No you don’t. You need to change your future. God will take care of you past.

“I knew I couldn’t live a perfect life”

Yes you can. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48) and “…the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.” (1 Nephi 3:7). When God gives commandments as we find in the scriptures, He is speaking to people in this life. He’s not talking to people in the pre-existence or to people that have all ready passed on. Once we leave this existence, our probation is done. The test is over. The commandments He gives concerns mortals. In Matthew He commands mortals to be perfect. In 1 Nephi we learn that He will never give (mortals) a commandment that can’t be accomplished (yes, in this life). In fact, the way to do it has all ready been, divinely, prepared. So never mind all this chirping going on in the Church that it can’t be done. That’s not true.

Andrew, I loved reading about your attempt at a perfect day. Your plan was virtually impeccable. Time management, reading the scriptures, studying your language for your mission, cutting all negative characteristics and get this – not only in your words but even in your thoughts. Amazing for a nineteen year old kid.

“As you might imagine, my quest to live a perfect day made me miserable.”

Andrew!?! What? No. I can’t imagine that all. You were well on you way. Such a sad, sad, ending.

“One of the first effects of my commitment to be perfectly obedient was that I immediately noticed how incredibly disobedient everyone else around me was behaving, which made me incredibly critical and judgmental of others.”

No! That’s not right! Your noticing the disobedience of others was a product of your commitment to perfection but your commitment to perfection did not make you critical and judgmental of others. Deception by the adversary caused you to be critical of their ,less than perfect behavior, in the light of your commitment to perfect behavior. Your commitment to perfection should have increased your love for others – not decreased it. Trying to become more like the Savior will increased your love for others until your love for others becomes like your Savior’s love for you. For a nineteen year old your attempt was nothing short of breath taking. You were almost there. SO TRY IT AGAIN.

This world needs some perfect people – not just a bunch of people who say it can’t be done. This time you will have more street smarts. When you start thinking critical thoughts, you will change your course and in time the love will flow without restraint.

Live your perfect day, than your perfect week, than your perfect year, and than your perfect rest of your life.

“After wading through the mists of darkness, Lehi found an iron rod that led along a strait and narrow path. By holding to the iron rod and staying on that strait and narrow path, Lehi found a tree whose fruit filled his soul with happiness.”

Woops. Better read that again. According to the story, when Lehi arrived at the tree, the iron rod was not even there yet. He saw the tree from for off and went straight to it. The mist of darkness which came later made the iron rod necessary.

When you try for perfection, again, you will notice that the closer you come to God the more you will dispel darkness from around you and your vision will be clear while those around you will be groping in darkness.

I am completely kidding, and I am glad you have found happiness outofit.

For years I have ‘towed (toed??) the line and followed every commandment the church has taught me whilst trying to surpress the natural man (woman) in me. Now, instead of being angry and frustrated when my husband leaves me home for the third night in a row to attend to church duties, I embrace the other things I cannot do when he is home. I have had very deep and emotional feelings about another man for several years and we are having an affair. He serves on the Bishopric and is happily married too as am I. We have no plans to leave our partners and continue to serve faithfully in our callings, trying our best to help and support and love all those around us. Are we being obiedient? Not to everythig no, are we happy? Yes, very. Our partners are happy because we are happy. We are not hurting anyone, we are just finding some solace in each other in a very chaotic world where without what we have, we would be lying to ourselves that everything was great. Before this relationship commenced, we were both unhappy, trying to supress the feelings we had. As a result, our partners suffered. Now we are all happy.

“True, enduring happiness, with the accompanying strength, courage, and capacity to overcome the greatest difficulties, will come as you center your life in Jesus Christ. Obedience to His teachings provides a secure ascent in the journey of life. That takes effort. While there is no guarantee of overnight results, there is the assurance that, in the Lord’s time, solutions will come, peace will prevail, and happiness will be yours.” Elder Richard G. Scott – October 2006 General Conference

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=18a00d034ceae010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1

I see no dichotomy between self-preservation, which is a basic instinct and choosing to love others, which is a choice. Can you do otherwise from loving one whom you love? Yes, you absolutely can. You can drive your love out through criticism or denigration, or any number of behaviors.

“I am, most fundamentally, a being in relation.” That’s relativism. You are defining the self in purely relative terms, not just primarily but apparently solely: “but there is no such thing as just-me.”

Here, you have simply asserted that I am being a relativist, telling me THAT I have defined the self in purely relative terms without saying HOW I have done this. I disagree that I have done this. To be in relation is not relative, in the sense that anything can go as far as what I am relation to. I cannot be a being in relation to something that is not. If I were a relativist, then I would say that you define yourself and I define myself and my definition is no better than your definition and yours no better than mine.

Regarding your claim that “self-preservation runs deeper than human love,” we will have to simply agree to disagree on this one. If I am most fundamentally a self-interested being, in the way that you describe it, then how, when, and why does love emerge? Can I have a choice to love? Can I do otherwise from loving one who I do love? Can I do otherwise from hating one who I do hate? If so, how does this work with (according to my reading) your pop-psychology-biologically-reductive-behaviorist Maslow’s-hierarchy-of-needs account of human functioning? Moreover, how can you describe worship in a way that is not simply self-worship?

You are operating from a set of assumptions that are different than the assumptions I’m working with. Your set of assumptions apparently does not allow one to simultaneously do anything for another person; rather, one would have to FIRST act out of “self-preservation.” This assumes that one can be a self BEFORE one is in relation with others. Here again I disagree, and my disagreement does not constitute a relativism. Yes, you are an eternal intelligence but so am I. Have we existed in isolated worlds throughout eternity, or have we always been in relation to each other? And if the answer is yes, how is that a relativism? Moreover, the issue is not whether you or I are without beginning or end, the issue is what is the fundamental nature of what such a being is. You say an isolated self (it appears), I say a relational self. We can certainly disagree, but I don’t see how my position is a relativism.

You further state (in the aforementioned paragraph 6) that you eat and drink because of your relationship with your wife, to preserve the relationship. I am not buying it. You eat and drink because your body requires food. Or wait, if you’re an American, you probably just eat out of habit like the rest of us. Or because the odor of the food was pleasant and reminded you that you enjoyed eating that type of food. You eat and drink for the same reason the animals do (which may or may not be self-interest, for all I know you have an eating disorder and eat because of self-loathing), not for love of your wife. That doesn’t mean you don’t love her, but that is at its most basic what self-interest is–you can’t help it; self-interest comes naturally, and to some extent you have no choice. Self-preservation runs deeper than human love, and thank goodness for that! Unless you want to prove me wrong and go on a hunger strike. If you forego eating out of love for your wife, I might believe it.

Me, too.

The clip: as soon as someone says “fear and love” now, I think of Donnie Darko.

~

Perhaps you can help me understand where you see relativism in my argument…?

I do, however, believe that we exist individually without mere relation to each other (unlike language which is entirely interdependent):
- “if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”
- “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”

So, my own interpretation of those (which could be totally wrong, I admit) is that our selves as individual entities are co-eternal with God, but he’s just a lot smarter than we are. As for self-love as foundational, I accept that it’s necessary to simultaneously love ourselves, but the relativism you describe leaves me a little cold in light of my view of our eternal individualistic nature.

One thing that I’m challenging is your claim (very common in Western culture) that a person must love themselves before loving others. I am arguing that to love others, including God, is to SIMULTANEOUSLY love yourself, but to love yourself AS AN OTHER. It would be impossible to FIRST love one’s self because no “self” exists in a vacuum apart from others. Rather a “self” is simultaneously a brother, a sister, a mother, a child of God, etc. So the only way to love myself is to love my self-as-brother, -as-sister, -as-child-of-God, etc. These relations do not exist within me, nor is my self a self-contained entity (atomism). I am, most fundamentally, a being in relation. If I have to love myself first, then there would have to be a time in which I love just-me, but there is no such thing as just-me. So the only way I could REALLY love myself is for me to simultaneously love others. Anything else would be an illusion.

Is this (kind of) clear?

Well, as I’ve said, the things I’ve been thinking about are difficult to talk about.

Maybe you can help me to understand a little better how or where or why you are lost…

Sometimes you have me doubting your commitmnet to Sparkle Motion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q38N9QvsdzU&feature=related

(Sorry, couldn’t help myself.)

~

I don’t think you’re pegging our disagreement quite right — and I think that much of that is my fault. This is a very difficult topic to discuss, especially because I think the terms are problematic to begin with.

Actually, I’ve thought of many great things on this topic (while I was showering today, incidentally) which were prompted by our discussion, so thank you. It may be that we agree more than you think — but I think the terms are problematic.

For now, let me say this. Depending on what you mean by “happiness,” I could agree that happiness is the purpose of our existence. For me, the issue is what you mean by happiness. However, I think this word often deceives so I prefer not to use it much in this regard. Also, I would stress the word “our” in this sentence. Happiness would be a relational description, not an individual possession. (And I definitely disagree that happiness is a state of mind, as well as the fact that we can make ourselves happy. Whatever you’re talking about here, hawkgrrrl, it’s not the same thing I’m talking about.)

Regarding self-interest. I really dislike this word. Both parts of it: self and interest. But that’s an entire discourse. I will say simply this. If by “self” you mean “me in relation to others,” then yes, I would say that self-interest is important. But if by “self” you mean “me as an individual atomistic entity” then I would say self-interest is an illusion and is destructive. Regarding those who you know who are completely self-sacrificing but then burn themselves out and so on — I would argue, first, that I never argued for “self-sacrifice.” Second, I would say that the problem of these individuals is not that they are concerned with others. It is that they are concerned with others in a false and slightly deceptive way (as we all, as imperfect mortals, are daily).

So here’s how I would position things. The two greatest commandments are to love God and to love my neighbor as my self. Clearly, these commandments require love for three entities: God, neighbor, and self. However, the emphasis is clearly on God and neighbor. And in fact, we can ground an entire ethics in “the Other,” whether it is God or our neighbor (e.g., the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas). I would be concerned with my self, but my self-concern is completely woven up in concern for the other. Never as an end in itself. For the moment I do that I isolate myself from the other and have a deceptive view of my “self.” Where I am in reality a self in relation, I deceptively see myself as an isolated self the moment I seek for my own “self-interest” as an end in itself. We all do this all the time (well, I do, anyway). The philosopher Jean-Luc Marion talked about this. The moment I focus on my own suffering (alone), I stop seeing other people in their experiences, including their triumphs and their sorrows.

So, to make this more clear — why would I eat and drink? For my wife (among others). I am her husband and I need to be there for her. I exist for her and I give her my love — but I don’t do so for the love to be returned. I don’t do so to receive anything. Thus, in a sense, I am self-interested — I am interested in being the right self in relation to my wife. But I am not interested in me (atomistic individual me) receiving something out of our relationship. It is true that there is a distinct “me” but this “me” can only be understood in light of the “we.” Moreover, I recognize that I am an other for my wife! — if I love my wife, then I want her to love others, including myself. Thus, if I don’t care about myself, then I don’t care about my wife. But this would not require me to FIRST love myself (or seek for my self as an end in itself) but rather can be completely described as first loving her. Thus, here is another reason why I must be concerned with my self. But again, not as an end in itself, but for the sake of relationship.

We can extend this to our relationship with God. Why do I want to return to live with God? For Him. I am his son and I need to be there for Him. I exist for Him and I give Him my love — but I don’t do so for the love to be returned. For there is nothing I can do to earn his love — for herein is true Love, not that we love God, but that God first loved us and sent His Only Begotten Son in our behalf. Once again, in a sense, I am self-interested — I am interested in being the right self in relation to God. But I am not interested in me (atomistic individual me) receiving something out of our relationship (such as “happiness”). It is true that there is a distinct “me” but this “me” can only be understood in light of the “we.” Moreover, I recognize that I am an other of my Father– I know that He loves me and that He desires to be with me for all eternity. Thus, here is another reason why I must be concerned with my self. But again, not as an end in itself, but for the sake of relationship. Happiness, then, is being in relationship with God, not something I (atomist individual me) receive from Him. This “happiness” would include great sorrow and pain, both here and in eternity. For this is the life that God lives. As the grand Being in relation, God is not concerned with his own self as an end in itself, but rather as a self in relation to His children. Because his children make bad choices and sin and some are eternally cast from His presence, He of course has much pain and sorrow in His life. As do we, as we are truly concerned and engaged in the needs of our neighbors. For this reason, some of the best among us have good reason to be profoundly sad. But this sadness would also include the peace that passes all understanding, as well as the great joy that comes in the deepest relationships with others and with God (see Mosiah 25:8-11).

They say there are only two basic emotions, fear and love, and all other emotions are varying degrees and combinations of those two. “Perfect love casteth out fear.” So perhaps the converse is true also, that fear chases out love (“For God hath not given us the Spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind”). So this is why the first great commandment is to love God and the second is like unto it, to love they neighbor as thyself. I can’t believe that we are capable of loving anyone if we don’t first love ourselves because if we don’t love ourselves, fear of not being loved creeps in. Or fear of not getting our reward. Or fear of being unworthy (weighed in the balances and found wanting).

Maybe the real objective is a lifelong quest to cast out all forms of fear and to become full of perfect love for God and our fellow man.

I agree with you that happiness is a state of mind. And I agree with your argument that happiness is a choice.

To me, that “state of mind” is having a loving mind toward God and neighbor, which of course is a choice. I don’t think you can have happiness without love, because I think love is ultimately the source of happiness. And so obtaining happiness means choosing to love. Or in other words, happiness is love, and love is happiness.

I’ve given you my view, which is summarized in my personal mantra above: Happiness is the purpose of our existence. Love is the source of happiness. Obedience means loving God and loving our neighbor.

Perhaps I would add to that the point that it’s OK to seek your own happiness through loving others and God.

If I understand your point correctly, you seem to be saying it’s somehow wrong or at least not optimal to seek one’s own happiness. I disagree. I think there’s nothing wrong with seeking our own happiness; in fact I think it’s a good thing to do. I think what matters is HOW we try to find happiness, or in what SOURCES we seek happiness. If it’s drugs and porn or gambling or whatever, that’s the wrong way to look for happiness. If it’s loving God and loving our neighbor, that’s the right way to look for happiness.

Again, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I’d appreciate a 2 or 3 sentence summary. And I think this issue is important and is not just semantic hairsplitting because I believe I’ve seen several examples of people who have had the attitude that they shouldn’t be seeking their own happiness, and that they should just work work work for others, and they end up becoming miserable and going off the deep end. So I do think this question is important and has some real life consequences.

“So, in regards to your claim that you see “nothing wrong with the idea of seeking happiness through loving God and others.” Maybe you’re right. But it’s not charity. For charity would not be seeking anything in return for its love.”

AND

“My recommendation for the obedient but not “happy.” Forget yourself and go to work. But not to be happy.”

I’ve got the title for the upcoming post: “The Pursuit of Happiness: Right or Wrong?”

Andrew – I think you are attributing things to Dennis that he didn’t intend to say. How very Ayn Rand of you. I’m surprised actually, although intrigued by your argument which I agree would be a great basis for a post.

The reason I think you’re both wrong is that IMO happiness is not the outcome of anything. It’s a state of mind. You can be happy regardless of whether you are cleaning out the toilet or lying on the beach. You can be happily serving others or unhappily. Happiness is our choice, not our reward. Happiness is a gift we give ourselves. (Obvious exception would be mental infirmity or chemical imbalance that would prevent one from choosing to be happy).

Assuming that’s correct, I think I’m going to do a future blog post on that topic, because I don’t think God expects or requires us to entirely abandon our sense of self-interest, however appealing that idea might seem on an abstract, altruistic level. We are awed and humbled by Christ’s sense of self-sacrifice, which is good. But I really think we go too far in morphing that into the idea that we must all completely abandon our self-interest.

Many people I know who’ve taken such an approach to life end up sacrificing themselves for everyone else all the time, never taking time to think or take care of themselves, until they finally snap and go off the deep end. That’s what worries me about the ideal you seem to be espousing.

From my experience, the people who have best helped me (and loved me) are those who I could tell were not at all concerned with their own happiness. If they were, then how could they be certain that they were truly helping me, and not simply doing what was necessary to secure their own happiness? Indeed, from my experience those who are motivated to serve others in order to feel better themselves (i.e., be happy) often give the worst service.

Often in Sunday School, the question comes up, “What are the benefits of service?” I like to answer that, from my experience, the most important benefit is almost always the benefit for the person being served. Honestly, what more do we need to say? Why do we help others? Because they need our help. That’s all. Nothing more.

“…we need to be wary lest our view of happiness is NOT the same as the happy state of those who are one with God.”