Assuring a successful life journey

[_wenglund]

What you just described doesn't sound like a successful way to journey, but rather quite the opposite. It sounds like a successful way to standing still or to do or attain nothing at all. So, it doesn't really answer my question. It just tells me that there are some who wish to go nowhere in life, and who think it best to having nowhere to go. And, they succeed in that default goal by having no goals or destination and by doing nothing and going nowhere.

Yes it is a very different way to experience life than what is common in our Western world.

But I would suggest those who follow this path are those who would claim to have a very fulfilling (or successful) life... my observation is that these "enlightened" souls are the happiest among us, (smile). What may be success to you is not to them, similarly, what success is to them may be very different than what you think of as success.

To you it may seems that goals are required for a successful life, but I would offer that to others, obtaining goals or having accomplishments are not that which brings happiness but enjoying the present and living fully in the moment, or embracing life in its glory.

Actually, if you look more carefully at what I said, I acknowledge that others may view success as consisting in not journeying and going nowhere.

However, while I may respect that differing point of view, I not only don't agree with it. But I can't say that it makes sense to me. By definition, success entails "attempts", "endevours", "attainments", "performance", and "achievements", things that imply movement or journey, and things that seem logically just the opposite to the mindset of those you have described. If the monks et. al. are consistent in their thinking, then success as well as happiness and enjoyment and full living and embracing glory are all irrelevant. To them, it is not about succeeding or not succeeding, or about being happy or not being happy, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_truth dancer]

Hi Wade...

If the monks et. al. are consistent in their thinking, then success as well as happiness and enjoyment and full living and embracing glory are all irrelevant. To them, it is not about succeeding or not succeeding, or about being happy or not being happy, etc.

Well, I am not a good representative for the enlightened (smile) but I would suggest that enlightenment is about being happy as it is the natural state....

We can either see that as one who has lived a successful life or not. I suppose if one is at one with the Divine, the word doesn't even matter.

:-)


~dancer~

[Anonymous]

Okay, so for you, like others, the restored gospel of Christ no longer privides answers for the planning and implementation of your life's journey. So, what does (if anything)? And, what answers have you come up with?

I'm still working on all that. I haven't got any answers yet, really, at least none that I'd promote as "the Truth". It's entirely possible that there is no "The Answer", no "The Truth", to the question of the meaning of life. It's entirely possible that it has no external meaning, and any meaning we find is invented by ourselves. That doesn't have to be as hopeless as it might sound, especially to a theist. As Crick said, we may not be for anything, but he was still planning on having a good lunch. Our minds are very expansive, and for whatever reason we've got the ability to formulate very complex thoughts, wishes, desires, goals, etc. We're also capable of compassion and empathy. There's no reason why the goals, desires, wishes, and plans we formulate for ourselves have to be regarded as meaningless, if they have meaning to us.

Right now I'm trying to comprehend my place in the world, and I'm inclined to think that people-centric thinking and ethics holds a lot of attraction for me.

[_Who Knows]

However, if you look at the questions just in terms of mortality, then you should be able to answer all the questions. Right?

And, if so, how do you now answer each of them?

Pre-journey questions--I.e.the planning phase:

1) Where am I going--I.e. what is my main objective and destination? Happiness
2) Why am I going there--I.e. what is my motivation and purpose? Happiness
3) Who all is going with me? Friends, family, those who make me happy.
4) How will we get there? Doing what makes me happy.
a) What guidance and navigational tools are needed? Me. - my brain, my life experience.
b) What measurement, evaluation, and assessment tools will be needed? Ditto.
c) What is the best route to take? The route i'm currently on.
d) What is the best mode of transportation? umm, a bmw 335xi.
e) What supplies are needed? Love, security, the necessities, good health, money.
f) What resources will we need to utilize along the way? everything and anything.
g) What do we need to do to pay for all of this? Enough - sufficient for my needs. :)

During the journey questions--I.e. the implementation phase:

5) How are we doing? Great.
a) Are we effectively implementing and sticking to the plan? Yes.
b) Are we making reasonable progress? Yes.
c) How effective is the plan in getting us to where we planned to go? Very.
6) What, if any, changes, corrections, improvements, or adaptations need to be made either to the implementation of the plan or to the plan itself? None right now.
7) How are the changes and so forth working in helping us to better reach our destination? n/a.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

[

What you aren't considering, Wade, is that the premise has changed for some of us; therefore, we don't feel the need to replace Mormonism with something exactly like it, something that provides answers to questions that have become moot. TD is too kind to say it, but I'm not ... it's very clear from your responses to her on this thread that you don't have the first idea what she's talking about. You are interpreting her in the context of Mormonism and that's not where she's coming from.

Back to your OP, I'd throw out all of your questions and replace them with this one: "Would you rather be right or happy?"

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Wade, quite an interesting, and, i add, a mechanical approach to life. Which might be preferred, even essential to some; and as you stated, "...to each their own..." However, questions loom in my mind...

At what 'age' do you think this list be compiled? It would seem some time well past the most important developmental stages of early childhood??? Considering those developmental years: IF an individual is nurtured in a 'totally' functional family, their approach to lifes challenges (chaos:-) will be rather different than will the person leaving a 'totally' dysfunctional nest. Spontaneity will be encouraged rather than not... Generally, most(?) come from some where between the extremes--giving the benefit of the doubt--from what is often observed and attended to by remedials and institutions...

I thoughtfully suggest that in the ideal home a person learns better coping skills, more self confidence, and their inherited (genetic) self, not being restriced by poor parenting, blooms and blossums leading to a personal, satisfying fullness of life not constriced by, or needful of, a detailed check list as one requires when shopping, or planning a trip, to assure they don't forget anything... May be conjecture, but it follows that the further a person starts from the ideal home--not necessarily the 'traditionl home'--what you suggest might in fact be efficacious... Whatever facilitates one's 'journey' should by all means be utilized.

I am having some difficulty associating your reasoning with living "Christ-like", if i correctly understood some of you comments. It appears, in my profile of Christ that he was not directed by a check-list. He responded spontaneously to circumstances as he encountered them. Rules made by others in fact he ignored when they didn't serve his purpose. Cookie-cutter-folks didn't seem to be in his lesson objectives.

Interesting thread... Warm regards, Roger

[_wenglund]

I suspect we're just talking about different approaches to life. You need to have a plan and stick to it, though obviously you adjust as you go along. Having that kind of plan works for you. Others thrive on living in the moment and following life where it takes them. I suspect you would not do very well if you were forced to live like that. Others may not do so well with your planned-out lifestyle.

I think those who know me best might be amused to hear me characterized as a planner, and one who sticks to the plan. I don't know anyone my age who has lived more in the moment, and followed life where it takes them, than me--except, perhaps, nomadic panhanddlers.

One of the reasons I, in my mid-fifties, have never been married, never had kids, never owned a home, acquired little savings and retirement, and have jumped from career to career like changing clothes, is because I have lived so much in the moment, and had no plan to stick to. And, while my life has been been much blessed through stopping and smelling the roses and whimsically banting about, there has been a trade-off, and one that I now question was in my best interest. When comparing and contrasting what I have achieved in relation to others my age, I now realize that had I planned more for the future, and stuck somewhat to that plan, I would have been able to live far better in the moment, and perhaps shared more in those moments with others.

This is the long way of saying that I think some may have mistakenly viewed what I have said in binary terms (either one imust be very structured, or one must have no structure at all), when in truth my questions provide very elemental and limited structure, and accomodate extensive flexibility. One is free to answer the questions in exhaustive detail and with rigidity in practice, or one can answer them in ways that allow for spontenaity and creativity, as well as various permutations inbetween.

The point being, the most successful journeys in life will at least include answering, in general ways, those elemental questions. And, now that I have answered them (fairly loosely and with great flexibility), and strive to be mindful of them (particularly question #1), my life has been more enriched, I have experience greater progress, and I have greater capacity to live in the moment. Rather than letting the wind and waves toss me where they will, I have finally taken control of the rudder and sails of my ship, and charted my liberal course, and seen more of the world than I could ever imagine before.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

I gave you my answers.

Now, are you going to give us yours?

[_wenglund]

I gave you my answers.

Now, are you going to give us yours?

I very much value and appreciated your answers, and think it only fair to give you mine--for what it is worth, I had intended to answer them earlier today in response to barrelofmonkies quiry to me, but I have been pre-occupied with other threads, and probably won't be able to post my answers until tomorrow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_dartagnan]

Do you agree that this is a viable way to help assure a successful life journey?

No.

What is successful? What might be considered successful to a Mormon is not successful to an atheist or Baptist.

Do you agree that for believers, particularly in terms of the spiritual/eternal aspect of life's journey, the restored gospel of Christ provides viable answers to many of these questions?

Naturally. But then again, the Church creates more questions than the average person would even imagine. It then places extreme emphasis and importance on these questions, thus teaching its adherents to be extremely dependent on the Church for answers. It is a control mechanism like so many other aspects of the Church.

Incidentally, your post reminded me of Dan Peterson’s recent claim that only Mormonism teaches that families are forever. That Christians generally reject this notion, is just a popular myth in LDS thought. But Dan’s intention was to persuade people into thinking this obvious truth is rejected by the rest of Christianity; therefore the LDS Church is needed.

But it is a no-brainer for most Christians, that they will see their loved ones again. They just don’t believe you have to go through temple rituals to “ensure” it. So for them, they don’t need the LDS faith to accomplish this. But Mormons believe they do need the Church because they are told this can only happen if they live a lifetime of obedience and undergo various rituals that only the LDS Church can govern.

If so, what does that mean for those who may lose faith and become unbelievers?

I suspect that most unbelievers realize that one shouldn’t lose sleep over these particular questions. The Mormon culture is a paradigm of micro-management of one’s life. From Stephen Covey’s 7 habits to the Franklin planner, Mormons are constantly reminded to micro-manage their lives in accordance with the Church.

It is already common knowledge that Mormons are generally a stressed out group, and I think this constant reminder in Mormonism that one has not done enough, repented enough, or prayed enough, plays a huge part in this. Your post is, in my view, a perfect example of what I am talking about.

(Now I’m thinking of every Mormon I know in Utah who take anti-depressants like Prozac.)

Related to this, I’ll never forget the day we were in Sunday school and a woman brought a huge jar which represented the time we had during the day to do the things we were supposed to be doing. She filled it with big white rocks. She then asked, doesn’t it seem like your time is used up? She then pours marbles into it, and shakes it around to make sure they all fit in there. She then dumps a liter of rice, and again shakes it around until it all settles. Then just when you thought your day was full, she dumped a liter of water into the jar, completely filling it up. The lesson? Procrastination, and doing all the things you’re supposed to be doing, even if you feel as though there isn’t enough time in the day to do all that the Church requires.