What seems like something very simple to answer–“What is happiness?” or even, “What makes me happy?”–turns out to be anything but easy. How much do our expectations or pre-conceived ideas about what will make us happy come into play? How does the number of choices we have affect satisfaction with our lives? How much of our happiness level reflects what we experience in the moments of our lives versus how we reflect upon our experiences–the stories we tell about them? How much do our relationships with family, loved ones, and people we enjoy being around contribute to our feelings of well-being? What about a sense of purpose, whether it be on a small and personal scale or something more cosmic in scope? And more specific to Mormon Stories audience members, how tied to our happiness is our relationship to institutions such as the LDS Church? Do people with different temperaments generally find more or less satisfaction within the church–and how natural or important is it to continually renegotiate boundaries between ourselves and institutional forces that might work against the deepening of our self-understanding or our relationship with the divine and other factors that contribute to our contentment and how fully we flourish emotionally and spiritually?
In this two-episode discussion–the questions, ideas, and opinions were too big for just one!–Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Jared Anderson, Greg Rockwell, and KC Kern engage in a far-ranging and sometimes quite intense discussion about happiness in its theoretical and scientific glory, as well as in the more personal push and pull of the panelists’ interactions with Mormonism. These episodes present a lot to chew on, and the panelists each represent four distinct personalities and ways of engaging the church and LDS community in their own pursuits of happiness. But in the end, the only thing that is clear is that happiness is a huge puzzle that all of us must put together for ourselves.
Episode 67 contains the more theoretical portion of the discussions of happiness, what is being shown by scientific and sociological studies, as well as the key role of temperament in someone’s perception of their happiness (and especially as it might relate to spirituality and comfort within institutions that have the capacity to be all-encompassing if one lets them).
Episode 68 features the panelists personal stories and takes on Mormon-specific questions and how they pursue their happiness outside or inside the LDS church through their different ways of relating to it in their own journeys toward joy.
Even at 3-plus hours when you add up both parts, there is still much more to say and wrestle with, so we very much hope you’ll listen and engage in the discussion below!
_____
Links to interesting things that informed much of the general discussion:
Daniel Kahneman, “The Riddle of Experience Vs. Memory” (TED talk)
Dan Gilbert, “Why Are We Happy?” (TED talk)
Barry Schwartz, “The Paradox of Choice” (TED talk)
Paul Zak: “Trust, Morality–and Oxytocin” (TED talk)
Dan Ariely, “Are We in Control of Our Own Decisions?” (TED talk)
“Pursuing Happiness.” (On Being episode). Discussion of happiness hosted by Krista Tippett and featuring His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Seyyed Hossein Nasr (Muslim scholar), Bishop Katharin Jefferts Schori (Episcopal Church), and Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (Jewish leader in the U.K.).
Andrew Weil: “Spontaneous Happiness: Our Nature-Deficit Disorder” (originally in Newsweek)
On Iron Rod and Liahona Temperaments
Richard D. Poll, “What the Gospel Means to People Like Me” (Sermon printed in Dialogue in which he introduces the idea of two LDS temperaments: Iron Rods and Liahonas)
Harold B. Lee, “The Iron Rod” (April 1971 General Conference address in which he seems to directly criticize ideas in the Poll talk: “Do the revelations of God give us a handrail to the kingdom of God, as the Lord’s messenger told Lehi, or merely a compass?”)
Richard D. Poll, “Liahona and Iron Rod Revisited” (Remarks published in Dialogue in 1983 in which Poll assesses the impact of his categories in Mormon discussion, as well as how they seemed to be playing out in the church at that time)
Comments 91
I look forward to a lively discussion on this episode. 🙂 I will be proactive and post my favorite quote that puts general and personal revelation in what I feel is the proper perspective:
“As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.
“The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this same thing in another way. When he was asked how he governed such a diverse group of Saints, he said, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” In what I have just said, I am simply teaching correct principles and inviting each one of you to act upon these principles by governing yourself.” (“Dating versus hanging out”, Ensign, June 2006).
I realize and am disturbed by the fact that Oaks pretty much reversed this counsel in his “Two Channels of Communication” talk. But as he acknowledges, I think this one is closer both to what Joseph Smith taught and just good common sense and healthy approach to life.
Actually, I find it disturbing that I cannot find a single general principle in the talk “Dating versus hanging out” where he claims that his responsibility is teaching general principles. The entire talk is about the specifics of proper dating. I think Elder Oaks has a very different idea about what a general principle is. He believes that the way he learned to date is a timeless and universal pattern of proper human courtship.
Here’s what I get from the talk. People today tend to postpone adult responsibilities and the world is opposed to family commitments. The women’s movement has discouraged dating. Simple and frequent dates let you shop around. Don’t use the Internet because it is dangerous or at least unnecessary. Men need to stop acting like teenagers and take initiative. A date should pass the test of three p’s: (1) planned ahead, (2) paid for, and (3) paired off. Women need to resist hanging out, and if they turn down a date, they should be nice about it. Marriage is not a group activity. Dating patterns should lead to marriage.
Does anyone see any general principles in this? Maybe that people are inherently lazy and the world is evil? Maybe that men are in charge and women need to help the men out? Courtship is all about marriage?
He ends with “In what I have just said, I am simply teaching correct principles and inviting each of you to act upon these principles by governing yourselves.” It really sounds more like twisted free angency discourse where sometimes leaders basically say, “I told you what you should do, and if you don’t do it than you will suffer the consequences.”
I am not endorsing anything else in that talk @4b547a9424d8f3a73755e326623908f3:disqus , I just really appreciate that framing of the relationship between rule and exception, general counsel and individual revelation.
I just finished listening to this episode and have to agree that it is among my favorites! I do not regularly post, but had to throw in my support for Jared. His description of his approach was extremely helpful to me as I try to figure out how to live my own version of Mormonism. My temple recommend renewal is coming up, so this has been heavily on my mind as I have gone through a reevaluation of belief (or faith journey, take your pick) in the past several years. I might distance myself more from the church (being a woman, and a feminist, and someone who values individual experience) were it not for my husband’s employment situation as well as the fact that I live in a small community that is 98% Mormon. I feel I would be isolated for the rest of my life, which is a sad commentary on the way we Mormons live the teachings of Christ. I second the motion (or raise my hand to sustain?) Jared’s suggestion that the leadership of the Church address the real issue of different approaches to the doctrines and practices of the Church today.
Just a thought about the discussion on tithing. My neighbor recently lost his job, and independent of one another, my husband and I both had the idea to give (anonymously) one month of tithing to him and his family. This was shocking because not only is my husband a beautifully orthodox believer, but he could lose his job if he did not have a temple recommend. If it were any other topic, one might think that this was God inspiring us to do this as an act of love for a fellow human being. However, my father (former bishop and stake president, and all-around great guy) made us realize that our temple recommends would be in jeopardy if we were to do this and that the Church doesn’t make any accommodations for paying our tithing any way but to them, even if we felt inspired to do so. I found this heartbreaking. I thought this was what following the teachings of Christ was all about.
You all helped me to think more deeply about happiness, what it means, and the desperate importance of finding it for myself, wherever that leads me. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed the podcast!
Re: Your tithing reflection. I have heard from several friends that they pay directly to the church and bypass their bishop and his knowing how much they pay. No receipts or records coming his way. You can pay according to your conscience and declare “full” at tithing settlement. Some bishops may be overly zealous and ask a ton of follow-ups, but it shouldn’t be this way. A little planning beforehand about what you might say if he asks why you started to pay this way should prepare you for still having a good experience at settlement, and it shouldn’t ever be an issue at temple recommend time as I don’t think he or stake leaders are directed to double-check your answer on tithing against records. Anyone reading this who has firsthand experience with paying directly to Salt Lake? I’m thinking it can be done online. My friends go down and do it directly at the COB. I can ask them more when I see them this Friday, and if this discussion hasn’t already yielded more info, I’ll add more about what they say.
I started paying using my bank’s bill pay system and I get email statements now. At the end of the year they send you a summary, and last year I printed it to take it in to my Bishop and said he didn’t even want to see it. He said their records are simply there to help us maintain our records so he had no need to see it in order to ask us the question whether we were an full tithe payer.
Dan,
I started paying my tithing online about 10 years ago. At that time there weren’t many people doing it, and I had to call the church finance dept in SLC (I lived in San Diego at the time) to get things set up, but it’s worked pretty smoothly. I decided to pay online for two specific reasons: (i) although I have always been pretty fortunate with having decent bishoprics (and have even been in one myself), I just did not want people making assumptions about my finances or what other contributions I should be making based upon the amount of tithing I paid, and (ii) at the time I was paying a significant amount of tithing, since I was receiving a decent salary and some decent bonus money at the time. A member of the bishopric, a friend of mine, was unemployed at the time and I really felt bad knowing he was counting the tithing dollars that I paid, knowing that he was struggling. So I decided to just pay directly to the church. I still go to tithing settlement and tell the bishop that I pay a full tithing directly to the church. I’ve never had a bishop ask me any follow-up questions about that or pry into how much I pay. FWIW, I still pay fast offerings locally. And, of course am re-thinking all of that . . .
Thanks again for your wonderful work with these podcasts, and thanks to Jared and the others for their many contributions in this area.
Your comment touched my heart. I am so grateful you found the podcast helpful; I felt very vulnerable sharing my approach! I have seen several instructions about how to pay tithing directly to the COB; here is one. I am in the process of setting it up so I cannot personally confirm its efficacy.
http://mormonlifehacker.com/pay-your-tithing-online/
I hope that you and your husband do feel that your loving, Christlike gesture comes from God, because it is a sentiment and action that can only be described as divine.
With caring support,
Jared
Thank you so much for this podcast — especially for the concept of using time as if there was nothing after this life. That idea is at once depressing and a wake up call, and I am going to have to wrestle with it to see where I come down. Thanks again.
Mormon Matters rarely connects with my little, black, apostate heart, but I really enjoyed this conversation. I will state that it was likely because the conversation bent towards many thoughts that resonates with me. I like what each panelist had to say here, and agree with the sentiment that I support your efforts Dan and KC and Jared within the church, and Greg’s path outside the church.
I really appreciated Jared sticking his neck out there in describing his faith journey, it was risky for him but so honest and it makes me appreciate him for his courage and passion for what he believes. I hope we can all live our principles as well as he does. (Ditto for the other 3, too!)
One question I would have liked to have heard discussed is whether or not apostates ought to spread the gospel, so to speak? I hear many who leave the church say they are so much happier, but choose to keep their mouths shut about that happiness. They even boldly state, rather condescendingly, that the people they know are probably better off in the religion. Why does this mindset exist, other than the desire to avoid conflict and maybe the niggling doubt about leaving the church?
I think Jared might have broke the first rule of fight club this time.
How does Jared Anderson define “Mormonism?” Are there any minimum requirements for claiming the label Mormon?
Good question. Well, I think if you are born into a tradition, you get claim to it pretty much no matter what. 😉 I think that the minimum for a true believing Mormon is that you need to believe that the LDS temple ordinances truly are needed for salvation. I think the minimum for a liberal/uncorrelated Mormon would be belief that the Mormon traditions are of value. A middle position would be belief that Joseph Smith, Mormon scripture etc were inspired of God and that God is at work in the Church, perhaps that God is more directly at work in Mormonism than any other religion.
I admit that according to the first model, I feel like an outsider. Conference depressed me with its overwhelming focus on ordinances and obedience. But I claim Mormonism because I find the traditions to be of value. I want my children to have Mormonism as a home base. And Mormonism is also a key framework as I think about life, reality, etc.
Here is something I wrote up about the potential I see in Mormonism: http://www.scribd.com/doc/70441325/Mormonism-as-Most-True-Church
“Well, I think if you are born into a tradition, you get claim to it pretty much no matter what.”
Amen, brother. The church can’t have this both ways. If we are born into this (and we are, both culturally and doctrinally), then we get to claim/influence/opine on our Mormonism without restriction. If God didn’t want my later influence on his exclusive club, then his infinite foreknowledge should have thought about that before I was BIC.
I wonder why the general authorities are so focused on the temple and temple ordinances these days. Are they concerned that not enough people have temple recommends? I am reading Thomas S. Monson’s biography right now and I am impressed with how Christlike the man is in caring for and serving everybody around him. While I understand the the temple ordinances are the pinnacle of the mormon experience, I would like to hear more of the simple truths of living a Christlike life taught at general conference.
Is it too cynical to say that encouraging temple attendance is one of the surest ways to encourage conformity, and especially investment in the institution? (Tithing comes immediately to mind). Whatever the intentions by leaders, and I really would like to think they are good, the function of temples is to leverage community standing and familial relationships to encourage a particular approach to Mormonism.
I resonate so much with what Greg articulated. He should be my new best friend! (I really like: “Life is now an adventure, before it was a strait and narrow path.”) I understand Jared Anderson a lot more too, and I love the influence he has had. I love listening to uncorrelated or liberal Mormons too, but it really hurts me when they dismiss the power and influence of the instititional force of Mormonism. My recognition of the authority of the institution is really what pushed me out.
I totally understand and respect the boundary maintenance that any institution chooses to do. The Mormon identity is so clearly defined (despite the “I am a Mormon” ads), and this is so empowering to so many people. But I don’t fit in. This is why I get frustrated with the uncorrelated Mormons who make it seem like it is simple to accept Mormonism and reject the SLC institution.
I process things much like Greg except I work from the engineering perspective a lot rather than the economic perspective of things. I would say that even though not all truth is useful, I don’t want anything that is untrue to be useful to me. It feels wrong to me to reinterpret things as metophorical so I can continue to believe in them at a different level. As an engineer I am perfectly fine with models that are useful approximations of my reality, but I just can’t hang on to a model when I learn that it doesn’t give useful answers for me. I like to say, “All models are wrong, some models are useful.”
Greg makes a great best friend; I recommend it. 🙂
There is so much tied up in the idea of happiness, so much to be said and yet so little. As any discussion about the subject becomes quickly tangential. That being said I thoroughly enjoyed your tangents. David Brooks wrote an article several months ago which questioned whether happiness was something worth aspiring to. He suggested that we ought to aspire to excellence, which requires one to “court unhappiness”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/opinion/31brooks.html?_r=2&ref=davidbrooks
For me, in order to be happy and stay in the church, I had to move to an area that was more supportive of people like me. And though it’s not perfect, it’s workable. I know that this is a luxury that few can afford and am simultaneously grateful for this opportunity and regretful that I have pigeon holed myself in a comfortable niche community instead of working to make the church culture more accepting and diverse in a community I might be more influential. Yes, for now I am pursuing happiness and I am happy though I make no claims at excellence – except in Bill and Ted’s sort of way.
Thank you to each of the panelist for your insights and honesty. I think that you each asserted that there is much happiness to be found in the Christian principles of caring for the poor and building loving relationships.
Greg: You are the first person I’ve ever heard on Mormon Matters (or Mormon Stories) who I could fully identify with. I never could relate to the “don’t believe it, but still love it” position of liberal Mormons. As far as I am concerned there is no benefit from staying in the church that can’t be found elsewhere, often even more abundantly. I hope you participate in many more podcasts.
I really liked the insight Jared brought up from first Nephi about clinging to the rod and holding fast to the rod. That’s a very interesting insight. That reminds me of another analogy I learned from a seminary teacher.
He said that there are two sides of the straight and narrow path. One side of the path is extreme hedonism and the other side is fanaticism and fundamentalism. The straight and narrow path is taking that middle ground. I everyone needs to find that straight and narrow path for themselves on there journey to happiness.
From all my years in the church, I’ve heard a lot rhetoric about the church being designed to bless our lives in the present. Every first Sunday of the month, people go up to the people and tell the congregation how much the gospel has blessed their lives. There is a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that talks about peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come.
I was really shocked when Jared stated that the institutional church does more harm than good. I find that too be a pretty bold claim. I’m not arguing with it. I don’t know if I can believe that or not. I think that is a subject that deserves its own podcast.
This podcast was better than I expected it to be. I’m really growing to like Jared Anderson. He is becoming one of my favorite mormon podcast personalities. I love the way he thinks.
@eec3d4f6ebc841e47b82300e667d5a3b:disqus , I appreciate your generous words.
I was taken aback when I came to that realization; it is a cold shock to the faith for sure. This deserves to be explored at length of course, but let me lay out very briefly my arithmetic:
First, let me be clear that 1) I do think the Church does more good than harm for many people (though still probably less than 50%) and importantly to me, 2) I think that Mormonism has the potential within its theology and framework to provide much, much more benefit than harm. That would require some significant changes however. My statement that the Church does more harm than good on an absolute scale speaks of the Church *as it is now*.
Now for the math:
1) I think the Church damages women in subtle and pervasive ways. More than half of the members of the Church are women. That alone proves my point.
2) The Church demands a great deal of time and resources. Now, in return members are told that they are doing much good and their investments have great value, but with the lack of financial transparency and corporate approach, I don’t think that claim holds up to scrutiny. These demands also cause a great deal of stress on the minority doing most of the work in the Church. As I said in the podcast, the idea that the Church separates families for time and seals them for eternity is chilling and all too true.
3) I don’t think the Church deals with sexuality in a very healthy way… there are several podcasts about this that will knock the wind out of you. So again, you have a large percentage damaged by this conditioning. Also, the approach to marriage does not encourage
4) Church culture in general does not encourage thinking for oneself and being an adult. Those who succeed in independent, mature, critical thinking do so despite the culture, not because of it.
I try to give the Church the benefit of the doubt as far as the good it does. I believe in its potential. But these reasons among others are how I came to my “bold claim”.
Jared,
I too wanted to comment on the Nephi story of clinging to the rod. I have been teaching early morning seminary this year and one of the greatest impact moments of my life was when I learned that it was because the Children of Israel had focussed exclusively on the Law of Moses, (even following the traditions of it in their wickedness & destruction) however it was this obsession with the law that prevented them from recognizing the Christ when He came. I wonder how many in Mormonism are too obsessed with “guidelines” or rules, conformity, and programs and are missing the Christ in our own lives? I find it disheartening that a religion that claims to place Christ at the center of everything we do doesn’t seem to really know Him.Thank you for your thoughts, they gave me a lot of food for thought.
Jared, you mentioned that you believe the church is causing a lot of damage for people who homosexual. What do you think the church and people within the church can do help alleviate this damage? How can we help homosexuals find happiness within the church?
Well first, we can love them and accept them, independent of what the Church does nor does not do. I highly, highly recommend reading Carol Lynn Pearson’s No More Goodbyes.
The first step the Church could take would be to truly hold homosexuals to the same standard as heterosexuals–sex only with a legally and lawfully married spouse. Married homosexual members should be able to enjoy full activity and fellowship. This would do much to decrease hopelessness and anguish of gay members who love and believe in the Church but feel condemned to a life of loneliness.
Eventually there would need to be deeper, theological affirmation of homosexual identity, but I think the first step would diminish the harm a great deal.
This was the best Mormon Matters podcast I have listened to. I would even say it was one of the best Mormon themed podcast I have heard, and I am a podcast junkie. Mostly I appreciated the second half how each participant gave their perspective on how they approach Mormonism. Jared’s approach to making Mormonism work for you was excellent. That is basically the path I am forced into and this made me think it is possible to sustain my activity in this manner. I agreed with Greg on all his points of why he is happier out of the church. I have many of the same sentiments but do not have the luxury at this time to pursue them as he has. Hopefully that will change. I also greatly appreciated KC and his comments on the value Mormonism has to him, which helped me to understand that for many this church works and I need to be tolerant of that belief.
I am really enjoying this. Like KC Kern I am a ward mission leader (just called). I found his idea of using the ward mission to build up Zion very inspiring. We’ll have to get together and talk. I could certainly use some guidance. Great work guys!
Christoffel Golden Jr. visited our stake within the past 18 months. (wish I could give the exact date- I’ll have to ask my husband because he took notes…which he never does) Anyway, he provided a list that supports your idea of Mormonism @facebook-2736617:disqus . He recognized that time is precious and stated that callings & church service should be the last thing on our list of things to do. Again I’ll have to check with my husband, because he memorized it, but the list included: family, job, God and church. I don’t remember the order only that God I’m pretty sure was not first and church was dead last.
Also Jared, I like the idea of an all inclusive mormonism however it doesn’t seem to take into consideration, refinement. You know this idea that our desires and impulses should not be our motivator or that we shouldn’t be so willing to cave to those desires? That seems to be a driving force behind mormonism, one that I’m not really sure how to work out just yet so any insight would be appreciated.
I absolutely believe that people feel the love of God when they leave the church and can be HAPPY and experience full JOY as @facebook-100000882770623:disqus has explained, however I often wonder if that love felt is mistaken for approval. “I know God loves me so he’s happy with what I do and approves of it” I’ll go so far to say that God may even be happy for us when we find happiness in what some may define as wickedness, but I don’t know if He is all out pleased with our choices.
Does this make any sense? I know so often I don’t.
Great comment. Don’t box me into the full JOY category just yet… I’m still human. 🙂
This is going to come off sounding a little snarky, but it’s directed at God more than you. If God doesn’t approve of my choices, he’s welcome to show up once in a while and talk to me about it. More often, I hear people who don’t approve of my choices, intoning God’s opinion on the subject, as if they have any idea what God thinks about me.
There was some artful editing done by Dan (which I appreciated) around the subject of following impulse and the degree to which it can lead to problems for us (i.e. the dreaded, often cited, never valid, slippery slope appeal).
I will concede that there is likely some marginal difference in behavior within the protective wings of the church, and that being taught to be obsessively concerned with self-denial will likely produce some extra self-denial. But the fallacy I see repeated over and over is that there is some MAJOR impact. Normal people, living their normal worldly lives, drinking their morning coffee, engaging in their typical activities, are USUALLY just normal people. And Mormons, with the patina of heavenly protection, are also just normal. There just is no real difference to point to unless you are hell bent on cherry picking your examples (which most people are).
So, I presume that even when people aren’t taught the (pseudo?) virtue of self-denial, they will still turn out ok most of the time. They’ll figure out the boundaries of life. They’ll understand that unproductive, overly self-indulgent behaviors, are… unproductive.
I think we don’t give people enough credit for being able to function just fine without those celestial parameters (of course we do, that’s the whole value prop of the doctrine and institution).
“So, I presume that even when people aren’t taught the (pseudo?) virtue of self-denial, they will still turn out ok most of the time. They’ll figure out the boundaries of life. They’ll understand that unproductive, overly self-indulgent behaviors, are… unproductive.”
You have a lot of faith in people. I tend to think they’ll kill themselves or die before they can implement the changes and I’m not just talking about self-indulgent behaviors of people outside of Mormonism. I’m referring to the self-indulgent behaviors within Mormonism as well. I think some Mormon’s will die before they quit their self-indulgent behavior of thinking they have more blessings than anyone else.
2011 will forever mark the year I stopped doing anything for my “mansion above”. The heavenly reward and earthly blessing are no longer my motivator. Thanks for being open and sharing.
(but seriously was that me you mentioned from the FB thread?)
Well, I suppose self-indulgent behaviors are a problem of the privilege, like eating so much crappy food that you will get heard disease or diabetes at a relatively young age. What changes are you talking about? Yes, people sometimes engage in reckless behavior, especially as teenagers. But really all we are removing hypothetically is the religious framework. I do see some value to religious morality as a crutch, believing that God is looking over your shoulder can help you avoid self-destructive behavior until you can think on your own. For some it works like that. At the same time, I think that agnostics and atheists who are raised in loving, supportive homes most often grow up with excellent morals.
What do you mean by Mormons thinking they have more blessings than others, and how is that fatal?Your paradigm shift sounds like a good step!
It’s not literally fatal, it just causes a lot of damage, kills a lot of relationships and can stunt your spiritual growth (and spiritual death isn’t something I’ve completely surrendered yet).
I’m only speaking from my own experience though and how my pride has possibly ruined many potentially great relationships (probably also why I loved the book Pride and Prejudice)
@ApronAppeal:disqus , these issues of discipline and morality that you address are complex and important. This is what I meant when I said I am not talking about “easy” happiness, or laziness, or hedonism, etc (though I am with Greg that a disciplined, ethical hedonism is worth seeking!).
I think that our morality needs to be examined, thought out, and defensible. I do think we need to take responsibility for our actions, make sure that our actions line up with our goals and values. I think we need to be willing to accept the consequences of our actions; that is part of consciousness. We should take compassion into account with the way we live our life.
So those are a few points that I find helpful when considering morality, but I think that the “don’t give in to your desires” line functions too often as a control mechanism against activities that are not necessarily harmful (aspects of sexuality come to mind such as masturbation, or coffee and tea, etc).
If we are truly happy, can we be engaging in “wickedness”? 😉 I think that a good description of righteousness is that which demonstrably leads to good living. I have found there is a peace that comes from living according to examined, thought through principles of morality. As Greg noted, yes, we are prone to self-deception. We each need to come to our own answers, I think, and checking those answers against the opinions of those we value is a productive step for all.
“If we are truly happy, can we be engaging in “wickedness”?” yes (and no?) because both happiness and wickedness along with sadness and righteousness are relative.
I’ve accepted this new idea the ideas are nuanced and not black and white, but golly gee, I’m still not used to what that does to my brain. It reminds me of when I was little, sleeping out on the trampoline and gazing out into space. My mind buckled under the vastness of infinity just like it buckles now under this idea that good v bad, righteous v wickedness, can have infinite justifications that can be used to deliver us from either.
I lose my mind when I try to imagine a world without boundaries. I think your model does that Jared. Can we survive without limits in the state we are in? – well of course some can, I have several family members that can stand with Greg as a testimony of that.
I do get what you are saying about that floor-dropping-out-from-under-you sensation that comes from being told, “Hey. All those rules that you were taught from God? They aren’t necessarily. You are an adult and it is up to you to figure out how best to live. Good luck”. But I along with countless secular individuals *do* have boundaries. There are choices we can make that will ruin our health. There are other choices we can make that will ruin our relationships. There are choices we could make that would result in a high level of social disapproval. These are called natural consequences, and they are a good thing.
Can you think of a concrete example where someone would be genuinely happy in behavior you would still call wicked?
My pregnant unwed SIL seem genuinely happy right now even though she has no idea what she is going to do with the baby she is carrying. She’s happier than I remember seeing her in a long time (except when she has to talk to her mom & dad about it)
Does that count? Plus she said she really enjoyed the baby making process.
I don’t think sex outside of marriage is inherently wicked. It does seem your friend is in a complicated position.
That depends on who you talk to. Again- wickedness is relative.
Yes it is, but we can explore principles of morality and wickedness (the loaded terms are unwieldy). An extremely important point is that both ethical and unethical behavior (righteousness and wickedness) needs to be argued and defended. “God says” or “that is the way people have always thought” are NOT valid arguments.
not to us no, but to the people who make those statement it absolutely is a valid argument.
I want to know how we can break down that block and help people see that there are better explanations for moral/ethical behavior other than “god said so”.
There are many excellent books about morality and ethics. Three that come to mind are
Greg Epstein, Good without God
Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape
Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil
Scott Peck’s The Road Less Traveled basically has scriptural status to me. 🙂
Any others you would recommend Greg?
hmmm….as I get through this podcast I’m beginning to understand [perhaps] why comments I made on a thread that originated over a month ago is still getting comments and “likes”. I already know I’m self centered but now I’m wondering if I’m paranoid. 🙂
I am replying here so our comments aren’t too narrow in the formatting. You know how respectful and tolerant I am of others’ beliefs. I want to help others make religion and spirituality work. But ethics is where I draw the line. If I feel something is harmful, I will speak out against it. People cannot just say, “Well, God says that homosexuality is an abomination. God says that women are inferior. Nothing I can do about it. God says that this group of people needs to be destroyed.”
No, no and no. As Susan Anthony said,
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
That does need to be balanced by the fact that many people have inherited their views of God and God’s will and so often follow it even if it makes them miserable. About how we reach people who believe God is on their side, I really loved this quote by Obama:
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values…It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. ”
So we can respect peoples’ beliefs, but ask them to explain their moral reasoning, or better yet, help them see the harm that certain positions and actions can do.
I’m commenting here because @mormonmatters:disqus asked me to last time and I do what I’m told.
My second joke is….you had me until “Obama” 🙂 (Ha! I think I’m so funny.) Anyway, I understand you completely and I think it correlates to what @facebook-100000882770623:disqus said, “If God doesn’t approve of my choices, he’s welcome to show up once in a while and talk to me about it.”
But I must say you guys really threw me a fast one in this podcast when you started talking about the spirit being unable or unlikely to testify of truth in some matters. Greg mentioned something about a bad business deal or possible job offer? Just because we get the warm fuzzies and we crash and burn, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t the spirit prompting, it just means, we needed that experience for something else…no?
Good comments and important questions. I think seeing “the Spirit” and Intuition as working in the same ways works very well; they both function in the same way. I highly recommend Malcom Gladwell’s book “Blink”, where he says intution
1) Often is more effective than rational decision making
2) but is also prejudiced and flawed
3) but can be educated and trained so it is less so
Apron, that is a pretty mean joke no? You ask sincerely how to heal your child but instead God tells you to something destructive (using that as a bit of hyperbole) because we “needed the experience?” I would like to think not. Can we find value in all sorts of experiences? Yes. But if nothing else this conversation underscores the importance of critically examining the idea of Spiritual promptings. I think it is an extremely important and challenging skill to gain, how to interpret and apply what we feel are promptings. @mormonmatters:disqus , this would make a great companion to the prayer episode. 🙂
yes, when you put in hyperbole like that it sure is a mean joke. But then my thoughts and impressions have never been as clear and concise as when Elder Nelson received an answer to his prayer on how to perform valve heart surgery – sorry I looked for the GC link and couldn’t find it). I’m usually left with fragments and bits of the full revelation so I’ve got nothing else to do but stew over it, fill in what’s missing and then own the outcome of my decision. But in typing this comment I just realized how important the study part of receiving a revelation is. Great discussion everyone and thank you for all the new thoughts that are working their way through my brain.
I remember the talk you mentioned. I think that comes in part from giving God credit for every good idea or bit of intuition that we have. 🙂 Awesome (in both older and newer senses) and dramatic experience either way.
I had the same thought as I was typing that response. Study and learning go a LONG way (study it out in your heart and mind).
My mother left the church a few months after baptism (about 20 years ago). We are from Argentina and she was divorced. She hated all the comments about Priesthood, she is independant and doesn’t need a man. The gossip was awful, a temple married male member kept was attracted to her and kept bothering her. My mom is pretty and smart. She was miserable as a member. Since leaving the church she is much happier with less pressure from people. She attends her evangelical meetings when she can and reads the bible daily, she does more than I do…. I used to criticize her for leaving but now that I am 43, I understand why she did it.
I firmly believe that Mormon Matters 67-68 is the Mormon podcast equivalent of Beethovens 9th Symphony.
Wow, lofty praise indeed. So glad you found it inspiring and useful.
Greg was a great contrast to Dan, and I really liked the challenge/tension there. Jared, the last 30ish minutes were some really important moments in the MS podcast.
All of you, one of the best MM to date.
I identify with Greg hands down and would line up behind him if asked to choose sides! I appreciated the diversity and spectrum in this discussion. Dan’s position has always driven me nuts and I love him for it! I am familiar with Jared and his position and a huge fan of his position and love being able to follow him now and from here in his career. KC is surprisingly a piece of the discussion that I have been out of touch with for over a year and it felt good to give him the floor and entertain his position respectfully. I appreciate his willingness to participate with the unorthodox discussions as so, so, so many are unwilling. I support you KC and your fellow saints as long as *I* don’t have to be a part of it or scrutinized for not being a part of it. I am married to a KC, not THE KC but A KC and I can’t imagine the world without you guys in it!
Greg, I think you did a great job of articulating, from an economics perspective, of how mortality is devalued in religion. This is an issue that I have thought about for a long time, and your comments on the matter were better said than I have ever been able to on my own.
Just finished the podcast, and I congratulate all the participants for a fantastic discussion on the different LDS approaches to happiness. I am one who relates to Greg’s perspective (and Jared’s to a large extent) and just wanted to thank Dan and Mormon Matters for allowing their views to be voiced. I think their voice NEEDS to be heard and understood more so that people (such as myself) who leave the church can be understood by those within the Church. Greg did a fantastic job in articulating a post-Mormon secular worldview, and how happiness is totally compatible with it. Bravo not only to Greg, but also to Jared, Dan, and KC for their patience and understanding in allowing him to articulate it. I loved hearing everyone’s perspective, and loved the respect that was given to each. It was the kind of discussion that is possible between the various types of Mormons, both in and out of the Church.
A fantastic discussion, guys. Thank you.
I was glad the panel spent some time with the idea of not doing things solely for rewards in heaven. It seems like religions that promise only postmortal rewards are great tools for oppression. My personal approach is that everything I do with regard to the church should make sense and lead to earthly happiness. If Jesus turns out to be real, and I stand before him one day, I’d like to be proud of how I’d lived. On the other hand, I have an atheist brother who I must be able to look in the eye and explain the value of my choices. It’s a good check and balance system. Really, everyone should have an atheist brother.
Anyway, thanks to everyone for sharing your approaches. And Greg, I just want to say that I lament your decision to leave not because it’s invalid or wrong but because I wish there were more dudes like you who stuck around. Us guys inside the church need people to chat Indy Rock with too!
Nice Job Gents! Although it might have been nice to have a female perspective since two out of 4 mentioned it was hard for women to be happy. Just a thought! 🙂
We actually discussed this @c4d83959d4273d98e5b6e08fe37addd7:disqus , when we were looking for someone to speak to the position of those happy in the Church. (Since Greg started the conversation the “out” spot was already taken). One reason we didn’t choose a woman for this conversation was that we didn’t want to perpetuate the stereotype that it is women who stay in and men who leave, as well as the complexity of being a woman in the Church… I would have a hard time with a woman speaking for why it is great to stay, since I feel the Church does such harm. But it would have been great to have a female voice for either of the other two positions for sure. Our women listeners can speak up about where they fall on the spectrum, and how happiness intersects with the Church for them!
Yes, the complexity of being a woman in the Church…so true. I actually think you voiced my feelings exactly in your approach. The question, for maybe another episode, is the difference between women who think they are happy in the church, and why, and how they could be happier, whether outside the church or with sweeping changes in the Church.
And, of course, I’m not surprised that you considered this angle. I wanted all the other ladies to be aware as well 🙂
i think it would be a great follow up to do one that deals with women’s experiences in and out of the church and relative happiness. As you said, so many women profess to be very happy in the church but are in my opinion blind to their own oppression.
Great idea @c4d83959d4273d98e5b6e08fe37addd7:disqus . You should be on that podcast. 🙂 One question I share with Katrina is whether as a woman you can be truly happy while remaining blind to the patriarchy and conditioning… it is like poison in the water supply that makes you sick without awareness. Once a woman is conscious, there is more pain but I think more chance of happiness because she can reject the harmful elements, filter out the poison and benefit from the good.
Mere and Katrina,
I’m open to doing an episode on this. So tricky, though. In May we did an episode on assertions that women were equal within the church (http://mormonmatters.org/2011/05/03/30-mormon-women-and-equality/) and had much discussion in the run-up and I believe in the discussion that we had in the actual episode, about the dangers of drawing conclusions about others’ degrees of satisfaction in any kind of comparative way, etc.
If you are interested in pursuing our working together to explore doing a womens’ happiness episode, it would be of great service to me if you’d be willing to listen/re-listen to this episode and, with it in mind alongside this Happiness Puzzle one, give me a good sense of where we can break good, fresh ground,.
Thanks for whatever thinking/framing you (or anyone reading these comments) are willing to do. I hope we can talk soon!
Dan
I’ll listen to that earlier episode again, think about this, talk with Mere, and be in touch.
A relevant book to this discussion is Russ Harris’ “The
Happiness Trap.” In it, Harris illustrates how many of us (the human-being types) look for
happiness in a way that actually exacerbates anxiety, depression, and
suffering. (it’s not just a Mormon culture kind of thing – it’s a human nature
kind of thing) the book also goes into ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy)
which I practice as a therapist and teaches people to utilize mindfulness and
acceptance strategies in constructing a meaningful and deliberately lived life
full of joy and growth (practices that I believe are totally consistent with a variety
of Mormon approaches – even orthodoxy!).
While listening I wanted to jump in with the discussion many times. A sign of a good podcast and a discussion I feel passionate about. Perhaps I’ll comment more to individual panelists below.
Link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Trap-Struggling-Start-Living/dp/1590305841
Greg –
I am glad that you have found more happiness for yourself “outside” of the
church. I also heard a poignant sense of loss in the relationship
between you and family members that remain as practicing members. I appreciated your honesty in that regard.
On the honesty tip- it would be
dishonest of me to pretend that I listened to the description of your
experience in Mormonism without some judgment. I often found myself thinking,
“why couldn’t he feel that he was free to parent his children in ways that
wouldn’t hurt them while Mormon?” or “how does Mormonism cause him to have a less-than sex
life…” or “how does he know he wouldn’t experience career success as an active
member?” etc.
I’m not naive about the obstacles that exist in the institutional church in these regards and have experienced them. And I feel (perhaps like Jared and Dan) that all of the positive outcomes you describe are possible in the framework of the gospel. I experienced the ones you mentioned (though I’ve not broken the word of wisdom with alcohol i likely break it in other ways often) as a believing and also learning/growing member of the
church. And even feel that the church/gospel/Christ/etc is a big part of me
experiencing these pieces of happiness. At the same time, I realize these judgments and counterarguments come from a place of wanting to be safe in my values and to justify my position. In other words a place of feeling threatened, unsafe, or more appropriately “insecure.”
With this awareness I’m reminded that I can’t place my
template of experience on any other person – even my closest family members and
friends. That’s why these podcasts are so great (especially when there is
tension between ideas and values) – we have an opportunity to be challenged to experience
both empathy for the other and assertiveness of our own values: a divine
(and almost unknowable) dialectic in my opinion.
To understand another’s experience fully is likely impossible
for me (and gets at my version of who/what/where God is). And still the attempt
to understand another without losing one’s self entirely is
a beautiful and challenging way to experience a fullness of joy. One that includes
happiness amongst other rich and not always pleasant feelings. Thanks for the
chance to listen and attempt to hear your story.
Jordan,
What fantastic comments! Thank you for your kind words, professional perspective, and acknowledgment of some of the difficulties in approaching this.
I think one response I might give is that I didn’t leave the church SO THAT I could be happier outside. I left because (on every level) it no longer worked for me. I did not know what to expect on the outside.
I am pleasantly surprised that I find myself so well on the other side of that wall.
I did expect to have collateral damage to relationships with family and friends, and I am grateful that the damage to those relationships has not been as bad as I imagined. Most importantly, I was terrified at the potential for my marriage to fall apart. We had a very strong relationship beforehand, and my wife was extremely supportive through my faith crisis as she waited for God to “fix” me. But despite that, I knew there was a possibility that I would lose her. Over the last several years I have grown more aware of the lack of control we have over our lives, and in particular over others. Happily, we didn’t lose sight of the most important things, and our marriage has benefited.
I appreciate your disclaimer about how we all interpret this from our frame. Early on I fretted that it is impossible to find a disinterested third party to counsel with about faith crises. Every person’s response is going to be a reflection of their own decisions in this. The most neutral response is still a reflection of the other’s firm belief in the acceptability of pluralism, itself a bias. You can’t separate yourself from your humanity.
I want to push back on a couple of your reactionary thoughts.
Of course I could have been successful in the church. In large part, I was, and others are as well. I would not posit that my current success after departure is anything except one in an innumerable line of demonstrations that the Mormon God is no more of an interventionist than any other. The theology of blessings is inextricable from the gospel message. But the reality of blessings is that they are an abstraction in our heads.
I think there are definitely faithful members that have good sex lives, but I am willing to argue that it is in spite of the church’s best historical efforts against it. I just don’t see it as any kind of stretch that the church teaches a manifestly dysfunctional sexuality which causes all sorts of problems for people. Does anyone disagree with me about this? Teaching that masturbation is a sin is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
As far as teaching my children goes, I am actually surprised that anyone would push back on my thinking there. If I am going to participate in the church, and allow my children to participate, I am going to deliver my children to other people to teach them, many times. The lesson manuals are rife with terrible, backwards thinking. It is POSSIBLE that my kids would have teachers that don’t teach them awful stuff, but not likely, and certainly not guaranteed. I can do a number of things to try and counter this, the easiest of which is to not allow it by not participating.
I fear I am moving into acerbic mode here, so I will wrap it up.
I’m no jack Mormon. I am not someone who believes it is true but can’t be bothered to live it. We joked about this on the podcast, and Jared made it sound like I’m less serious about this than I am, but I really am an apostate in every sense of the word that I can find.
I made an offhand reference in the list I wrote to choking down McDonald’s hamburgers. I could do it, but why would I want to?
I could somehow make it work, remake Mormonism into something that I could observe on my terms. But why would I want to?
Thanks for the reply Greg. So right about the frame and context that we all bring with us in our attempts to understand the worlds in which we inhabit.
I agree that there’s not much incentive to “somehow make it work.” I think that if the church didn’t work for me or someone I loved I would hope that I or that person would turn to find “what works.”
I agree that church culture and teachings could lead many to feel shame and misunderstanding about sexuality. I don’t think this is exclusively a Mormon thing though. I think it is somewhat common in most religions. I think you and Jared had an interesting exchange in the podcast where he pushed back on your statement that sex is not sacred. I think you both made good points. I think Jared said something about sex being potentially transcendent or something like that. In that vein, the Mormon view of the soul as both body and spirit is very healthy in approaching sexuality. It affirms physical and sexual desires as god given gifts rather than something to not be ashamed of. Of course this is not exactly how it is routinely taught – though I think the church is making progress here.
In the new gospel principles manual lesson on chastity it actually seems that there is some direction that is heading us in a good direction here:
“Children are naturally curious. They want to know how their bodies work.
They want to know where babies come from. If parents answer all such
questions immediately and clearly so children can understand, children
will continue to take their questions to their parents. However, if
parents answer questions so that children feel embarrassed, rejected, or
dissatisfied, they will probably go to someone else with their
questions and perhaps get incorrect ideas and improper attitudes.” ch. 39 of gospel principles manual.
Appreciate the dialogue – and if you’re an apostate then the apostates are pretty lucky to have you. especially with your reported cooking skills.
🙂
Jordan,
Thanks again. I find that quote from gospel principles to be extremely encouraging.
We just signed up our 11 year old for the sex education program at the Unitarian church.
Tricky stuff to navigate…
I too like the Gospel Principles quote. One tricky issue is that the idea of sex as sacred can be serve *both* positive and negative functions. It is sacred so worth treating responsible is a good message, but it is so sacred it can’t also be fun and casual is bad, and it is so sacred that sexual mistakes is especially damning is even worse.
Thank you
Loved it
Jared, sincerely, sincerely, I thank you for being so open with your approach, you spoke to my heart and I thank you for your insight.
Keith
I appreciate the affirmation and support @facebook-552293152:disqus . I knew I was taking a risk being so open and honest, but also feel it is important and hope it will be valuable. The comments so far have vindicated those hopes.
I finally finished! (it was LONG)…. and there were a couple of things Jared said in the podcast that I wanted to maybe push him on a little bit. So here goes, Jared: I really like so much of what you say, and appreciate your enlightened approach. But sometimes the more I listen to your position that Mormonism can be whatever you think it SHOULD be, it can kind of seem like you are wanting it both ways, and it kind of can start to frustrate me. The two small points I am thinking of are when you said the word of wisdom as practiced by mainstream LDS leads often to judgmental thinking and is hypocritical. Later on, you say you’re not judgmental. See the problem? And then even more toward the end, you say you validate all interpretations of Mormonism and want to own all of them, even the current orthodoxy that works for so many. But earlier you firmly stated that some of that orthodoxy is unethical and harmful. You also gave your opinion that Mormonism may not be able to thrive in the future, which makes it sound like the orthodox approach really isn’t as valid. Why would we want to defend it if it goes against the preservation of the institution? I am not sure how you argue both sides of that coin. Sometimes this is just a general frustration I have with “open-minded” liberals in general (keep in mind, I am at least a wanna-be liberal in many ways!). They want to point at others and say how mean and intolerant the conservatives are, and somehow also say all positions should be respected and validated. I think sometimes we just have to accept that we are all biased, and we follow what sounds good to us, and others follow what sounds good to them. In summary, sometimes I think I am right and others are wrong, no matter how I package it, and I sometimes think we should stop trying to tiptoe around that issue so much.
@MichaelGonda:disqus , I am glad you pushed back. These are important points. So as I stated here, my approach is to respect beliefs fully, but demand ethical accountability. If you listen carefully, you will notice that even in the really pro-standard approach to Mormonism part that Dan added in at my request, I stand up against what I feel are unethical aspects and practices.
Ethics provide the borders of tolerance.
I DO want it all ways. I am bifaithful, remember? 😀
You are right; I need to reword how I claim not to be judgmental. I sincerely respect a variety of perspectives and I acutely feel how we are all different and so require different approaches. I want to affirm that. But yes, if I feel a position does harm, I will judge it and speak against it. I understand how I could have failed to distinguish between my personal position and what I respect and validate in the positions and perspectives of OTHERS. When I say I validate the mainstream, orthodox position, I mean the position of literal belief and loyalty to the Church. Yes, I feel there are ethical problems with that, but I realize there are ethical problems inherent in virtually all positions, and all of enacted positions. We are human and fallible. And mainstream Mormonism *can* be done very ethically and lovingly. With enough resources, you can serve both the LDS Church and also God. 🙂
I should clarify that I don’t want it ALL ways. I honor all *ethically defensible* ways, yes. But that is an important qualifier.
Follow love. Follow good. Follow happiness. Make these your own.
@MichaelGonda:disqus , I am glad you pushed back. These are important points. So as I stated here, my approach is to respect beliefs fully, but demand ethical accountability. If you listen carefully, you will notice that even in the really pro-standard approach to Mormonism part that Dan added in at my request, I stand up against what I feel are unethical aspects and practices.
Ethics provide the borders of tolerance.
I DO want it all ways. I am bifaithful, remember? 😀
You are right; I need to reword how I claim not to be judgmental. I sincerely respect a variety of perspectives and I acutely feel how we are all different and so require different approaches. I want to affirm that. But yes, if I feel a position does harm, I will judge it and speak against it. I understand how I could have failed to distinguish between my personal position and what I respect and validate in the positions and perspectives of OTHERS. When I say I validate the mainstream, orthodox position, I mean the position of literal belief and loyalty to the Church. Yes, I feel there are ethical problems with that, but I realize there are ethical problems inherent in virtually all positions, and all of enacted positions. We are human and fallible. And mainstream Mormonism *can* be done very ethically and lovingly. With enough resources, you can serve both the LDS Church and also God. 🙂
I should clarify that I don’t want it ALL ways. I honor all *ethically defensible* ways, yes. But that is an important qualifier.
Follow love. Follow good. Follow happiness. Make these your own.
Jared and Dan,
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I wish the mormonism you both espouse was really possible for me, I really wish it was.
I just failed my first temple recommend interview, even after answering the right questions and my intent and heart being right. The rejection hurt. Much more than I thought it would.
The bishop wanted to know why I wanted a temple recommend all of the sudden, and why I would be worthy of such a thing. I thought my responses were articulate and reasonable. Basically I told him, “in order to maintain relationships with my family, the most important component of the church, and to be part of their lives and life events.” I further said, “I would have no problem standing face to face with God right now, and since that seems to be the ultimate goal in the temple proceedings I feel worthy to do such.”
The conversation went much more in depth, but each time he reiterated my statements it was evident that he not understanding. Everything I said was converted to conventional mormonism and restated. There was no reasoning together. This surprised me because I thought I had a chance with my open-minded bishop. I mean his house smelt of burnt sage and he often talks of Chukras and energy healing. But even with an open-minded guy the conventional mormonism would not budge a bit.
I answered the questions correctly, putting my best face forward. He said no to me because I needed to attend sacrament and pay tithing for a while, even though I had answered the questions correctly (the question about church attendence says, “strive to attend”). When he shook his head when I said yes to tithing, I clarified by saying I give a tithe to charities. He quoted several generic scriptures about tithing and told me I wasn’t paying it. I quoted scriptures of Jesus to retort, but it didn’t matter.
I feel like church leaders approach me in a doctor-patient relationship always trying to diagnose the problem, when I expect to have a friend-friend relationship each hearing and understanding. Its like the church leaders always seem to want to diagnose my pathology to write a correct prescription of obedience.
In the end he denied me the recommend till I show forth the proper fruits. I told him it was a matter of conscience and I’ll have to pray about it. So I’ll miss going to my brother’s wedding. In fact I’m coming up with and excuse for not being able to go at all because I know it would be the ultimate dark day for my mother knowing one of her kids is outside the temple. I would also hate to do that to my brother
I think I was very naive in my approach to my bishop. I forgot how narrowly the church defines its terms. There is no way I can feel good about giving thousands of dollars to the LDS church and don’t know if I have the energy to sneek around it paying on-line etc. I felt terrible answering the rest of the temple questions in a deceptive form and don’t know if I can do it again. This may be a watershed moment for me and mormonism. After 5 years of trying the middle way I don’t know that I can do it. It may be time to come clean and sever ties with the church.
Funny thing is if he had just written me a temple recommend I would’ve likely ramped up my activity.
I hope others find the individual-type mormonism possible, I just don’t know that I can.
Jared and Dan,
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I wish the mormonism you both espouse was really possible for me, I really wish it was.
I just failed my first temple recommend interview, even after answering the right questions and my intent and heart being right. The rejection hurt. Much more than I thought it would.
The bishop wanted to know why I wanted a temple recommend all of the sudden, and why I would be worthy of such a thing. I thought my responses were articulate and reasonable. Basically I told him, “in order to maintain relationships with my family, the most important component of the church, and to be part of their lives and life events.” I further said, “I would have no problem standing face to face with God right now, and since that seems to be the ultimate goal in the temple proceedings I feel worthy to do such.”
The conversation went much more in depth, but each time he reiterated my statements it was evident that he not understanding. Everything I said was converted to conventional mormonism and restated. There was no reasoning together. This surprised me because I thought I had a chance with my open-minded bishop. I mean his house smelt of burnt sage and he often talks of Chukras and energy healing. But even with an open-minded guy the conventional mormonism would not budge a bit.
I answered the questions correctly, putting my best face forward. He said no to me because I needed to attend sacrament and pay tithing for a while, even though I had answered the questions correctly (the question about church attendence says, “strive to attend”). When he shook his head when I said yes to tithing, I clarified by saying I give a tithe to charities. He quoted several generic scriptures about tithing and told me I wasn’t paying it. I quoted scriptures of Jesus to retort, but it didn’t matter.
I feel like church leaders approach me in a doctor-patient relationship always trying to diagnose the problem, when I expect to have a friend-friend relationship each hearing and understanding. Its like the church leaders always seem to want to diagnose my pathology to write a correct prescription of obedience.
In the end he denied me the recommend till I show forth the proper fruits. I told him it was a matter of conscience and I’ll have to pray about it. So I’ll miss going to my brother’s wedding. In fact I’m coming up with and excuse for not being able to go at all because I know it would be the ultimate dark day for my mother knowing one of her kids is outside the temple. I would also hate to do that to my brother
I think I was very naive in my approach to my bishop. I forgot how narrowly the church defines its terms. There is no way I can feel good about giving thousands of dollars to the LDS church and don’t know if I have the energy to sneek around it paying on-line etc. I felt terrible answering the rest of the temple questions in a deceptive form and don’t know if I can do it again. This may be a watershed moment for me and mormonism. After 5 years of trying the middle way I don’t know that I can do it. It may be time to come clean and sever ties with the church.
Funny thing is if he had just written me a temple recommend I would’ve likely ramped up my activity.
I hope others find the individual-type mormonism possible, I just don’t know that I can.
@5b9b3b5c4e3b338dd24d016a3a4d601e:disqus , I am so deeply sorry to hear that you lost at priesthood leader roulette. My heart aches for you. Sigh. This is why I think we are justified in reclaiming our power and speaking to our priesthood leaders in such a way that we can be on the same page, accessing the same “deep truths” (of worthiness) without letting differing interpretations of superficial issues get in the way. (that is a complicated way of justifying a very careful, deliberate, ethically defensible deception).
This was a stellar podcast. I particularly liked part two and hearing the different approaches. I am glad you were able to put together a panel that represents different points of view.
For those of us who missed the FB thread mentioned, could Greg please post his 11 points of happiness here or direct us to those elsewhere?
@e73b2ab166a3be0d655c18d4ec88689a:disqus , here is the list from our facebook group. As you will see, Greg followed the list pretty closely as he presented his position:
#1 I was having full scale anxiety attacks in Church… Now I don’t. The anxiety was related to the Twilight Zone feeling of hearing people talk about reality in a way that did not coincide with any reality that I could detect. I was not aware of the uncorrelated world of Mormonism at the time. Now I am. I suppose I could deal with it better now, but deal with it is kind of like saying I could choke down a McDonalds hamburger.
#2 I study topics that I can verify have a beneficial effect on my life now with no guilt or reticence because of content or because I am not studying the same book over and over and over. This is related to Blake’s comment, but I feel is different.
#3 I believe (but it would be difficult to completely verify) that one of the main reasons I am no longer employed at my last job is because my boss was the most TBM pharasaical person I have ever met. I got a new job, with MUCH better prospects, MUCH better pay, a MUCH better (pretty liberal Mo) boss.
#4 I have real friends now. I fretted for years in the Church that I couldn’t find anyone that I related to, that had similar interests, that was interested in being friends. We had a hard time getting people to come over for dinner (we are not slouches in the kitchen at our house).We now have the most fantastic, complete circle of friends. People who want to hang out, who share interests, who watch TED talks and listen to NPR. People who like to come over for dinner and talk and talk and talk. We have more social calendar than we know what to do with. We meet new people all the time.
#5 Wine, coffee, beer, whiskey, various other things that will go unenumerated. I think the different experiences of life are exciting and fun, and I am glad to healthily and harmlessly partake.
#6 Better sex life. My wife and I are free to define, explore, share, adventure with each other sexually in ways that we did not feel free to do before. God and his minions are not considering our bedroom activities. The guilt that came with me from adolescence in the Church has been entirely shed (I fully recognize that this is NOT an easy thing to do… We’ve been working in that direction for a long time). Letti and I feel free to know and be known without damaging teachings in a way that (I submit) is not possible in a chapel mormonism mindset.
#7 Life is now an adventure. Before it was a “strait and narrow path”. Strait… not straight. As in, straitjacket. Restricted.
#8 I feel an enormous sense of relief to know that God is not concerned about the sexual orientation (that he doled out in the first place) or the denomination of the many people of the world. For me, the world is MUCH MUCH more beautiful outside of Mormonism. I am no longer required to struggle to create a reality based on the vilification of the world.
#9 Life is now precious, not an unlimited commodity. I am jealous of my life now and anxious to engage in it completely in order to use up every last drop.
#10 I am no longer plagued by the problem of having to discern the desires of an absent celestial parent with regards to my life decisions. I am free to make the best decisions I can come up with, and own those decisions.
#11 I am now under no compulsion to teach, or expose my children to harmful teachings about sex and people. I am also not required to teach them outdated notions about their roles in life. They will be free to choose their own paths. I will be free to love them no matter what those paths are.
I was listening to the Mormon Expression podcast with Bob McCue, and he made a comment extremely a propos to this discussion. He said that it is misleading to speak of happiness because we adapt to situations so quickly (makes me think about the TED talk example where people one year after winning the lottery or becoming paralyzed rated their happiness as about the same). He suggested that instead we should talk about *well-being*. However much we are happy or are not (which is important), the degree of well-being we enjoy adds another dimension to consider.
I enjoyed the podcast very much. Your honest accounts and readiness to listen to each other really came through. Thanks!
I’m late getting to this one. Really enjoyed it. Question for Jared. Your Mormon framework for living out your path seems to be heavily rooted in the teachings of Joseph Smith (as opposed to much of the way we teach today). Yet, unlike Dan, I rarely hear you cite the Prophet to back up your argument. Am I mistaken? Is this deliberate? Just curious. Not accusing you of anything of course. FWIW – I really like and appreciate your argument, just not sure which of the various Mormon (or non) sources you are pulling it from. (I’m sure its a mix)
Dan – keep up the great work. Greg, I appreciate your honesty. KC, ward mission leader!? – you give me hope.
Best episode yet! (and you did it without my idol Joanna Brooks) Dan, great work organizing such a thoughtful and interesting panel. Jared, Amen. KC you are a badass! Greg, your list was tremendous. I will disagree all day long but wow it was great.
Add my name to the list of jonny-come-latelys. A lot to digest but I really enjoyed it. I would also like to back up to the temple worthiness discussion that went on earlier in this thread. My question is (I guess mostly for Jared) if you don’t feel the temple ordinances are important, why do the gymnastics to obtain a recommend?
It’s quite possible I missed the point of the signed check analogy, but I can’t help but feel that it actually reinforces my frustration with the institutional church. The check must be signed/stamped through ordinance work in order to gain access to eternal relationships, rest, and reward. This life is the holding period wherein the funds are not available. We die, and it’s quite possible that when we attempt to withdraw our eternal reward, we are faced with a potential chargeback due to fraud. I say carry cash in the form of true religion – what you both give and receive is immediately available.
Dan thanks to you and the panel for this one. Very helpful to me.
Hello! Welcome to my louis vuitton online store.
Every woman likes of Burberry bags , if you have not it , then quickly have it .you can enter my web ：http://www.burberryukbags.org
I’m a little late to this, but I LOVED the podcast. I’m a very strong, devout member of the church and I absolutely loved all of this. I’ll be spreading this around as I feel like more members need to hear and possibly understand it. Thanks guys.