- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t believe “The only path to true and lasting joy is through repentance and service” if for no other reason than there are far to many happy non-believers out there who are just as happy as any TBM I’ve ever met. But that said, I believe Mormonism does have some good principles that shed light on the subject of joy. I believe “wickedness never was happiness” as long as you carefully define wickedness as those things that either detract from the spirit (anger, greed, egotistical, arrogant, abusive, carnal, selfish, etc.) Contemporary society obsesses with pursuing internal urges while rejecting values and principles as foreign and objectionable. (Obey your thirst, if it feels good, do it, buy now & pay later, vs. Benjamin Franklin’s pursuing virtues, following the Beatitudes, striving for a Christ-like life)
Society is unraveling on every level. Divorce is at an all time high, families are fragmenting, kids have little respect for adults (their hearts turn from their fathers), drug abuse & sexual abuse is way to common, and we have a higher percentage of people in prison than ever before. Since the mortgage melt-down, huge corporations have collapsed by the dozens, banks are teetering on bankruptcy, and congress can’t get past name calling and polemics to solve any problems. So millions of people are out of work.
I believe joy is a big deal for God and should be for man. “This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortal and eternal life of man”, “Man is that he might have happiness.” From the temple we learn that even the creatures of the animal kingdom are to experience joy in the measure of their creation. His commandments are given only to enhance us, and help move us to greater joy and well-being.
I also believe the statement
D&C 130:20-21 – There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
Alma 41:10 – Do not suppose, because it has been spoken concerning restoration, that ye shall be restored from sin to happiness. Behold, I say unto you, wickedness never was happiness.
I believe sin can be defined as actions that harm either yourself or others. Sin often is presented to us as immediate gratification vs. delayed gratification. For example:
Immediate gratification Delayed gratification
Expressing your anger indiscriminately vs. seeking ways to deal with differences
Eat, drink, and be merry vs. be responsible and plan for the future
Be self serving and greedy vs. unselfish and generous.
Most people would recognize the peace and tranquility comes from the delayed gratifications, and that person would be so much more happy than the person on the right.
Some folks may be interested in a relatively new area of study for Psychology studying what makes people happy. The University of Pennsylvania has an internet site reviewing empirical study of such things as positive emotions, strengths-based character, and healthy institutions. It is titled “Welcome to Authentic Happiness” and offers the latest in positive psychology, questionnaires you can take, or presentations and selected media you can check out. This website has more than 2 million users from around the world, and you are welcome to use all of the resources available for free at
SilentDawning wrote:I read a quote recently that said “The only path to true and lasting joy is through repentance and service”. This came from a member of the Church at large….I’m curious — do you think this is true? Why or why not?
I don’t think service is the path to lasting joy… consider those who cannot serve, or those who serve too much (co-dependant).Using a non-traditional definition of repentance, I’d agree with that part.
Sin = incorrect thoughts that produce harmful feelings/behavior
Repentance = correcting thoughts to improve feelings/behavior
Distinguishing correct from incorrect thoughts is the challenge, especially considering our limited awareness.
I like your definitions of sin and repentance Quote:Fetherina:
Sin = incorrect thoughts that produce harmful feelings/behavior
Repentance = correcting thoughts to improve feelings/behavior
Distinguishing correct from incorrect thoughts is the challenge, especially considering our limited awareness.
Your definitions remind me a of a favorite of mind found in the “Bible Dictionary” (the one that is between the OT and NT in the Church’s Quadruple scripture set.
Quote:Repentance. The Greek word of which this is the translation denotes a change of mind, i.e., a fresh view about God, about oneself, and about the world. Since we are born into conditions of mortality, repentance comes to mean a turning of the heart and will to God, and a renunciation of sin to which we are naturally inclined. Without this there can be no progress in the things of the soul’s salvation, for all accountable persons are stained by sin, and must be cleansed in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Repentance is not optional for salvation; it is a commandment of God (D&C 18:9–22; 20:29; 133:16). The preaching of repentance by John the Baptist formed the preparation for the ministry of our Lord. See Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:4, 15; 2:17; Luke 3:3, 8; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; Rom. 13:11–14; James 5:1–6; Rev. 2:5, 16; 3:3, 19; cf. Isa. 1:16–20; Jonah 3:5–10; Jer. 3–5; 26; Ezek. 18:19–31; 33:7–20; Hosea 6; 12; 14; Joel 1:8; 2; Zeph. 2; Zech. 1; Mal. 1–4.
This makes so much more sense to me than pontifications on the standard 4. or 6. or whatever. number of steps of repentance.But I’ll now there so I don’t hijack this thread.
🙂 Ok, I’ll take up Dash’s link earlier. Researchers say that happiness occurs when people have: 1. Positive Emotions
2. Engagement
3. Positive Relationships
4. Meaning
5. Accomplishment.
Can you get this without the Mormon Church? If not, then what value does the LDS Church provide? And if your interaction with the LDS Church doesn’t supply these things, then what do you do about it?
http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/newsletter.aspx?id=1554 Quote:Can you get this without the Mormon Church?
Yes, it can be obtained outside the LDS Church, but not by everyone. Some really are “wired” for what they get from the Church, and for some the option to leave isn’t an acceptable one. Iow, (the generic) “you” might not be able to get it without the LDS Church, even it others can.
Quote:If not, then what value does the LDS Church provide?
Not much for that person; anywhere from nothing to everything for others, even some who are very close to that person.
Quote:And if your interaction with the LDS Church doesn’t supply these things, then what do you do about it?
Leave or change yourself and/or your circumstances in some way – but take personal responsibility for either action.
If staying but changing is the choice, I think it boils down pretty much to one or more of the following – and each one of them can change both yourself and your circumstances in some way:
1) Change your expectations – your judgments of what “should” be, of others AND yourself.
2) Change your perspective – the way you see things, which is very closely related to expectations.
3) Change your own actions – the way you act personally and interact with others.
4) Change your community – proactively or reactively, almost always incrementally and carefully and more slowly than your ideal.
So, if happiness is the “object and design of our existence” and you can get happiness outside of the Church, and this is the best way for some people, then why do we claim that EVERYONE needs to follow the Mormon way of baptismal covenants leading up to the Temple covenants? We don’t – at least not theologically. Our theology provides a big, fat, huge, wide, universal exception to what we tend to claim as individuals and as a church. I’m fine with that, frankly. I’d be much more concerned if our theology was more like much of the rest of Christianity (and, to be fair, many other religions, as well).
Which exception are you talking about? Vicarious temple work is the most interesting “opposition” to exclusivism that exists in the world, imo. As I said in another thread, the ordinances are done for every person who ever has lived, and if, because they’re done for everyone, everyone will be judged according to the condition of their heart and how well they lived what they understood, the performance of ordinances in this life becomes important ONLY for the effect they have on those who participate. Thus, the following conclusion:
Quote:“Baptismal covenants leading up to the Temple covenants” are vital and absolutely necessary . . . but they are going to happen for everyone, so, really, we teach that it’s not necessary to participate in them in this life. (We teach it is important for those who know about them in this life, but we even go so far as to say that those who perform the ordinances don’t get anything automatically from them.)
Iow, it’s not the specific covenants; it’s who we become, covenants or lack thereof notwithstanding.I really like that, and it doesn’t lessen the value of the principle of covenants and ordinances for me in the slightest.
I actually taught this to a group of Young Adults early in my Church life after studying the gospel ravenously every Sunday for a year or two. I read everything I could get my hands on. And that was my conclusion — what matters is “the kind of person you have become” — or, the character you have developed at the final judgment day.
Well, I got lambasted on that one. What an uproar from the RM’s and others in the room over that one!
However, this helps me understand why you are OK with giving tithing to other organizations if you feel you can’t give it to the Church. At least this keeps the charitable character attribute going.
However, I also think that if I said this in public Mormon discourse, they’d think I was lessening the importance of covenants. And the number of times the fact that you’ve MADE covenants is “used against you” to chastise you for not doing things, on threat of damnation and hellfire makes the exception seem like one that is primarily for the people who never hear the gospel. Not the people who made the covenants.
There is no ultimate path to lasting Joy and Happiness. Sometimes life is good and you are happy. Sometimes it stinks and you are not. So much is beyond your everyday control that to say there is some formula that works for everyone is naive. Cadence wrote:There is no ultimate path to lasting Joy and Happiness. Sometimes life is good and you are happy. Sometimes it stinks and you are not. So much is beyond your everyday control that to say there is some formula that works for everyone is naive.
Hmm.lao tzu said that his words were easy to know, easy to practice, but the world typically cannot know or do them.
chuang tzu wrote a
treatise on Perfect HappinessChuang Tzu wrote:What ordinary people do and what they find happiness in – I don’t know whether such happiness is in the end really happiness or not. I look at what ordinary people find happiness in, what they all make a mad dash for, racing around as though they couldn’t stop – they all say they’re happy with it. I’m not happy with it and I’m not unhappy with it. In the end is there really happiness or isn’t there?
I take wuwei (“effortless, natural action”) to be true happiness, but ordinary people think it is a bitter thing. I say: perfect happiness knows no happiness, perfect praise knows no praise. The world can’t decide what is right and what is wrong. And yet wuwei can decide this. Perfect happiness, keeping alive – only wuwei gets you close to this!
I’m not saying that one can be in harmony all the time, or that even everyone can have that type of practice. But the concept of wuwei is very intriguing.If you read the text I’ve linked to above, you’ll note a very interesting story about Chuang Tzu’s wife, and how the ancient chinese understood eternal progression and the plan of salvation.
Yeah, SD, that’s one concept I don’t preach in any way. It’s not something that most people are going to be able to understand, and I have no desire to rock their world in the way such a teaching might do. Really, I have no desire to share it in most public or private conversations. I have to believe the people with whom I am communicating can understand what I’m saying – and, just to make it clear, that’s NOT a reflection on or statement about intelligence. It’s more about a viewpoint than anything else, and some people just can’t “see / envision” it.
SilentDawning wrote:I actually taught this to a group of Young Adults early in my Church life after studying the gospel ravenously every Sunday for a year or two. I read everything I could get my hands on.
And that was my conclusion — what matters is “the kind of person you have become” — or, the character you have developed at the final judgment day.
Well, I got lambasted on that one. What an uproar from the RM’s and others in the room over that one!
However, this helps me understand why you are OK with giving tithing to other organizations if you feel you can’t give it to the Church. At least this keeps the charitable character attribute going.
However, I also think that if I said this in public Mormon discourse, they’d think I was lessening the importance of covenants. And the number of times the fact that you’ve MADE covenants is “used against you” to chastise you for not doing things, on threat of damnation and hellfire makes the exception seem like one that is primarily for the people who never hear the gospel. Not the people who made the covenants.
I don’t understand why there would be such an uproar over the simple conclusion that “what matters is the kind of person you have become.”Did they want you to say, “what matters most is how many endowment & initiatory sessions you attended, how many times you took the sacrament, if you said Thee & Thou in your prayers or not, kept a year’s supply, did your genealogy…”?
I know that faith without works is dead… but I also know that God cares more about the heart than talk, routines or appearances.
At first, I had a hard time with shame about not wearing garments, like I wasn’t keeping my covenant.
Now, I see it that it wasn’t my choice – I had no idea what I was getting into before I was told to promise/make a covenant. That’s not fair.
Now, I also think about the scriptures when Jesus was being harassed by Pharasees for doing this or that which Sabbath rules forbade. He said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.” I subsitute rituals (esp. those with guilt-trips attached) with the word “Sabbath.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.