- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The title for this one is tough and doesn’t really say what I mean. In another thread Roy said:
Quote:…they may in fact be very happy but it makes me feel better to imagine that they are not…
That statement jumped out at me and I don’t totally know why. I do often take issue with members of the church (including Q15 members) who seem to indicate that only people in the church are happy and no one else could possibly be happy because it’s the only way to happiness. I’m sure I could find a quote or two from the most recent GC that indicates this line of thinking. In one way it’s kind of a Utah-centric idea, but I hear from members outside Utah as well. I’m a convert and I have lived most of my church life in areas where Mormons are a very tiny minority (we’re less than 1/10 of 1 percent where I currently live – and that’s counting the inactives). It’s very obvious to me that there are plenty of people in the world who are happy and who are not Mormon, or even Christian (but most Mormons and Christians I know are happy too).
So, is Roy’s quote really what I’m supposed to be hearing when church members go on about happiness only being found in the church? Do those members really know what I know but choose to “feel better” by imagining others are not happy for whatever reason? Or are those members truly deceived or at least misperceiving?
I think most members who aren’t completely in a bubble recognize that there are many happy people outside the church. Mormonism is a high-demand religion, and it’s easier to justify all the work you put into it if you believe that not only does it make you happy, but you couldn’t possibly be as happy doing something else. The idea of missionary work is another reason for this I think. We may know a lot of non-members who are happy, but somehow we’re supposed to convince them that they need the gospel. So then there’s this idea of “sure, you may be happy now, but it’s nothing compared to how happy you could be with the gospel” which then leads into thinking that the gospel is the only path to true happiness.
But I still think most people know that others find happiness outside the church. I remember at the MTC my teacher asked us if people could be happy without the gospel. He said the answer was yes, and that we would meet many people who were already happy without the gospel, but that the point of missionary work was salvation and eternal life. The problem I see is, many people nowadays don’t really care much about salvation. So then a lot of the church’s messaging focuses on happiness. But if the church is the one true church, and it’s main message is how to be happy, then it would need to be the best or ultimate source of happiness or else it’s not special any more. So I think there’s a level of conflict between knowing that happiness exists outside of the church, and also thinking that the church is special.
Arrakeen wrote:
…I remember at the MTC my teacher asked us if people could be happy without the gospel. He said the answer was yes, and that we would meet many people who were already happy without the gospel, but that the point of missionary work was salvation and eternal life. The problem I see is, many people nowadays don’t really care much about salvation. So then a lot of the church’s messaging focuses on happiness. But if the church is the one true church, and it’s main message is how to be happy, then it would need to be the best or ultimate source of happiness or else it’s not special any more. So I think there’s a level of conflict between knowing that happiness exists outside of the church, and also thinking that the church is special.
I like that a lot. Thanks.
Arrakeen wrote:
But I still think most people know that others find happiness outside the church. I remember at the MTC my teacher asked us if people could be happy without the gospel. He said the answer was yes, and that we would meet many people who were already happy without the gospel, but that the point of missionary work was salvation and eternal life. The problem I see is, many people nowadays don’t really care much about salvation. So then a lot of the church’s messaging focuses on happiness. But if the church is the one true church, and it’s main message is how to be happy, then it would need to be the best or ultimate source of happiness or else it’s not special any more. So I think there’s a level of conflict between knowing that happiness exists outside of the church, and also thinking that the church is special.
I like it too.
And I agree that most people don’t really care about salvation or at least not the way we (and many other Christians) define it. For most of us it’s all about rules and obedience – do X and Y will happen. I don’t think that’s what the gospel is really about, and I take a much more universalist approach.
And your point about the church being special is also well taken. I’m sure all of us who served missions and many who have just tried with friends and associates have discovered that some people already have the gospel and understand it and our rules have nothing for them. Authority? Where the heck does it say anything about that in the Bible? Did Jesus ever mention it? And that’s just one example of some of the things we try to use to make us seem special/different. The happiness or “more happiness” idea is another. Truth is I don’t think we’re all that special – but we have to keep trying to convince ourselves and others that we are.
Some thoughts: 1 – I think we all feel this way to some degree, church or not. And let me illustrate this with differing views of a vacation to the Caribbean. For some people, the ideal vacation is to sit by a pool and read a book; no interruptions, no decisions, just relaxation. For others, it is to get out and have an unlimited number of exhausting activities; parasailing, scuba diving, hiking, snorkeling, kayaking, swimming, zip-lining, etc. For others still, it is party every night into a state of drunkenness and sleep ’til the afternoon. My guess is that each type thinks he/she has the ideal form of the vacation; the one that would make everyone the happiest, even if they do acknowledge that others might be pretty happy doing what they do. In my own case, I’m in Group 2, and I feel sorry for people in Group 1, who obviously are wasting their vacation. I often comment that they should just sit next to a heat lamp and read a book back home; saving the airfare and hotel bill. I cognitively understand that they enjoy doing that, I just don’t get why and don’t think they could possibly be having as much fun as me.
2 – I was happier before my faith crisis than I am now. There’s nothing for it. I am at-peace, and I have found a good way forward that works for me, but the fact remains for me — I was happier then. If God would end his silent treatment and reveal to me that the Church is, in fact, true, I’d go back to my old state in an instant.
3 – I would say, based on what I have read here at StayLDS, that the contributors here generally feel that they are better off than people who are still in the Church, and that no one in the Church can attain the level of true Christianity/humanity/fair-mindedness/kindness/tolerance/awareness the way we have. Is it justified? Sure. Because we come to that conclusion based on our own life-experience; just the same way that they come to their conclusions.
4 – Whether a person is in the Church or has undergone an LDS Faith Crisis, or is a conservative or progressive, woman or man, millennial or boomer, modern art or impressionism lover, fan of football or soccer, I think we all create a narrative that supports our situation. We self-validate by telling ourselves that the OTHERS are not in as good of a place as we are.
On Own Now wrote:
Some thoughts:1 – I think we all feel this way to some degree, church or not. And let me illustrate this with differing views of a vacation to the Caribbean. For some people, the ideal vacation is to sit by a pool and read a book; no interruptions, no decisions, just relaxation. For others, it is to get out and have an unlimited number of exhausting activities; parasailing, scuba diving, hiking, snorkeling, kayaking, swimming, zip-lining, etc. For others still, it is party every night into a state of drunkenness and sleep ’til the afternoon. My guess is that each type thinks he/she has the ideal form of the vacation; the one that would make everyone the happiest, even if they do acknowledge that others might be pretty happy doing what they do. In my own case, I’m in Group 2, and I feel sorry for people in Group 1, who obviously are wasting their vacation. I often comment that they should just sit next to a heat lamp and read a book back home; saving the airfare and hotel bill. I cognitively understand that they enjoy doing that, I just don’t get why and don’t think they could possibly be having as much fun as me.
True, and my daughter recently experienced a real life example of exactly what you’re saying. She went on a vacation with a colleague and they were both stressed out with work and needed to “get away.” However, the vacation turned into a disaster because DD was more of the type who wanted to get out and do things while her friend wanted to sit at the hotel and read/do nothing. I get how this applies to happiness (DD did not understand the point of going to a hotel to just sit at the hotel either) but I’m not sure how it applies to church/religion specifically unless we’re talking much broader – like Muslim vs. Christian vs. Judaism. I know many Christians have a hard time understanding how Jews could not accept Jesus as the Messiah and continue in seemingly pointless rituals. But it’s a little harder for me to understand Christian vs Christian because what brings happiness is supposed to be (and mostly is) the same.
Quote:2 – I was happier before my faith crisis than I am now. There’s nothing for it. I am at-peace, and I have found a good way forward that works for me, but the fact remains for me — I was happier then. If God would end his silent treatment and reveal to me that the Church is, in fact, true, I’d go back to my old state in an instant.
This was definitely true for me for a long time, but it’s not any more. I do agree that if God were to send an angel or whatever and make it clear to me the church was indeed what it claims to be I would revert to my former state. I can’t say I am unhappy in my current state nor that I was happier before the FC, however. I am at peace with where I’m at and that’s at least in part due to my being able to give up false guilt/fear that the church tries to apply (generally successfully).Quote:3 – I would say, based on what I have read here at StayLDS, that the contributors here generally feel that they are better off than people who are still in the Church, and that no one in the Church can attain the level of true Christianity/humanity/fair-mindedness/kindness/tolerance/awareness the way we have. Is it justified? Sure. Because we come to that conclusion based on our own life-experience; just the same way that they come to their conclusions.
Agreed, both for those of us who maintain some degree of activity or connection with the church and those who don’t. My life experiences up to that point in my TBM phase brought me there, life experiences were a big part of my FC, and my current more (Fowler) stage 4/5 views are also based on life experience. In one way, the above referenced angelic visitation might not actually return me completely to my former state because I know what I know. That’s the old “if I knew as a teenager what I know now things would have been a lot different.”Quote:4 – Whether a person is in the Church or has undergone an LDS Faith Crisis, or is a conservative or progressive, woman or man, millennial or boomer, modern art or impressionism lover, fan of football or soccer, I think we all create a narrative that supports our situation. We self-validate by telling ourselves that the OTHERS are not in as good of a place as we are.
Agreed, and we often seem to have to make justifications, at least to ourselves, why our own way/belief is better than our neighbor’s.Just to be totally clear, I consider myself to be quite happy. It’s just that I’m probably 0.9x the level of happiness I was before all this happened. I’m in a great place, and I am glad for that. I simply say that I am not as happy as I once was, and I don’t think I ever will be again. My situation works better for me, because of my beliefs, and I have found plenty of the new to enjoy; but I would trade if I could. DarkJedi wrote:
But it’s a little harder for me to understand Christian vs Christian because what brings happiness is supposed to be (and mostly is) the same.
That’s true for many, but I would argue that many Christians think of their brand as more fulfilling in some way or another.One way to be happy with our circumstances is to embrace what we do have with gusto and love it. Another way is to tear down what other people have (which artificially raises our own situation). That latter is far more common that you might think. Listen to the way people talk about others who are not in their in-group, and you’ll see what I mean. Church members do this about us. We do it about them.
On Own Now wrote:
One way to be happy with our circumstances is to embrace what we do have with gusto and love it. Another way is to tear down what other people have (which artificially raises our own situation). That latter is far more common that you might think. Listen to the way people talk about others who are not in their in-group, and you’ll see what I mean. Church members do this about us. We do it about them.
Very true, and in relation to this topic church members do it about other Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and [fill in the blank]. One way to make our way appear better to to make another way look worse. Politicians, of course, always do it.
I think that there are several key components to members’ sense of happiness. 1) Purpose – I do not believe that it can be overstated how much a sense of purpose can make hardships more bearable. Mormonism has a very good sense of purpose.
2) Community – I believe that having connections/connectedness matters both in quantity and quality. They say it takes a village to raise a child. The village also helps adult individuals to achieve a state of happiness.
3) Belonging – One of the difficult things about having a FC is the loss of belonging. But when it works it can really work well. A local Christian church that I admire has rebranded themselves as “A place to belong.” I assume that this was done after some market research determining that a desire to belong was a strong motivator for potential church goers. LDS multi-generational families can amplify this sense of belonging by tying together church and family heritage.
4) Clean living – There is some truth to the standards of the church preventing some personal decisions that might result in less happiness. The focus on stable families can produce environments where happiness is more likely to occur.
5) Narrative/Culture – I also believe that there is some pressure to portray ourselves as happy. We repeatedly hear about how the gospel brings happiness and it is less acceptable to talk openly about our struggles. We culturally highlight the positive. We want to be like a shining city on a hill or the light in the high place. We are all missionaries and want to show by our own example the happiness that can be had by our friends and neighbors by following the gospel. We are encouraged to talk about how happy we are and to correlate that happiness with church membership.
I agree, Roy, especially with Number 5. I think that’s one of the reasons why the brethren weren’t always so open or honest about our church’s history. One thing I’ve noticed in the standard works is that although the ancient prophets were showed with weaknesses or sins here and there, mostly they seem more like 1-2 dimensional fictional characters than real people. That is annoying. I think the problem is that not everyone is happy all the time. I’ve spent times of my life where I’ve been reasonably happy and then something came along and smashed it with a sledge hammer. Illnesses or deaths in the family. Break ups. Work issues etc. Or even this year. You’re sailing along, feeling okay and then these come along and knock you flat. I think they expose your weaknesses. In one case, I was happy, but hadn’t realized how isolated I’d become. I was attending another church, which imploded (long story), and I’d left school, and almost none of my friends hung around. So when the crisis came I had to deal with it mostly by myself which caused extra problems, and I also had no means to distract myself. Ilovechrist77 wrote:
I agree, Roy, especially with Number 5. I think that’s one of the reasons why the brethren weren’t always so open or honest about our church’s history. One thing I’ve noticed in the standard works is that although the ancient prophets were showed with weaknesses or sins here and there, mostly they seem more like 1-2 dimensional fictional characters than real people. That is annoying.
They do that with Joseph Smith. The whitewashed version doesn’t interest me much. The real Joseph Smith is a much more interesting character, and I sincerely believe we could have even become friends if we’d met. He did many things wrong, but I have never thought he was evil, and he never deserved to be murdered. The real Joseph Smith had a sense of humor and a way with words. I was delighted to find out, for example, that he was apparently great with kids, and used to horse around with them. That’s a side to the man we never hear about. He also enjoyed old school wrestling, and I think he had an intense intellectual interest in new ideas. Again, not stuff we talk about.
We do get hints of things. He lost those 116 pages, which I sometimes bring up as an example of how he could occasionally fail in his missions.
Of course, the whitewashing is a gift to critics of the church. They use all or any faults they can find, and of course invent a few too. The devout member ends up getting their shelf broken (to use a phrase from here.) I can’t excuse some things he did, but I think neither side presents him fairly. In fact, Joseph Smith was actually partly chastised because of the hypocrisy and intolerance of the time.
SamBee wrote:
That’s a side to the man we never hear about. He also enjoyed old school wrestling, and I think he had an intense intellectual interest in new ideas. Again, not stuff we talk about.
I remember hearing about the prowess of JS in stick pulling. He was reportedly quote good. It was interesting to read something about him losing to his brother William once and then JS saying that he only lost because of an old injury that he had sustained. This led me to consider 1) that JS was perfectly capable of being a poor loser (and other less desirable human qualities) and still be a prophet and 2) why is it that we as a culture tend to paint such a perfected, whitewashed version of the man that any human would likely fail to measure up against?
Roy wrote:
SamBee wrote:
That’s a side to the man we never hear about. He also enjoyed old school wrestling, and I think he had an intense intellectual interest in new ideas. Again, not stuff we talk about.
I remember hearing about the prowess of JS in stick pulling. He was reportedly quote good. It was interesting to read something about him losing to his brother William once and then JS saying that he only lost because of an old injury that he had sustained. This led me to consider 1) that JS was perfectly capable of being a poor loser (and other less desirable human qualities) and still be a prophet and 2) why is it that we as a culture tend to paint such a perfected, whitewashed version of the man that any human would likely fail to measure up against?
This makes me like him more. We know – to put it bluntly – that JS had a zipper problem (not that they had zippers back then), but I dislike both the whitewashed version of him and the anti-Mormon version of him. The rounded JS is much more appealing to me.
The whitewashed version is impossibly handsome, and could pop up in a Jane Austen film (or Henry James?), where he sweeps the heroine off her feet. It’s no coincidence some church films look like that (or an American version of it)
The anti-Mormon version is more a Brontë character – like a rough and angry Heathcliff from “Wuthering Heights” or secretive Mr Rochester from “Jane Eyre” who is a secret bigamist.
So yes, I agree.
JS was probably like your #1. I think we’ve all been sore losers at some point. Some of the vitriol directed at the younger Joseph Smith was not deserved though. The early USA could be hypocritical when it came to religious freedom. He was perfectly entitled, under US law to set up his own church without harassment. The settlements he set up in the mid-west were actually fairly successful compared to most others. Robert Owen’s New Harmony project turned out to be anything but harmonious – and there are hundreds of ghost towns across the USA with no merit… Nauvoo and Kirtland were attractive cities with beautiful buildings at their hearts. JS was terrible when it came to politics and finance and that’s where I think problems crept in.
#2 – people want ideals. That’s why we look to folk heroes like Hercules, or Maui, or even Luke Skywalker (let’s forget about the character assassination in recent films). When we had those books on the Teachings of the Presidents, they discussed George Albert Smith – and mentioned the terrible eye problems he had. He also had lupus (which I don’t think was mentioned), but more importantly GAS suffered from terrible depression at points in his life. Given all the talk about how mental illness is caused by bad life choices and not sticking to the gospel, it would have been helpful for church members to know a church president himself had suffered.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.