The Role of Happiness and Sacrifice

[Anonymous]

I was reading an article on the role of happiness in various religions.

There was a statement in it that struck me:

“Islam has a different view of the here and now of happiness, according to Scott Kugle, Associate Professor of South Asian and Islamic Studies. “The Quran is very clear that happiness in this world in this moment is really not the object of life. Rather you should be living not for your own contentment and satisfaction but for God’s contentment and satisfaction with you,” he says.

I see this tension between sacrifice and personal happiness as a theme with members who are feeling discontent with their role in the Church. I felt it definitely, when the time and resources that seemed to be required of me seemed excessive. There are times when making the required sacrifices are at the expense of one’s happiness. Lately, I’ve been much happier, but its’ because I’ve reduced the amount of sacrifice I’ve been making in my Church life. I’ve put in far less time into it recently, while still remaining active.

But does it have to be that way? How can you achieve high levels of sacrifice (that require real stretches of effort and character) and be happy at the same time? Is it really worth it to sacrifice so much you’re miserable in this life for the promise of reward in the after-life? And didn’t JS say that “happiness is the object and design of our existence?” So doesn’t that mean that making sacrifices should be subordinate to preserving our inner peace and happiness?

Here is the article below if you care to read it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/april-l-bogle/dalai-lama-happiness-summit_b_764783.html

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I was reading an article on the role of happiness in various religions…There was a statement in it that struck me:

“Islam has a different view of the here and now of happiness, according to Scott Kugle, Associate Professor of South Asian and Islamic Studies. “The Quran is very clear that happiness in this world in this moment is really not the object of life. Rather you should be living not for your own contentment and satisfaction but for God’s contentment and satisfaction with you,” he says.

I see this tension between sacrifice and personal happiness as a theme with members who are feeling discontent with their role in the Church. I felt it definitely, when the time and resources that seemed to be required of me seemed excessive. There are times when making the required sacrifices are at the expense of one’s happiness. Lately, I’ve been much happier, but its’ because I’ve reduced the amount of sacrifice I’ve been making in my Church life. I’ve put in far less time into it recently, while still remaining active.

But does it have to be that way? How can you achieve high levels of sacrifice (that require real stretches of effort and character) and be happy at the same time? Is it really worth it to sacrifice so much you’re miserable in this life for the promise of reward in the after-life? And didn’t JS say that “happiness is the object and design of our existence?” So doesn’t that mean that making sacrifices should be subordinate to preserving our inner peace and happiness?

No, I don’t think it has to be that way; this is just the way the Church has evolved. If there was only one thing I could change about the Church it would be to soften or eliminate the authoritarian attitude of expecting every member to believe and do almost exactly what they are told. For all the Church’s emphasis on family, this intolerant all-or-nothing mindset will continue to divide families because sooner or later the heavy demands in terms of time, money, and strict rules will inevitably become too much for many members/investigators to stomach but at the same time rejecting some of these demands is not acceptable to many of the remaining members.

I don’t have a problem with sacrifice if people are honestly convinced that there is a good reason for it (such as helping or serving others), but I think it would be better if this was more of a personal thing between you and God not something we arbitrarily impose on others as an expected requirement for full fellowship in the Church as a general policy. The problem with claiming that people need to make heavy sacrifices in this life mostly for the sake of the next life is that people will really start to ask about how exactly we know all this and simply telling them “because the prophets said so” is probably not going to work quite as well as it used to anymore now that there is so much anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet.

As harsh as the Islamic lifestyle looks to me at least they don’t have a central word-wide organization that directly benefits from the sacrifice of its followers the way the LDS Church does. If more of this sacrifice could be shown to directly benefit the members as a whole it would be easier to justify but it is more than a little suspicious to see a Church make so many demands that appear to mostly further its own interests or the interests of a few top leaders mostly at the expense of the members.

Even the JWs don’t prohibit alcohol and I don’t know of any other religious sects that prohibit coffee. Sure there are some that prohibit most popular entertainment (music, TV, etc.) and also require women to have long hair, skirts, etc., but at least they know their specialized niche in the world and aren’t trying to be mainstream and hard-core at the same time. Basically I think the Church should re-consider what exactly they are asking members to do and why but my guess is that they won’t really change much anytime soon so all I can do is ignore them when I don’t agree with their policies.

[Anonymous]

I actually feel some agreement with what you’ve written DA. The classic example is Abraham. I didn’t see the point of God asking him to sacrifice his only son, and putting him through that emotional trauma and conflict, just to prove his obedience….wouldn’t it have been much better for God to have asked him to give up something that would benefit others at the same time?

Joseph Smith is also purported to have asked other men to give up their wives as a test of obedience. And then, when they gave them up, he gave them back to them (an instructor in the MTC told me this years ago).

These stories where men are asked to sacrifice their reason and their understanding for some unknown benefit cause angst to me more than bringing me peace and happiness.

I’m reminded of what the management theorist Herzberg said “indifference and apathy is a healthy reaction to meaningless work”. So, when you’re asked to do things out of sheer obedience, not understanding the reasons or underlying rationale, it seems almost like an affront to the intelligence we have been given. To me, non-compliance seems like a healthy reaction.

Granted, we are often asked to pray about it to get a confirmation, but this too often leads to only blind obedience as the confirmation usually just provides some kind of personal comfort rather than compelling reasons.

However, I’m open to other interpretations about why such blind obedience is considered so important — particularly when it can be easily abused.

[Anonymous]

I’ve been fortunate. My past two Bishops, in different states, have each stated from the pulpit that church activities need to be secondary to family priorities. The first Bishop routinely released a spouse (husband OR wife) with children at home from a time-consuming calling whenever the other spouse was called into a time-consuming calling – but we had a decent-sized ward with that luxury. The second Bishop stated directly that he wanted to know if family situations changed and made continuing a calling a true burden on the family.

I believe in sacrifice – and I believe sacrifice only is sacrifice if it hurts at least a little, but I don’t believe in sacrificing family well-being for church activity. I know that’s a fine line, but I believe in trying to walk it.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Joseph Smith is also purported to have asked other men to give up their wives as a test of obedience. And then, when they gave them up, he gave them back to them (an instructor in the MTC told me this years ago).

That’s what purportedly happened to Heber Kimball (who was later reported to remark ‘I think no more of taking [another] wife than I do of buying a cow’) and his wife, Vilate.

Quote:

During the summer of 1841, shortly after Heber’s return from England, he was introduced to the doctrine of plural marriage directly through a startling test-a sacrifice which shook his very being and challenged his faith to the ultimate. He had already sacrificed homes, possessions, friends, relatives, all worldly rewards, peace, and tranquility for the Restoration. Nothing was left to place on the altar save his life, his children, and his wife. Joseph demanded for himself what to Heber was the unthinkable, his Vilate. Totally crushed spiritually and emotionally, Heber touched neither food nor water for three days and three nights and continually sought confirmation and comfort from God.” Finally, after “some kind of assurance,” Heber took Vilate to the upper room of Joseph’s store on Water Street. The Prophet wept at this act of faith, devotion, and obedience. Joseph had never intended to take Vilate. It was all a test.

Apparently the Kimball family is/was proud of this story for what it says about the obedience of their progenitors. Not having been there, it’s difficult to judge, but I really never quite knew what to do with that story. On the one hand I can admire people with that kind of dedication, but I could never empathize with them. One part of me wonders why on earth the church or anyone else would promote such an obviously twisted story, but then again it speaks to some people I guess. As for me, I have no doubt what my answer would have been, and it wouldn’t have taken me overnight to figure it out. Am I therefore not as good a person? Does God appreciate rationality?

Speaking of sacrifice as a principle taught by the church, I am reminded of our stake’s involvement with … the orchard. Thankfully it was sold a few years ago but while it still belonged to the church, our stake was expected to participate in the thinning, pruning, picking, etc. For us, it was a two-hour drive each way. According to the guy who superintended, it would have been more profitable for the operation if he were to simply go hire temporary laborers. So really, it would have made more sense for my stake to organize the digging of holes and the filling them back up again, locally, and then maybe to ask us to donate half of the gas money we would have spent getting to the orchard in order to hire a few people who actually knew what they were doing to do the real work on the orchard trees. At least we wouldn’t have had to drive four hours in order to do it … and we’d have had half of our gas money back. My hope is that at least part of the reason the orchard was sold is that somebody recognized that fact. I think the church is improving in this way, i.e. trying not to ask people to do meaningless stuff just for the sake of ‘sacrifice’. Did anyone ever see that church movie from, oh, I’d say sometime in the sixties. It starred Johnny Whittaker and the message was, basically, if your dad is the bishop and you ever had any fantasies about spending time with him, you’re screwed, and you might as well learn to live with it. You won’t likely find it on your local ward library video shelf today. I think we’ve come a long way.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

but it is more than a little suspicious to see a Church make so many demands that appear to mostly further its own interests or the interests of a few top leaders mostly at the expense of the members.

This made me think of “Amelia’s Palace” The mega mansion BY had built for his favorite (and childless) wife, and later housed John Taylor. (heralded as one of the finest homes between Chicago and the West Coast) I realize this was the past, but I can’t help but also think about a certain multi-billion dollar mall.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/mining_and_railroads/thegardohouse.html

As far as sacrifice goes… it is a very good thing which can bring great growth and happiness when it comes from the heart. But sacrifice that feels forced or pressured upon a person can be hurtful, and sacrifice through fear is wrong on so many levels. Sacrificing for our families and loved ones should be a priority, and this could mean saying NO on occasion to The Church.

Old-Timer wrote:

I’ve been fortunate. My past two Bishops, in different states, have each stated from the pulpit that church activities need to be secondary to family priorities.

Nice! I wish this was the experience of more of us on this board.

SilentDawning wrote:

Joseph Smith is also purported to have asked other men to give up their wives as a test of obedience. And then, when they gave them up, he gave them back to them

This is seriously messed up!

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I’ve been fortunate. My past two Bishops, in different states, have each stated from the pulpit that church activities need to be secondary to family priorities. The first Bishop routinely released a spouse (husband OR wife) with children at home from a time-consuming calling whenever the other spouse was called into a time-consuming calling – but we had a decent-sized ward with that luxury. The second Bishop stated directly that he wanted to know if family situations changed and made continuing a calling a true burden on the family.

I believe in sacrifice – and I believe sacrifice only is sacrifice if it hurts at least a little, but I don’t believe in sacrificing family well-being for church activity. I know that’s a fine line, but I believe in trying to walk it.

How would you reframe this in a Ward where you’re short on people? How would you resolve the conflict between getting results, the ensuing sacrifices needed by the members, and the need to help them preserve their own inner peace and their family lives?

For the very reason you’ve given, I prefer large Wards over small Wards.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I actually feel some agreement with what you’ve written DA…I’m reminded of what the management theorist Herzberg said “indifference and apathy is a healthy reaction to meaningless work”. So, when you’re asked to do things out of sheer obedience, not understanding the reasons or underlying rationale, it seems almost like an affront to the intelligence we have been given. To me, non-compliance seems like a healthy reaction…However, I’m open to other interpretations about why such blind obedience is considered so important — particularly when it can be easily abused.

flowerdrops wrote:

…As far as sacrifice goes… it is a very good thing which can bring great growth and happiness when it comes from the heart. But sacrifice that feels forced or pressured upon a person can be hurtful, and sacrifice through fear is wrong on so many levels. Sacrificing for our families and loved ones should be a priority, and this could mean saying NO on occasion to The Church.

In many cases saying no really is the best answer to some of these demands that involve significant and unnecessary personal sacrifice and in my opinion not nearly enough active members have been willing to really utilize this option so far. It’s not like we can directly vote on these doctrines or policies so I wouldn’t get my hopes up too much as far as expecting the Church to change things more in line with my own preferences any time soon. As long as there are enough members that are willing to believe and do whatever Church leaders tell them to then the Church isn’t going to hesitate to keep asking for and expecting this kind of unquestioning obedience.

Maybe some of this isn’t simply to test people’s obedience; my guess is that some of these Church leaders are convinced (wrongly) that much of this sacrifice is absolutely necessary and beneficial. I think there is the perception that some of these policies such as filling a huge number of callings has been proven to work so far and because of this they don’t want to mess with this supposed formula for success. For example, when asked in an interview why he thought the LDS Church was growing in Australia while other churches were losing members Gordon B. Hinckley made the following comments:

Quote:

“…Our ministry’s unique. We make heavy demands on people. The interesting thing is that a Church that demands great things from its people, attracts people…if they pick up every kind of shifting doctrine, they seem to lose people.”

Suppose you can get some lukewarm members to consistently go to Church simply by giving them a calling that basically requires them to be there. Maybe the biggest problem with attendance is actually that some of the meetings have become a mostly negative experience for too many members because they are relatively boring or many of the same old doctrines just don’t make sense anymore the way they are currently presented. However, by playing on people’s sense of obligation, making them feel needed or important, etc. the Church can circumvent this problem without having to acknowledge or address it. Even if this general approach works to some extent from the Church’s perspective I still think it is counterproductive over the long run because you’ve basically compounded the situation by increasing the overall cost of attending church which is likely to leave many people feeling completely burned out eventually.

[Anonymous]

SD, I would jettison and streamline lots of programs, frankly.

One other thing:

We tend to underestimate the sacrifice others make in other religions and denominations, probably since fewer people (precentage-wise) tend to make the type of sacrifices so many of us are asked to make.

[Anonymous]

I have also heard several times from local leaders that our time should be prioritized as follows:

1) To your employer

2) To your family

3) To the church

When there are conflicts (or needs) the rule above should be followed. I think this is supported well in our area whenever anyone refers to it.

I also see benefits of sacrifice, when it is willingly given and not to the point of harming needed relationships.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

SD, I would jettison and streamline lots of programs, frankly.

My thoughts would be similar — I would set reasonable expectations about what can be accomplished given the manpower in place, and then I would keep the Stake at bay with their unreasonable demands.

Regarding other faiths. I spoke to a pentacostal minister and he said that the commitment required in his Church is primarily in paying tithing and also holding small group studies. He said that about 1/3 of his active membership do both. Just as a sidenote. I’m not sure if any serious research has ever been done to determine just how much time each religion expects from its people.

[Anonymous]

Its all about Good, Better, Best.

Quote:

We have to forego some good things in order to choose others that are better or best because they develop faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and strengthen our families.

Dallin H. Oaks, “Good, Better, Best,” Ensign, Nov 2007, 104–8

Sacrifice is needed for happiness, in my opinion, or else we’ll all just live hedonistic lives only thinking of ourselves in this very moment (like a toddler).

But what others think I should sacrifice, and what I think I should sacrifice for happiness can be a very different thing, and I don’t give that control to others over my happiness.

I’m also grateful for examples like Pres McKay who wanted to drink coke and have rum cake, because you can’t squeeze all the fun out of life!

[Anonymous]

Just as a personal example, I spoke openly in a Sacrament Meeting talk recently about the things I simply can’t do in my current financial situation and geographic location when I talked about the balance between seeking the Spirit for personal revelation and supporting and “following” our leaders.

The Bishop in the ward where I spoke thanked me explicitly for talking about those things.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Regarding other faiths. I spoke to a pentacostal minister and he said that the commitment required in his Church is primarily in paying tithing and also holding small group studies. He said that about 1/3 of his active membership do both. Just as a sidenote. I’m not sure if any serious research has ever been done to determine just how much time each religion expects from its people.

The point I take from this, SD, is that we often think as mormons we do way more than others, but that isn’t necessarily true…since you point out 1/3 of the minister’s congregation does make similar sacrifices.

I think we certainly do more than others of other faiths…and I also think many others of other faiths do the same and more than us.

There is no blanket rule across faiths…some people put time into their religion and sacrifice willingly, some don’t…LDS or not.

Joseph Smith wrote:

A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Its all about Good, Better, Best…Sacrifice is needed for happiness, in my opinion, or else we’ll all just live hedonistic lives only thinking of ourselves in this very moment (like a toddler)…I’m also grateful for examples like Pres McKay who wanted to drink coke and have rum cake, because you can’t squeeze all the fun out of life!

Heber13 wrote:

Joseph Smith wrote:

A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.

To me Joseph Smith looks like a complete hedonist compared to most practicing Mormons nowadays. Seriously, Joseph Smith reportedly had over 30 wives and drank beer and wine until the day he died but now these Church leaders want to give me a guilt-trip about watching R-rated movies and drinking a cup of coffee. How does that make any sense? Actually, to be honest I think hedonism has taken on an unfair reputation as being generally bad and bad for you which is not always the case. In theory pure hedonism isn’t simply about having fun it’s also about avoiding pain which should tend to counteract some of negative side-effects of unrestrained selfishness as long as people have some common sense.

Personally, I object to the puritan notion that having too much fun must automatically be a sin of some sort and I think there is too much of this general attitude in the Church at this point. Sure once members become accustomed to this LDS lifestyle maybe it doesn’t seem all that unusual or difficult but what concerns me is that I think the Church has basically taken an unnecessary hard-line position that will make it increasingly difficult to compete with atheism/agnosticism and other churches or religions.

If you look at the classic “Pascal’s Wager” decision matrix and consider what exactly you will have lost if you do what the Church asks you to but then it turns out that they were wrong the problem is that the overall cost has become relatively high. At the same time, some of the inflexible and absolute claims in the face of a significant amount of contradictory evidence decrease the level of confidence that these costs are really justified. That’s why my solution would simply be to lighten the demands somewhat and soften some of the claims about the supposed relative importance and reliability of prophets. That way even if you end up losing members at least they would have less to really complain about.

[Author]

Posts