LDS Only: Self-righteousness in our midst

[Katzpur]

The following was posted by a fellow Latter-day Saint on another forum:

I've found that Mormons are pretty good at accepting different beliefs outside of the church (like they can understand that a Catholic just hasn't found the truth yet but are trying to find it at their pace) but any difference of opinion within the church is not so lovingly accepted.

What do you think? I've seen a lot of self-righteousness on the forum lately, and comments made by Latter-day Saints towards other Latter-day Saints. Why do you think we're more tolerant of differences between our members of Church and members of other Christian denominations than we are of differences between us? Why do some Latter-day Saints feel that holding holding one opinion as opposed to another makes them more righteous than another members of the Church? The patronizing tone of posts that imply, "If you were a really good Mormon, you'd believe..." is so un-Christlike! I personally see it as a sign of insecurity. How about you?

 

[Starfish]

The following was posted by a fellow Latter-day Saint on another forum:

What do you think? I've seen a lot of self-righteousness on the forum lately, and comments made by Latter-day Saints towards other Latter-day Saints. Why do you think we're more tolerant of differences between our members of Church and members of other Christian denominations than we are of differences between us? Why do some Latter-day Saints feel that holding holding one opinion as opposed to another makes them more righteous than another members of the Church? The patronizing tone of posts that imply, "If you were a really good Mormon, you'd believe..." is so un-Christlike! I personally see it as a sign of insecurity. How about you?

I'm not sure . . . (as I wrack my memory . . .) I hope I don't come across like that. But I do get rather passionate about my religion and have to be honest.

 

[Orontes]

The following was posted by a fellow Latter-day Saint on another forum:

What do you think? I've seen a lot of self-righteousness on the forum lately, and comments made by Latter-day Saints towards other Latter-day Saints.

Hello,

Emotionalism is not a substitute for reason. Charges of self-righteousness, in either direction, are similarly uninteresting. If someone makes an assertion that view X is a morally tainted view, then the wherefore of the claim should be open to analysis. Insofar as Mormons and Mormonism makes moral claims, the highs and lows of those claims and whether they apply in a given situation seems fair game.

As to the LDS focused, California Constitutional Amendment thread: I have read several fairly strong opinions, but I have yet to read any sustained argument against the First Presidency's stance. Most positions I've read haven't moved much beyond the emotive.

 

[Katzpur]

I think that comments to the effect that "we have our free agency" can come across as, "We can choose either right or wrong, good or evil, obedience or disobedience." They hardly ever come across as, "We can have legitimate differences of opinion without one of us being wrong, evil or disobedient."

 

[Katzpur]

Well, there has been more than enough emotionalism on both sides of the issue to go around, hasn't there? I, too, have read several fairly strong opinions, but I have yet to read any sustained argument for the First Presidency's stance. It's interesting how everyone automatically assumed which thread prompted this one, when I said nothing to indicate that. I don't want this thread to just be a continuation of that one. I'd rather discuss the issue at hand, which is, "Why are differences of opinion seen as unrighteous choices?"

 

[madhatter85]

It's what the Lord says, "Thou mayest choose for thyself"
especially when he gives options and tells you what the right one is.

we always have our free agency. I think it's silly not to support our prophet whom we sustained in General Conference as the only person in the world with the authority to excercise the keys of prophecy and revelation.

This is a revelation, the prophet would not ask us to do something unless the Lord told him to.

and i'm sure he went to the Lord and asked, and then asked the apostles to do the same, and they all came to the same conclusion before announcing it.

 

[Starfish]

I think that comments to the effect that "we have our free agency" can come across as, "We can choose either right or wrong, good or evil, obedience or disobedience." They hardly ever come across as, "We can have legitimate differences of opinion without one of us being wrong, evil or disobedient."

I'll definately keep that in mind when I'm tempted to use that phrase. But what do you do if you genuinely think someone is wrong? Not evil, or disobedient, but just plain wrong? I am trying so hard to understand different viewpoints and to keep my answers "soft". But what do you do? Especially when it feels like Pres. Monson's decisions are under attack?

I hope I never came across as holier-than-thou. That has never been my intention.

 

[madhatter85]

Satan Is the spirit of Contention, Contending with our prophets is NOT of God.

 

[Scott C.]

I think that comments to the effect that "we have our free agency" can come across as, "We can choose either right or wrong, good or evil, obedience or disobedience." They hardly ever come across as, "We can have legitimate differences of opinion without one of us being wrong, evil or disobedient."

Here's my theory on what goes on. This is not a good thing, but it happens.

We're competitive by nature.
We have the gospel and the non-members don't. We win.
Within the church, we all have the gospel, so how does an individual win? Well, by living the gospel better. This is why we judge one another more harshly than we judge outsiders. We are already sufficiently distinguised from the outsiders on the basis of have/don't have the gospel. Within the church, in order to distinguish oursleves, it's a not a matter of have/not have the gospel, but rather it's a matter of live the gospel/live it better.

I don't think we generally judge each other harshly, but when it happens, there is proably some truth to what I said above.

 

[madhatter85]

Here's my theory on what goes on. This is not a good thing, but it happens.

We're competitive by nature.
We have the gospel and the non-members don't. We win.
Within the church, we all have the gospel, so how does an individual win? Well, by living the gospel better. This is why we judge one another more harshly than we judge outsiders. We are already sufficiently distinguised from the outsiders on the basis of have/don't have the gospel. Within the church, in order to distinguish oursleves, it's a not a matter of have/not have the gospel, but rather it's a matter of live the gospel/live it better.

I don't think we generally judge each other harshly, but when it happens, there is proably some truth to what I said above.

Just to throw this out there, there are areas of the gospel where we ALL fall short on obedience.

I have a hard tome always doing family scriptures study and family home evening, It's spotty and hard to do, But i always try.

I don't say "Oh hey, guess what, i don't need to do that even though the prophets have been telling me to"

 

[Starfish]

Here's my theory on what goes on. This is not a good thing, but it happens.

We're competitive by nature.
We have the gospel and the non-members don't. We win.
Within the church, we all have the gospel, so how does an individual win? Well, by living the gospel better. This is why we judge one another more harshly than we judge outsiders. We are already sufficiently distinguised from the outsiders on the basis of have/don't have the gospel. Within the church, in order to distinguish oursleves, it's a not a matter of have/not have the gospel, but rather it's a matter of live the gospel/live it better.

I don't think we generally judge each other harshly, but when it happens, there is proably some truth to what I said above.

I don't feel competitive. I truly feel kinship with all LDS here. The discord between us is painful to me. I think we can all learn to try a little harder to be less judgemental, and more forgiving and understanding.
However, I turn into a mother bear where the Church is concerned. I'm not saying that's a good thing--just my nature. I tend to defend it like I would defend my child. I doubt that will change.

I'm far from perfect; that's for sure!

 

[Starfish]

Just to throw this out there, there are areas of the gospel where we ALL fall short on obedience.

I have a hard tome always doing family scriptures study and family home evening, It's spotty and hard to do, But i always try.

Oh me too, darn it. And sometimes I don't even try.

 

[madhatter85]

Oh me too, darn it. And sometimes I don't even try.

yeah, i really meant, i always have the intention, but then i let it slip, i forget, or i don't want to stop what i'm doing to squeeze it in.


so yeah, i totally sympathize with you here.

 

[madhatter85]

I don't feel competitive. I truly feel kinship with all LDS here. The discord between us is painful to me. I think we can all learn to try a little harder to be less judgemental, and more forgiving and understanding.
However, I turn into a mother bear where the Church is concerned. I'm not saying that's a good thing--just my nature. I tend to defend it like I would defend my child. I doubt that will change.

I'm far from perfect; that's for sure!

Same, I tell people how it is when they talk against the church or it;s leaders, Just like that big Fiasco about Sister Beck and her talk in Conference about mothers, man people got upset, And i did my best to defend her, but it just made people angry.

 

[Scott C.]

I'm not sure . . . (as I wrack my memory . . .) I hope I don't come across like that. But I do get rather passionate about my religion and have to be honest.

I'm not sure how I come across either. Go ahead. I can take it. Tell me I'm a big jerk.

 

[Starfish]

I'm not sure how I come across either. Go ahead. I can take it. Tell me I'm a big jerk.

Not IMO.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll definately keep that in mind when I'm tempted to use that phrase. But what do you do if you genuinely think someone is wrong? Not evil, or disobedient, but just plain wrong? I am trying so hard to understand different viewpoints and to keep my answers "soft". But what do you do? Especially when it feels like Pres. Monson's decisions are under attack?

I hope I never came across as holier-than-thou. That has never been my intention.

Starfish, you are more conservative than I am. I don't see that as a bad thing. It's just something we differ on. I think that when you see an opinion stated that you believe to be wrong, you should say so. I know I do. :yes: I don't think we have to agree on political issues or even on Church policy in order to both be good Latter-day Saints. When it comes to official doctrine, we probably do agree. That's the great thing about the Church. We all know -- or at least we should know -- what comprises doctrine. Doctrine is eternal and unchanging. We can find it clearly laid out in the scriptures. Policies are open to interpretation, opinion and even to change.

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling that if I could sit down and talk to President Monson about "the issue in question," and tell him how I feel, the conversation would probably go something like this:

Me: "President Monson, deep in my heart, I don't feel right about doing anything that would deny someone else all of the rights under the law of the land that I have. I know you have asked that we support a ban to this amendment. What should I do?"

President Monson: "Pray about it and then follow your conscience."

That's what I've already done.

 

[Katzpur]

Within the church, we all have the gospel, so how does an individual win? Well, by living the gospel better.

Bingo.

 

[Orontes]

Well, there has been more than enough emotionalism on both sides of the issue to go around, hasn't there? I, too, have read several fairly strong opinions, but I have yet to read any sustained argument for the First Presidency's stance.

It appears the thread has basically concerned posts expressing opposition to the First Presidency's involvement with reaction to and/or an exploration of that expressed opposition. I have been part of the later. If you would like an argument justifying the First Presidency's involvement, it is not difficult. I can provide one in the other thread if you like.

II don't want this thread to just be a continuation of that one. I'd rather discuss the issue at hand, which is, "Why are differences of opinion seen as unrighteous choices?"

Differences of opinion may be seen as "unrighteous", by one side or the other, if the subject matter is moral in tone.

 

[Katzpur]

It appears the thread has basically concerned posts expressing opposition to the First Presidency's involvement with reaction to and/or an exploration of that expressed opposition. I have been part of the later. If you would like an argument justifying the First Presidency's involvement, it is not difficult. I can provide one in the other thread if you like.

I'm already following the posts on that thread, with the exception of MadHatter's, and I believe you've already stated your position there. This thread was never intended to be a continuation of that one, although that's clearly what it has become.

Differences of opinion may be seen as "unrighteous", by one side or the other, if the subject matter is moral in tone.

Or by both. To me, discrimination is immoral.