Better to be Happy in Ignorance or Miserable in the Truth?

I believe it is impossible to be as happy as you can be, in ignorance. But it’s also not good to dwell on miserable truths.

Let’s say, for example, a person’s spouse has committed adultery. Is the person better of knowing about it or not? There are many people in such a situation who will ignore evidence, give the “benefit of the doubt” just a little too much, refuse to question and basically place themselves in a state of ignorance. The truth is VERY painful, and I understand the reluctance to accept. Their spouse has been cheating on them, and lying to them. If they remain in ignorance, maybe on some level they will be “happy”. They can pretend they are loved and have a stable, solid relationship. They can avoid all the heartache associated with confrontation, realization, the legal battles associated with divorce, etc. But let’s face it… the marriage isn’t what it should be, and will not bring genuine happiness.

But despite the pain it will cause, if the person recognizes and confronts the truth head on, I believe they will have greater happiness in the long run. They will be able to confront their spouse, and either take steps to rectify the situation, or if the relationship is too damaging, end it and move on. But if this person broods over their spouse, hardens their heart, grows bitter, or in other words, dwells too long on this miserable truth, they will be more miserable than if they remained in ignorance. Or, as in SD’s case of the “Life is Beautiful”, what if you are unable to rectify the situation? Many are trapped in their marriage, and would have an extreme social/financial burden placed upon them, were it to end.

To carry the analogy a step further, God often refers to Israel (the Church) as His unfaithful bride, who “hast played the harlot with many lovers.” In an ideal world, the best course of action would be similar to God’s; Rectify the situation, and encourage repentance, and forgive. And if truly repentant, forget their past mistakes, and never bring it up again. Unfortunately, the Church absolutely cannot and will not admit fault, even when they do a complete 180 on past doctrine and policy. They will always claim they have always been in the right. So while I forgive the Church, I have a hard time forgetting.

But even aside from that. I think it’s kind of dangerous to say that everyone that doesn’t agree with me is living in ignorance. That is the all-too-common refrain in our present everyone’s-a-critic world. Believers are not ‘ignorant’… they simply prioritize their perceptions in a different way than I do.

I don’t think that’s what SD was going for. There’s a big difference between an opinion (“I believe clergy should/ should not be compensated for their ministry”), speculation (“Compensation/lack of compensation leads to religious corruption”) and fact (“The General Authorities do/ do not receive a six-figure salary for their callings”). The first one is an opinion. You can agree or disagree. There are no wrong opinions. The second is speculation. This can obviously be right or wrong, but we don’t really have enough data to get into the details. The last is a fact. It is either true, or it is false. And there are many facts Church members are not aware of, that would challenge their current beliefs.

“Even though there are no ways of knowing for sure, there are ways of knowing for pretty sure.”

But, SD, I don’t think that’s a fair proposition. It assumes that the Church and its believers are patently wrong, and to use dande’s analogy, assumes the Church is actively lying about everything.

The Church has taken many active steps to conceal/deny history. For example, many of the Church archives are inaccessible to third-party historians. The Church’s financial records are also closed to the public. And the Church has actively chosen stories which support their narrative, even if they aren’t from reputable sources, while ignoring stories which frame them in a negative light. For example, did Thomas Marsh leave because of a dispute his wife had with another woman over a pint of cream? Or did he leave with Orson Hyde, because they could not support the crimes of the retaliatory mobs commanded by Joseph Smith? According to the Church, the Church is always 100% true. Any false doctrine preached gets turned into “opinion” when disproved. Any revelation which fails, gets reinterpreted to be true. Back to the unfaithful spouse analogy, the Church will not admit fault until caught, and even then will pass the blame onto others.

the Church has actively chosen stories which support their narrative, even if they aren’t from reputable sources, while ignoring stories which frame them in a negative light.

Are you saying that is different from other organizations or people?

To me, I look at it like this. The Church is not the keeper of every fact from the past. They (and by they, I mean the two centuries of leaders and adherents) have latched onto the things that make sense and when something is confusing they assume they don’t have all the information. When something is negative, they assume it’s out-of-context or flat-out incorrect. This is just plain old confirmation bias at work. The Priesthood/Temple ban is a great (and unfortunate) example. I’m certain that the Church leaders of the 40’s and 50’s believed it was revealed doctrine and that it could therefore only be reversed by revelation. Today, there are still some in the Church who can only accept that it must have been a revelation, others who try to find reasons why it made sense to somehow preserve the work, and others who believe it was a product of the times, not directly sanctioned by God. As we get more information, our understanding shifts, but we will still find ways to justify.

I’m sure that 20th century leaders of the Church had no idea that JS had married so many women until a study was undertaken to account for it all. Along those lines, the Church is aiding and accepting research by third parties, through the most obvious example: the JS Papers Project.

I don’t think it’s accurate to paint the leaders of the Church as impartial historians who know every fact and then deliberately “hide” the truths that are unflattering. My working assumption is that they interpret their limited understanding through their lens of zeal for the faith, and they pass their interpretation on to the rest of the world, because that is the way they truly see it. Taking myself as an example, I was well aware of the different versions of the First Vision long before my FC. I leaned about them from an article in the Ensign from over 30 years ago. I once (early 90’s) gave a GD lesson in which I referenced the different accounts. However, rather than point out the differences in the major elements of the vision, I used these to talk about how he described the vision… sometimes as a light, sometimes as a fire. In retrospect, someone today could complain that I was lying because I didn’t point out how inconsistent JS was, but that was not in my mind or in my purpose. I didn’t read them as conflicting (still don’t). If you see only conflicts then in your mind am I lying or do we just see things differently?

One study I read said that people feel happy when they see themselves as just a little better off than the other people around them. So I guess it depends on which thing you are comparing: your belief in your superior knowledge or your disillusionment with your own failings (either moral failings or failings at having been wrong before and right now).

I will take a stab at conveying my thoughts…not sure this will come out right and make any sense to the exercise at hand.

The whole sentence is filled with relative wording, therefore…it all depends on what meaning you are trying to convey to yourself or others in the thread.

“Better” – is it better than others, better than our past selves? Ask if it is better is starting the idea relative to something else.

“Happy” – is fleeting. You never just reach “happy”…you just get closer to it, as close as you can in your right for the pursuit of happiness. If you feel it, it will soon fade, and you have to fight for finding it each day.

“Ignorance” – is something to describe others, or our past selves. I don’t think I choose ignorance today. I may choose other things, and later look back at my ignorance, or others will call me ignorant. But I don’t know how to choose ignorance and be honest with myself.

“Miserable” is probably that relative term of the opposite of “happy” – and the lack of trying to find the goodness. You can be ignorant and miserable, or have truth and be miserable. I don’t know why you would choose “miserable anything”…but it seems to find you when you need it to teach you something and change to get rid of it. It’s part of the daily fight to find a lack of suffering and getting closer to that elusive happiness thing.

“Truth” is what it is, regardless of our happiness or misery. Truth doesn’t “make you miserable”. The church is as true as a ham sandwich. Some things are just truer than other things…not sure we grasp what is ultimate truth, but from our perspective where we stand. There may be an ultimate truth that is unknowable to us, but all things are relative to that standard and Obi-wan Kenobe recognized we seek it only from our own point of view.

So…I don’t know…

Better to be Happy in Ignorance or Miserable in the Truth?

Yes. To all of it. It’s all relative to something you want to express in your heart from your own experience. But we don’t get to choose some things in life. It chooses us and we deal with it, and make up stories in our head about it so it has meaning and value.

I am moving to find truth, and moving to be happy, and hope I’m better today than yesterday.

Or better said…

So I guess it depends on which thing you are comparing: your belief in your superior knowledge or your disillusionment with your own failings (either moral failings or failings at having been wrong before and right now).

In fact, you can take the church out of it entirely and use a terminal illness analogy for discussion — better to not know about the existence of the illness and then drop dead happy (provided it is symptomless, like certain forms of cancer), or to know about the illness and its risks and be miserable and then drop dead from it.

Which is better? I am preferring the ignorant bliss option provided you aren’t forgoing a cure.

It’s a conundrum, for sure. I once had an acquaintance who was diagnosed with just a few months to live, and that was tough for him, because he had to deal with that knowledge for the short rest of his life, and I know he didn’t like that. I would much rather go quickly. On the other hand, I would hate to spend my last day on earth running meaningless errands and having the HTers over.

Roy wrote: ↑09 Jul 2018, 10:35

I see DW feeling bad and guilty about her failings all the time. Theoretically, this regret could be the first step towards repentance and self-improvement. However, I observe that some of these failings are just part of being human or are semi-permanent parts of your personality that are unlikely to go anywhere. Even if you do manage to improve in one area, there are always plenty of other areas to feel bad about. I do not want to go through life feeling bad about myself.

It’s a trap that a lot of people fall into. I fell into that trap. Just the other day a person giving a talk during SM talked about their depression and how they finally felt divine approval when they were called to a specific calling. “I didn’t think I was good enough to be a [calling], but god was showing that he thinks I’m good enough.”

Yes, it is a trap but I hope that my point comes across that endless self justification is also a trap. Neither being too hard on yourself nor being overly easy on yourself is strictly based on reality and both have their pitfalls.

Another analogy is the parable of the ant and the grasshopper. In the parable the ant is triumphant and the grasshopper starves. I am an ant at heart. I save for a tomorrow that may never come because the security that a nest egg gives is more comforting to me than any enjoyment that I might actually get spending it. I read about the benefits of “experiences” like travel and family vacations. Unfortunately I cannot bring myself to splurge. If I were on a cruise I would be fretting about how much the cruise costs compounded by how much I am losing by missing work.

What I am trying to say is that there are “traps” on both sides and especially at the extremes.