LDS Only: Self-righteousness in our midst

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by Scott C.

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]

Originally Posted by madhatter85

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]

Originally Posted by Starfish

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]

Originally Posted by Starfish

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.]

Originally Posted by Starfish

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]

Originally Posted by Scott C.

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]

Originally Posted by Starfish

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Scott C.

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

Bingo.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by 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 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.