Arrogance and Condescension

[ahem.]

Sometimes I feel weird around non-Mormons. We have many rules above and beyond what is generally expected by society. Yet I can't help feeling that the world would be better if everybody followed our rules. I mean, we follow them because it makes us better people in some way, right? We have to believe that on some level, our way of life is better and will ultimately make us happier than any other way of life. And if everybody followed our guidelines, everybody would be better for it?

I have friends, acquaintances, and coworkers that I respect. But they get tattoos, go drinking on the weekends, move in with their significant others, gamble, shop on Sunday, have same sex relationships, etc. The only way I can reconcile some of these things that are done by good people is to chalk it up to "they don't know any better." But that just seems so condescending.

I know I'm not actually better than these people, but isn't it arrogant to interact with them with this attitude in place?

Did I explain that well? Does anyone have any thoughts on this topic?

[NerdGirl]

I tend to think of it as "they have different beliefs" rather than "they don't know any better". This may sound like moral relativism, and maybe it is, but other people generally have values and standards of their own, and if they live consistently with what they believe to be right, then they are living with integrity. It can go in the other direction, too. For example, there are people whose standards of modesty lets them show more skin than I do, and there are also people who think that the amount of skin Mormons go around showing is way too much. If someone believes that people should be covered to their wrists and ankles in public, they certainly don't have a lower standard than I do, but I personally wouldn't call it a higher standard because I don't think it's better than my standard. It's just different.

And another thing is that most people who break what we think of as commandments (no drinking, no gambling, no coffee, etc) aren't doing it to excess and aren't ruining their lives with it. If my next-door neighbors go to Vegas and gamble for a week every summer, but they aren't problem gamblers, and they don't lose their savings on it, it's not hurting them. If someone has a glass of wine with dinner every Friday night to celebrate the weekend, but that's all they ever drink, it's not a problem. But if I were to do either of those things, it would be a huge problem because I'm breaking my own standards.

I do think that the gospel will ultimately make us happier than any other way of life. But I don't necessarily think it's the rules that make us happy, except in the sense that when the things that are against the rules are taken to excess, that leads to misery. I think it's the ordinances and covenants of the gospel that lead to happiness. So it's not so much the fact that I don't drink coffee or alcohol that make me happy, it's the fact that I made a covenant in the temple to obey certain laws including that one and that I keep that covenant, which allows me access to the power of the priesthood and a close relationship with the Savior. Does that make sense?

Obviously some laws are bigger than others, though, and I don't think someone's going to be happy or a good person if they go around killing people or having copious amounts of one-night stands with strangers and they say that in their "value system" that's okay. These thoughts only extend to the things that most people in the world think is acceptable but that we don't do. And that doesn't mean that I keep quiet about my beliefs and standards when the opportunity to constructively share them arises. But I do tend to think of people who do things that I think are wrong as "doing what they believe is right" rather than "not knowing any better".

And on a completely different note, I have a friend who's not religious at all, doesn't come from a religious family, is maybe a deist or an agnostic depending on the day, but he doesn't drink. And he tells people that the reason that he doesn't drink is that he thinks the world would be a better place if no one ever drank alcohol. He doesn't have some tragic personal story about alcoholism in the family or a drunk driver, either. He just thinks it's dangerous, unhealthy, and a waste of money. It was always really interesting to see the reactions he got to that, which ranged from "what a beautiful idea" to "alcohol doesn't cause problems!" to very awkward silence.

[thebigcheese]

And on a completely different note, I have a friend who's not religious at all, doesn't come from a religious family, is maybe a deist or an agnostic depending on the day, but he doesn't drink. And he tells people that the reason that he doesn't drink is that he thinks the world would be a better place if no one ever drank alcohol. He doesn't have some tragic personal story about alcoholism in the family or a drunk driver, either. He just thinks it's dangerous, unhealthy, and a waste of money. It was always really interesting to see the reactions he got to that, which ranged from "what a beautiful idea" to "alcohol doesn't cause problems!" to very awkward silence.

That's really cool! If only there were more people like that in the world...

Anyway, I'd just like to add on a little bit to what NerdGirl is saying. I don't think our standards necessarily set us apart as being better people, per se. If anything, our standards might cause us to live more disciplined lives, but beyond that, I don't think they provide us with copious amounts of additional character. To me, character is determined more by virtues than anything else. In my mind, it's the loving, kind, trustworthy, generous, friendly people who are better than the rest of us--whether they are religious or not.

[krebscout]

I do think that the gospel will ultimately make us happier than any other way of life. But I don't necessarily think it's the rules that make us happy, except in the sense that when the things that are against the rules are taken to excess, that leads to misery. I think it's the ordinances and covenants of the gospel that lead to happiness. So it's not so much the fact that I don't drink coffee or alcohol that make me happy, it's the fact that I made a covenant in the temple to obey certain laws including that one and that I keep that covenant, which allows me access to the power of the priesthood and a close relationship with the Savior. Does that make sense?

Amen. The law is only there to bring us closer to Christ, as was the Law of Moses, and without faith the law is dead. No one would abide by our lifestyle unless they believed the doctrine anyway, and if everyone followed Jesus, the world would be AWESOME.

[krebscout]

By the way, do you have to have an opinion about what they do? I think it's perfectly okay to listen, be the good example that you are, and serve those around you as your testimony of good clean livin'. Does it have to be more than this?

[ahem.]

I may have misrepresented my actual opinions in my first post in an attempt to debate with myself. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I do not actually go around judging people based on my personal value system. I would try to sort out and explain my thoughts now, but I'm too sleepy. I am still super confused about this and have yet to come to any real conclusions.

[Emiliana]

Hi Ahem.,

As the token non-Mormon, I felt like chiming in here. I was going to say something about remembering that many of us who aren't Mormons and have an occasional drink of alcohol, for instance, do so responsibly. I didn't drink before I turned 21. I've never been drunk. I've never done anything I regret because of the influence of alcohol.

But then it occurred to me, maybe that would be like someone telling me that most people who aren't Christians and who have premarital sex, do so responsibly, so it's really not hurting anything. Which ... is almost beside the point, to me, because to me the point is that it's wrong. I have an entirely different attitude toward sex than a non-Christian would. Maybe it's the same with you and alcohol -- I'm not sure.

I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll stop there. Just wanted to throw in an outside perspective.

[ahem.]

See, the thing is, I totally get that there are good people who drink, or get tattoos, or whatever. Many of them do good things, and the world is a better place because of them. The things I specifically mentioned were ones that would not be considered immoral by a large portion of the world's population.

I guess I'm trying to figure it out in some kind of uncomplicated way. How would I explain to a future child when she realizes that her teacher has tattoo on her ankle? Or her uncle smokes? Or her friends have birthday parties on Sunday? These are things that I am teaching her are WRONG. And yet there are people that she loves/respects participating in them. The only answer I can think of to explain the discrepancy would be to tell her they just "don't know any better."

Emiliana, how would you react to a friend from high school telling you she had decided to sleep with her boyfriend for the first time? Obviously, your value system dictates that this is wrong. But the friend has a different set of values.

[ahem.]

I think I'm liking some sort of Transgression vs. Sin argument here. You can do something wrong without understanding that it is wrong. And while you may not face the consequences of sinning, you still face the consequences of your actions. But I still feel like that is an iteration of not knowing any better defense. Which still feels condescending.

[Marduk]

I've got a LOT to say on this subject (as one can imagine I would) but I have work in a little bit, so I'll come back to it.

But before I do, let me ask this: how many times do we do things we know to be wrong? I think "all we like sheep..." and so it is inappropriate for us to judge others for that reason. I think that's something even children can understand. In other words, as we teach my niece, when she tattles on her little brother, "(niece) is responsible for (niece), not for (nephew)." I think we all need to learn a little better that our gaze goes first inward.

[ahem.]

I look forward to your thoughts on this topic.

My thoughts are kind of derived from a much larger argument in my head. It kind of comes down to this (I think): I'm not sure that I believe our way of life is the best way of life.* But I'm fairly certain I should believe that.



*I know it's a good way of life, and I don't think there is a better way of life... I'm just not sure there aren't equally good alternatives.

[NerdGirl]

I guess I'm trying to figure it out in some kind of uncomplicated way. How would I explain to a future child when she realizes that her teacher has tattoo on her ankle? Or her uncle smokes? Or her friends have birthday parties on Sunday? These are things that I am teaching her are WRONG. And yet there are people that she loves/respects participating in them. The only answer I can think of to explain the discrepancy would be to tell her they just "don't know any better."

Well, my parents are both converts, so I grew up surrounded by their non-Mormon friends and my non-Mormon relatives, and I think a couple of examples from my childhood might be helpful. My parents were usually very pro-active about discussing these things with us so that we wouldn't go to grandma's house and tell her that drinking coffee was evil and that sort of thing.

About smoking:
My uncles all smoked when I was little (they've all quit now, amazingly, after decades of trying), and my parents taught me that smoking was unhealthy and that Heavenly Father didn't want us to do it. They told is that it was an addiction and that it was very hard to quit once you started, and that people who smoke know that it's bad for them so we didn't need to ever tell them it was bad.

About coffee and tea:
They told us that in our church we don't drink coffee and tea, but that in other churches people believe that it's okay. They taught us to tell people that we don't drink it if it was ever offered to us, but that we shouldn't tell them not to drink it.

About same-sex relationships:
At one point we were going to a gathering where there was going to be a lesbian couple. My mom explained to us what that meant so that we wouldn't be surprised when we saw them. When we were a bit older and could understand all the implications of that sort of thing, my mom told me that some people have a very strong desire to be with someone of the same sex romantically, but that we believe we need to be married and have eternal families. And then when I got to my angsty "would you still love me if....." phase, she said that if I were gay, of course she would still love me no matter what I did, but she would hope that I would keep the law of chastity and trust Heavenly Father to work it out some day.

And there are many more examples on many more topics, but those were the most relevant ones I though of.

[Tao]

A thought sparked from a different thread, but perhaps more applicable here. Are we not to be selective about what we ingest, physically and intellectually? Is a health-conscious person a snob for choosing to not live off of hot-pockets and microwave meals? No. I'd say what defines snobbery (or arrogance, in this case) is the condescension. I can see the little ones loaded down with candy on "All-Hallows Day" and advise them toward moderation. I can choose to be moderate myself. But unless I look down on them for choosing what I know is an unwise path, I'd think I'm safe from being arrogant.

Emiliana brings up a good parallel; is abstinence until marriage arrogance? I wouldn't think so. Refusing to date someone after discovering they are not virginal would probably qualify, unless you were so unsure of your own standards that you were honestly afraid you'd compromise yourself.

I'm not sure that I believe our way of life is the best way of life.* But I'm fairly certain I should believe that.
*I know it's a good way of life, and I don't think there is a better way of life... I'm just not sure there aren't equally good alternatives.

I'd say that's one of the wonderful things about this faith. If you find something that is better; go for it! I knew a group of people who felt that the higher law of the word of wisdom was to only eat raw. As long as they don't feel that they have to preach it in sunday school, or force their kids into their choices, I think I'd be safe to say the church is perfectly fine with that. Are there equally good alternatives to what we are given? Sure. I'd say so. An often overlooked line from the Book of Mormon's title page:

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel. (emphasis mine)

The Bible does have the fullness, but look at all the different ways people have gone at extracting it. Having a second anchor point sure helps. Compare the people who misquote Doctrine and Covenants 1 by claiming that we are "the only true church". Nowhere do we claim to have a monopoly on truth. The line is "only true and living church"; what we claim is continuing revelation, which makes getting the fullness of the everlasting gospel a whole heck of a lot easier. Yes, along with that comes the Priesthood powers and responsibilities to perform ordinances, which again, makes things easier (no waiting and having to go through a proxy).

Consider this situation of Abish (Alma 19:16). The presence of the rod and path does not preclude the use of pitons and rope to get to the tree of life; but such options do tend to be rough and rocky.

[Emiliana]

See, the thing is, I totally get that there are good people who drink, or get tattoos, or whatever. Many of them do good things, and the world is a better place because of them. The things I specifically mentioned were ones that would not be considered immoral by a large portion of the world's population.

I guess I'm trying to figure it out in some kind of uncomplicated way. How would I explain to a future child when she realizes that her teacher has tattoo on her ankle? Or her uncle smokes? Or her friends have birthday parties on Sunday? These are things that I am teaching her are WRONG. And yet there are people that she loves/respects participating in them. The only answer I can think of to explain the discrepancy would be to tell her they just "don't know any better."

Emiliana, how would you react to a friend from high school telling you she had decided to sleep with her boyfriend for the first time? Obviously, your value system dictates that this is wrong. But the friend has a different set of values.

To address your question first, although I haven't been in that exact situation, a lot of my friends have significantly different value systems than I do. I guess I feel sad when they do stuff that, to me, seems a whole lot like screwing up their lives. I tend to view a lot of the things they do as a hollow substitute for a relationship with Christ--something that makes you feel better for a little while but isn't ultimately fulfilling. (That doesn't mean that there aren't times when I want to smack them for what they're doing.)

In related matters: In Biblical times there were a lot of laws that seem to be primarily ceremonial rather than moral. The Israelites were prohibited from things like eating meat cooked in its mother's milk (Exodus 23:19) and wearing clothes made of multiple kinds of fibers (Leviticus 19:19). As best I understand, these things were prohibited not because they were inherently immoral, but because of their association with pagan cultures. The purpose of these laws was to remind the Israelites that they were set apart from the people around them. And there were certain things like the Nazarite vows where a person was prohibited from drinking alcohol, cutting their hair, etc., for a certain period of time in order to perform another task--but those rules weren't for all people at all times.

I'm wondering if any LDS rules are like that. Are there certain things that you don't do, not because they're inherently bad, but because not doing them serves as a reminder of your faith? I'm thinking specifically of the prohibitions against tea and coffee, tattoos, that sort of thing. Maybe it's because I'm on the outside looking in, but those don't seem to be especially /moral/ issues. (I also don't see drinking alcohol in moderation to be a moral issue, but I understand why many people do.)

[thebigcheese]

I'm wondering if any LDS rules are like that. Are there certain things that you don't do, not because they're inherently bad, but because not doing them serves as a reminder of your faith? I'm thinking specifically of the prohibitions against tea and coffee, tattoos, that sort of thing. Maybe it's because I'm on the outside looking in, but those don't seem to be especially /moral/ issues. (I also don't see drinking alcohol in moderation to be a moral issue, but I understand why many people do.)

The first thing that came to my mind has to do with Adam & Eve, and the difference between sin and transgression. When you break a moral law, you're sinning. When you break a law that's just a law, you're transgressing. So when they ate the fruit--there's nothing morally wrong with eating fruit. But they were commanded not to eat it, so it was transgression. To use a few legal examples in parallel...murder is sin, speeding is transgression. Rape is sin, throwing snowballs in Provo is transgression.

Now, as for the modern laws of the Church...I think it's a bit harder to distinguish. How do you tell the difference between a moral law and a law of obedience?

[krebscout]

I'm wondering if any LDS rules are like that. Are there certain things that you don't do, not because they're inherently bad, but because not doing them serves as a reminder of your faith? I'm thinking specifically of the prohibitions against tea and coffee, tattoos, that sort of thing. Maybe it's because I'm on the outside looking in, but those don't seem to be especially /moral/ issues. (I also don't see drinking alcohol in moderation to be a moral issue, but I understand why many people do.)

That's how I see it, yes. I think that's what ahem. was getting at when she said she likes a "transgression vs. sin" argument. I don't know if that terminology is used the same way outside of the Church, but a transgression is doing something wrong that isn't inherently bad (like running a red light) while a sin is doing something inherently bad (like killing folks). We believe Adam transgressed when he partook of the fruit. The evil isn't in the diet; it's in the disobedience.

Also: token non-Mormon? Emiliana vs. Imogen: FIGHT!

[krebscout]

[The first thing that came to my mind has to do with Adam & Eve, and the difference between sin and transgression.

Oh. Jinx.

[thebigcheese]

I'll throw out a few examples, and you guys can debate whether they are modern-day transgressions...

Eating too much, eating too much meat, sleeping too much. Or maybe some policy-related things like doing the Sacrament after the talks.

[ahem.]

Hm, okay I think I like this train of thought, at least for the arbitrary things . Drinking tea isn't wrong, but drinking tea when you've promised not to is. Smoking isn't wrong, but smoking when you've promised not to is (also it is terribly unhealthy). But that still leaves trying to decide which rules are moral and which are arbitrary.

Now, as for the modern laws of the Church...I think it's a bit harder to distinguish. How do you tell the difference between a moral law and a law of obedience?

Maybe I will just ponder on that for a while.

[Emiliana]

Okay, I see what you're saying about sin vs. transgression. I hadn't heard those terms used that way, so I didn't quite follow it the first time Ahem. said it.

But as Ahem. and thebigcheese have both pointed out, it's hard to know the difference. Based on Acts 10-11 and 1 Corinthians 8, I feel myself bound only by moral laws and not ceremonial ones, but I frequently have trouble sorting out which is which. I think it's largely about consequences, but on the other hand there are a lot of things that you might not *know* have such bad consequences unless you've done it -- divorce comes to mind. I have a friend, an older divorcee, who's said many times that God says, "I hate divorce" because he knows better than we do the consequences of tearing apart a marriage. So God might prohibit things in a way that seems arbitrary to us, but really is for a reason that we just don't understand. Just like parents do for their children: your two-year-old might not understand why it's bad to eat chocolate chip cookies for lunch, but really there's a good reason for it.