of disapproving members, including his own wife---in other words, it was meant to aid in secrecy. To claim that the exclusion is somehow the fault of outside parties is not only wrong-headed but, well, arrogant.

The same general principle applies to most every wedding. The size and location of the wedding facility may not accomodate everyone wishing to attend. For example, my nephew is getting married in a week in his fiance's parent's back yard in Washington state. Because of the small size of the yard, and the great distance from where many of my family lives, only a few are in a position to attend, and fewer still will be able to attend--not because the intent was to exclude, but because circumstance unavoidably resulted in exclusion.

I don't see anything "arrogant" about any of this (not that you do).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is because it's not "arrogant"! All of these people can attend if they want to! The exclusionary rules underlying the temple ceremony are not "circumstance," Wade. They are rules codified by men. With the temple ceremony the intent is---and indeed always has been---to exclude. Originally, this was for reasons of secrecy on the part of Joseph Smith. Today, others are quite right to say that it is done partly out of arrogance, partly out of Joseph Smith's legacy of secrecy, partly out of obedience, and partly out of religious solidarity.

[_Mister Scratch]

I attended the reception of a friend's daughter in SLC just last week. Following the temple ceremony there was a "ring ceremony" at the park where the reception was held, and this for those unable to attend the temple (including, I believe, the Father of the bride, non-member aunts and uncles and cousins, as well as myself--my temple recommend had expired, and I wasn't able to renew it in time). I don't know that anyone was "hurt" or "heartbroken" as a result (I certainly wasn't--though that may just be because I was focused on the joy of the newly married couple, and doing my part to assist therein), but most that I talked to felt blessed and happy because of it all. There wasn't even the least hint that I could see of "arrogance"....just an abundance of love expressed one to another.

I had a similar experience with my nieces wedding/reception in Idaho the week before.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's funny that you mention this, Wade. I have seen you lecture people for "mind reading" countless times, and yet here you are leaping to the conclusion that no one was "hurt" or "heartbroken." You have no way of knowing that. Probably *everyone* was doing their best to be "focused on the joy of the newly married couple." None of that changes the fact that the family was split up during the temple ceremony.

Let me ask you something, Wade. You put the words "ring ceremony" in scare quotes. Does this mean that you view the ring ceremony as being of secondary importance on any level? Y/N?

[_marg]

And as someone that loves their step-son intensely I find it rather awful that anyone would call him or his beliefs arrogant. I find it rather mean spirited. But that's just me.

I just don't really see it as helpful really to sit about labeling people. Americans are arrogant. Texans are pretty arrogant. French are arrogant. Republicans are arrogant. Coggins is arrogant. DCP is arrogant. Tal Bachman is arrogant. Tom Waits fans are really arrogant. I'm arrogant. It just seems really like a nanner nanner.

I disagree with you barrelomonkeys.

Debono talks about arrogance in his various books on "thinking." He doesn't say this but I'm going to point it out, science claims/theories and the thinking process used to get to them is not arrogant because they are open to critical evaluation, revision, are not asserted absent evidence by some authority. Any theory can be shown to be inferior or wrong should better ones be put forward.

Here is one excerpt taken from one of his books The Happiness Purpose

http://www.edwarddebono.com/PassageDeta ... ge_id=630&
27/08/2003

"Practical problems with thinking
Complacency and arrogance are the two biggest problems. The arrogant thinker insists that he is right or that there is only one way to look at a situation. He spends his time defending his point of view or trying to impose it upon you. The complacent thinker acknowledges that he might be wrong but is not interested in exploring the matter further. Both attitudes cut off the possibility of any improvement. "


Debono is not just talking about religious beliefs, he’s referring to an attitude or a way of thinking which does not allow for a possibility that others might be right. An attitude of having certain truth in which one is not interested in or allows for any sort of reasoning or evidence which contradicts what one believes.

What could be more certain that having a belief system that God speaks to you personally via the Holy Ghost and/or that a God speaks to prophets directly and they are the mouthpieces for God? Such a thinking system promoted doesn't allow for the possibly of being wrong. Whatever the current prophet or prophets declare is right and can not be wrong.

Now look again at KA's comment taken from her first post;

"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?"

She makes a valid point. The thinking system taught by Mormonism is that on certain matters there is certain truth. The thinking has been done on certain matters and only the Mormon prophet has the right and ability to pass this truth on..to the followers. No thinking by any followers is supposed to supercede that of the current prophet. Some people may violate this, but if so they are not obedient as they are taught to be.

Whether or not you like the word is irrelevant. It exists to communicate a concept. in my opinion it's a useful concept to understand. Debono who is a well respected lecturer, author on "thinking" ..appears to think so as well.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I disagree with you barrelomonkeys.

Debono talks about arrogance in his various books on "thinking." He doesn't say this but I'm going to point it out, science claims/theories and the thinking process used to get to them is not arrogant because they are open to critical evaluation, revision, are not asserted absent evidence by some authority. Any theory can be shown to be inferior or wrong should better ones be put forward.

Here is one excerpt taken from one of his books The Happiness Purpose

http://www.edwarddebono.com/PassageDeta ... ge_id=630&
27/08/2003

Practical problems with thinking
Complacency and arrogance are the two biggest problems. The arrogant thinker insists that he is right or that there is only one way to look at a situation. He spends his time defending his point of view or trying to impose it upon you. The complacent thinker acknowledges that he might be wrong but is not interested in exploring the matter further. Both attitudes cut off the possibility of any improvement.

Hi Marg. I would agree with that definition of arrogance as well as the complacent thinker. Although if there is no possibility for improvement for those that are arrogant how come there are so many ex-Mos? It occurs to me that there are many ex-arrogant ex-Mos on this board. There apparently was the ability to question and consider other view points for many people that were Mormon.

Debono is not just talking about religious beliefs, he’s referring to an attitude or a way of thinking which does not allow for a possibility that others might be right. An attitude of having certain truth in which one is not interested in or allows for any sort of reasoning or evidence which contradicts what one believes.

What could be more certain that having a belief system that God speaks to you personally via the Holy Ghost and/or that a God speaks to prophets directly and they are the mouthpieces for God? Such a thinking system promoted doesn't allow for the possibly of being wrong. Whatever the current prophet or prophets declare is right and can not be wrong.

I think I can recognize arrogance and have come across people that are very close-minded to the possibility that there are other view points that could be correct.

I can think of a few people that have political beliefs that come very close to a fervent belief in truth and that they know a special truth and the rest of humanity (country) lacks the ability to understand or know the special knowledge they hold. I can think of a few people that I know that are like this just off the top of my head. I live one county over from where the KKK was born. I meet plenty of intolerant, close minded, arrogant people often. There's no middle ground and no wiggle room for doubt.

Now look again at KA's comment;

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?

She makes a valid point. The thinking system taught by Mormonism is that on certain matters there is certain truth. The thinking has been done on certain matters and only the Mormon prophet has the right and ability to pass this truth on..to the followers. No thinking by any followers is supposed to supercede that of the current prophet. Some people may violate this, but if so they are not obedient as they are taught to be.

I am uncomfortable with some aspects of LDS belief and feel queasy at times about it. I just don't see it as extremely useful to label people in a certain manner. KA also used the words "pomposity" and "snobbery" to label those that believe they hold a truth. I just have a knee jerk reaction (I suppose to these conversations) to using words that are meant to insult others.

I could admit, grudgingly, that there is arrogance to believing only you hold a truth. I just don't see this as very unique to LDS and actually find other things that are more interesting to talk about in regards to the religion.

[_marg]

I could admit, grudgingly, that there is arrogance to believing only you hold a truth. I just don't see this as very unique to LDS and actually find other things that are more interesting to talk about in regards to the religion.

You are shooting the messenger rather than looking at the message.

KA didn't say it was unique to LDS. She used a word and explained why conceptually she thought it was applicable to the Mormon leadership and then down through the line to the followers who believe they have a truth stemming from that leadership, which is certain, not open to the possibility of being wrong. You can't be more certain if God is head of the helm directing.

[_barrelomonkeys]

You are shooting the messenger rather than looking at the message.

KA didn't say it was unique to LDS. She used a word and explained why conceptually she thought it was applicable to the Mormon leadership and then down through the line to the followers who believe they have a truth stemming from that leadership, which is certain, not open to the possibility of being wrong. You can't be more certain if God is head of the helm directing.

I very may well be shooting the messenger although it's the message I have an issue with. The message, as I read it, is that those that hold a truth are arrogant, snobs, and are incapable of actually knowing what they believe they know. Now this may all very well be true! I just take issue with how it is delivered and still am not comfortable calling people arrogant for their thought that they hold a truth.

I just don't usually associate those that have a strong belief in their religious convictions as being necessarily arrogant. I view people that are arrogant as those that act on their beliefs in a condescending manner to other people. I have "met" via the internet many LDS that are very certain in their beliefs. There are many people on MAD that are premiere apologetics that were humble and extremely kind to me. No one was radical and hateful or told me I was wrong or was demeaning to me in the least. I almost always associate arrogance with the way someone acts toward others. Perhaps KA and I (apparently a few other people as well) are using different definitions of this word.

I have beliefs that I consider quite true. How I treat others that have differing beliefs than mine would decide if I were arrogant or not imho.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I can't help but poke in again.

I see the mention of "these" people and Mormons and their beliefs. Weren't the majority of you once "these" people?

Were you arrogant?

What about your beliefs made you arrogant?

Why are there questions asked of others that belong to a group when you yourself were once a part of this group? Don't you already hold the answer?

**edited to add** I didn't see one person on this thread admit to being an arrogant person. Did I miss it? If you were a Mormon and believe Mormons are arrogant step up!

I'm an ex-Mormon and I held beliefs that I now see to be arrogant. I didn't feel arrogant when I was a Mormon, though. I'm really quite a mild-mannered sort and back then even moreso. Most Mormons aren't arrogant generally in their personalities, and they have no idea that their beliefs are arrogant. Their consciousness hasn't been raised, so to speak, like we used to say in the 70s about racism, etc.

A young sister missionary repeated to me a few years ago a quote by Hinkley (I think), something like there are two kinds of people in this world; Mormons and people who will be Mormons. I advised her not to use that on investigators because they were quite likely to take it as arrogance. I don't know if she understood that or not. It's conditioned in Mormons to think that way.

in my opinion, the Mormons responding to this thread have been quite the opposite of humble (yes, arrogant!!) in their unwillingness to consider the criticism and their anxiety to defend themselves and to cast the blame back onto the critic.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I am embarrassed by the arrogant beliefs I held as a Mormon. They were arrogant, though at the time I didn't realize it. I believe now, if there is a God, that He wouldn't think one group of people more special than another. I don't for a minute think that there are any "chosen" by God. Any belief, Mormon or other, that feels they are chosen, particularly loved by God over others, that they have a certain knowledge and absolute truth or are in any other way set apart by God is arrogant, in my opinion.

I don't think I'm special any more. God, if he exists, loves me the same as everyone else, or ignores me like he does everyone else. He doesn't give me special revelation that is withheld from others. I don't assume that people who don't think like me are going to hell or a lower kingdom. I don't think I have "the truth". I have hopes and wishes and they are no longer that everyone will agree with my beliefs like I used to hope as a Mormon. I believe I know much less than I used to and to me, that is a good thing.

KA

[_wenglund]

"Practical problems with thinking
Complacency and arrogance are the two biggest problems. The arrogant thinker insists that he is right or that there is only one way to look at a situation. He spends his time defending his point of view or trying to impose it upon you. The complacent thinker acknowledges that he might be wrong but is not interested in exploring the matter further. Both attitudes cut off the possibility of any improvement. ".

While I don't object to the way these labels have been defined, I wonder if "improvement" is what is driving some people's use of the "arrogance" label here; or whether it, ironically, may "cut off the possibility of any improvement" in part because the selective labelers think they are "right" and look at the situation "only one way". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

I very may well be shooting the messenger although it's the message I have an issue with. The message, as I read it, is that those that hold a truth are arrogant, snobs, and are incapable of actually knowing what they believe they know. Now this may all very well be true! I just take issue with how it is delivered and still am not comfortable calling people arrogant for their thought that they hold a truth.

Ok well in this instance, given the context provided by KA I use the word differently. The problem is not claiming a truth, or being snobbish or incapable of thinking well. Rather it is not allowing by virtue of one's attitude for any possibility that one could be wrong. There is absolutely nothing that can overturn or be superior to that belief. And I don't mean that one must be open to all ideas and accept them. Or one can not be certain about something. But if the attitude or methodology that one employs does not allow for the possibility of being wrong, then it will always be superior or right and all other counter opinions wrong or inferior irrespective of reasoning and evidence to the contrary.

I just don't usually associate those that have a strong belief in their religious convictions as being necessarily arrogant. I view people that are arrogant as those that act on their beliefs in a condescending manner to other people. I have "met" via the internet many LDS that are very certain in their beliefs. There are many people on MAD that are premiere apologetics that were humble and extremely kind to me. No one was radical and hateful or told me I was wrong or was demeaning to me in the least. I almost always associate arrogance with the way someone acts toward others. Perhaps KA and I (apparently a few other people as well) are using different definitions of this word.

Yes I am viewing it differently than you, in the context which KA presented the word. An atheist can be arrogant in the context I'm appreciating it, if they refuse consciously or unconciously to look at evidence or reasoning counter to their beliefs. And it is irrespective of how nice a person they are.

I have beliefs that I consider quite true. How I treat others that have differing beliefs than mine would decide if I were arrogant or not imho.

Do you hold those beliefs with an attitude that doesn't allow for the possibility of reasoning or evidence which might contradict those beliefs? If you hold those beliefs because an authority tells you to and you accept their word, essentially that authority does the thinking for you. If you do not allow for the possibility that the authority could be wrong then those claims which you accept, will always in your mind be superior to others on similar matters or which overlap that subject.

When Mormons are told God speaks through their prophets, nothing a current prophet says can possibly be wrong.