Where is the Joy in Mormonism?

[_wenglund]

I don't think the problem with Mormon services is the mode of service per se. For some people, it is just what they like. Some will enjoy the trappings of an LDS service and I don't see anything wrong with that. One way is not necessary superior to another. The problem is that, in Mormonism, there is no room for people who would better respond to another mode of worship. Mormonism insists that there is one, and only one way of doing things.

Some people respond to a pipe organ, others might better respond to a bass and drums. Neither is right or wrong. I remember one of the first Unitarian services that I attended a man played some beautiful music on a trumpet. It was appropriate and sacred. This would simply never be allowed in LDS services because the Church has rules against such things.

Mormonism doesn't make people unhappy. It makes some people unhappy. That will be true as long as it insists on a single way and following the unwritten order of things.

To me, what you say is certainly true for those who condition their joy on external things (like the mode of worship) rather than on internal things (like themselves and what they bring to whatever mode of service).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you are exaggeration your stoicism to suggest that internal joy comes to you regardless of your surroundings. So I would counter that "those who condition their joy on external thing" includes everybody except for a few monks in Nepal.

I don't know that my position can accurately be described as "stoicism" (I think myself closer in secular terms to Choice Theory and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, though religiously I believe my position quite in line with Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices--not the least of which is are the principles of personal agency and responsibility even in matters of emotion), nor do I think that a person who chooses to be joyous (rather than choosing to leave one's joy in the hands of others) is all that rare among mankind. But, whatever the case may be, my interest in not so much in complying with majority habits, but in what may work in mine and others best interest. And, since I believe that joyousness is a good and healthy thing, and thus in our best interest, I believe it wise to find ways (through personal choice) that we can attain that condition, rather than leaving it to circumstances and the whims of others over which we have little or no control.

If you choice otherwise, and think it best to let your circumstances control your joy, and thus restrict your joyousness to drums and guitar modes of religious observance, then I can respect that. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

People are there because they want to be there, and for no other reason. They don’t believe it’s required to attend church to be “saved”. They just like going.

It's interesting to me the different things that turn people off to religion. I've heard this criticism from a lot ex-Mormons, so much that it almost seems to me that Mormonism has shifted its doctrine to state that the "only out of Love of God," is the highest and purest form of motivation.

For me the love of God motivation does not seem to add up. The only consequences I truly have to live with eternally are for myself. Is that selfish? Absolutely. I believe that each individual owes it to himself to develop Christlike attributes and act unselfishly. The reason I advocate this is because this is ultimately in the individuals self interest. If it were not, I would not advocate unselfish behavior in those that want to be happy. My point being, ultimately you have to do these things for yourself, or you're just not going to have the motivation to see it through. Ultimately, the only one you're really responsible for and will bear the consequence of is your own actions, not God's, not your family's, and not your neighbors.

It's Mormonism's resistance to my line of thinking that turns me off to it, because it acts as further evidence that they do not have my best interest at heart, and truly are, just bullying and using me.

I can't say I would ever like going to Church just because I like it, anymore than it would be natural for me to act unselfishly all the time. If you're really honest about it, most people cat out of self interest 98% of the time. Even self proclaimed unselfish people must understand that their first obligation truly is to themselves. Otherwise they wouldn't act the way they do. When religion fails to demonstrate to people why moral behavior is ultimately in ones self interest is when it truly becomes distasteful and impotent.

Could you be confusing "self-interest" with "self-centered"?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_KimberlyAnn]

The services are joyful because the people are joyful, Wade. They're joyful inside and it shows on the outside.

KA

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't know that my position can accurately be described as "stoicism" (I think myself closer in secular terms to Choice Theory and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, though religiously I believe my position quite in line with Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices--not the least of which is are the principles of personal agency and responsibility even in matters of emotion), nor do I think that a person who chooses to be joyous (rather than choosing to leave one's joy in the hands of others) is all that rare among mankind. But, whatever the case may be, my interest in not so much in complying with majority habits, but in what may work in mine and others best interest. And, since I believe that joyousness is a good and healthy thing, and thus in our best interest, I believe it wise to find ways (through personal choice) that we can attain that condition, rather than leaving it to circumstances and the whims of others over which we have little or no control.

If you choice otherwise, and think it best to let your circumstances control your joy, and thus restrict your joyousness to drums and guitar modes of religious observance, then I can respect that. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this is a fascinating observation, Wade. Basically, what you're saying is that, within the Church, one must "choose" to have joy. That is, there isn't anything explicitly "joyous" about the Church---there is no concrete, observable, empirical aspect of the Church which one could reasonably describe as being "joyous." Rather, the "joyousness" must be a conscious choice. Or, to put it another way, the "joy" you experience is all in your head. This seems a very insightful observation on your part, Wade.

[_John Larsen]

I don't think the problem with Mormon services is the mode of service per se. For some people, it is just what they like. Some will enjoy the trappings of an LDS service and I don't see anything wrong with that. One way is not necessary superior to another. The problem is that, in Mormonism, there is no room for people who would better respond to another mode of worship. Mormonism insists that there is one, and only one way of doing things.

Some people respond to a pipe organ, others might better respond to a bass and drums. Neither is right or wrong. I remember one of the first Unitarian services that I attended a man played some beautiful music on a trumpet. It was appropriate and sacred. This would simply never be allowed in LDS services because the Church has rules against such things.

Mormonism doesn't make people unhappy. It makes some people unhappy. That will be true as long as it insists on a single way and following the unwritten order of things.

To me, what you say is certainly true for those who condition their joy on external things (like the mode of worship) rather than on internal things (like themselves and what they bring to whatever mode of service).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think you are exaggeration your stoicism to suggest that internal joy comes to you regardless of your surroundings. So I would counter that "those who condition their joy on external thing" includes everybody except for a few monks in Nepal.

I don't know that my position can accurately be described as "stoicism" (I think myself closer in secular terms to Choice Theory and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, though religiously I believe my position quite in line with Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices--not the least of which is are the principles of personal agency and responsibility even in matters of emotion), nor do I think that a person who chooses to be joyous (rather than choosing to leave one's joy in the hands of others) is all that rare among mankind. But, whatever the case may be, my interest in not so much in complying with majority habits, but in what may work in mine and others best interest. And, since I believe that joyousness is a good and healthy thing, and thus in our best interest, I believe it wise to find ways (through personal choice) that we can attain that condition, rather than leaving it to circumstances and the whims of others over which we have little or no control.

If you choice otherwise, and think it best to let your circumstances control your joy, and thus restrict your joyousness to drums and guitar modes of religious observance, then I can respect that. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am perfectly happy to find joy outside of any church, thank you. By your theory of worship, this should be equally joy bringing as church attendance, since joy is an internal product. Why should we attend at all if it doesn't bring us joy. And if it does, great! If something else does, great!

[_The Nehor]

I think this is a fascinating observation, Wade. Basically, what you're saying is that, within the Church, one must "choose" to have joy. That is, there isn't anything explicitly "joyous" about the Church---there is no concrete, observable, empirical aspect of the Church which one could reasonably describe as being "joyous." Rather, the "joyousness" must be a conscious choice. Or, to put it another way, the "joy" you experience is all in your head. This seems a very insightful observation on your part, Wade.

How do you have joy outside your head?

[_wenglund]

The services are joyful because the people are joyful, Wade. They're joyful inside and it shows on the outside.

KA

I am pleased to hear it. What a wonderful and enriching choice they have made.

And, I trust that since joy and contempt are incompatible, that the inner joy they feel will prevent them from thinking, let alone speaking, ill of other people or faiths. ;-)

I am mindful, though, of the scriptural proverb that says: "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven...a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance..." (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

From my experience, this applies to religious services as well as other walks of life. There will be times of joy and times of sadness, times of happy and boistrous singing and times of quiet and peaceful reverence, though each time done with the intent of bettering mankind in gratitude to the Lord.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

The services are joyful because the people are joyful, Wade. They're joyful inside and it shows on the outside.

KA

I am pleased to hear it. What a wonderful and enriching choice they have made.

And, I trust that since joy and contempt are incompatible, that the inner joy they feel will prevent them from thinking, let alone speaking, ill of other people or faiths. ;-)

I am mindful, though, of the scriptural proverb that says: "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven...a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance..." (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)

From my experience, this applies to religious services as well as other walks of life. There will be times of joy and times of sadness, times of happy and boistrous singing and times of quiet and peaceful reverence, though each time done with the intent of bettering mankind in gratitude to the Lord.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You know what's interesting, Wade? Joseph Smith spoke poorly about the Methodists(UNDERSTATEMENT), and I've seen those on MAD speak of stereotypes of Methodists and the Church. Yet, interestingly enough the Methodist Church does not join other Protestants with calling the LDS Church a false Christianity. Funny thing, that is, eh?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/25/story_2570_1.html

"The more complicated reason for my concern was that there was so much contention over what the church ought to do regarding homosexuality that more conservative delegates than usual had been elected to the 2000 General Conference. I was afraid that this turn toward conservatism might cause my church to join the Southern Baptists in charging that Mormonism is "counterfeit Christianity." Had United Methodism gone in that direction, I would have been distressed, in part because such charges are mean-spirited and in part because they are simply wrong."

[_KimberlyAnn]

The Methodist Church doesn't accept Mormon baptisms, though, Moniker. They do accept other Protestant baptisms, and Catholic baptisms, also. I believe the baptisms must have been done by a church that holds to orthodox Trinitarian views.

Joseph Smith called all Christian creeds abominations and their preachers corrupt, though, interestingly, he attempted to join the Methodists after the First Vision, but they wouldn't have him.

KA

[_wenglund]

I don't know that my position can accurately be described as "stoicism" (I think myself closer in secular terms to Choice Theory and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, though religiously I believe my position quite in line with Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices--not the least of which is are the principles of personal agency and responsibility even in matters of emotion), nor do I think that a person who chooses to be joyous (rather than choosing to leave one's joy in the hands of others) is all that rare among mankind. But, whatever the case may be, my interest in not so much in complying with majority habits, but in what may work in mine and others best interest. And, since I believe that joyousness is a good and healthy thing, and thus in our best interest, I believe it wise to find ways (through personal choice) that we can attain that condition, rather than leaving it to circumstances and the whims of others over which we have little or no control.

If you choice otherwise, and think it best to let your circumstances control your joy, and thus restrict your joyousness to drums and guitar modes of religious observance, then I can respect that. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think this is a fascinating observation, Wade. Basically, what you're saying is that, within the Church, one must "choose" to have joy. That is, there isn't anything explicitly "joyous" about the Church---there is no concrete, observable, empirical aspect of the Church which one could reasonably describe as being "joyous." Rather, the "joyousness" must be a conscious choice. Or, to put it another way, the "joy" you experience is all in your head. This seems a very insightful observation on your part, Wade.

Actually, that supposed "insight" you just mentioned above is somewhat foreign to my way of thinking.

While I do believe that the condition or state of mind of joyousness is best derived through proactive choice to that end, I don't see that as negating explicit external "joys" (including about the Church). In fact, to me, such a proactive choice predisposes the mind to better recognizing and taking advantage of the explicit external joys, while also embuing the external with internal joy--particularly where it may be somewhat absent. Said another way, it is a proactive choice that helps remove the somewhat inherant inclinations for debilitating and blinding cynicim, self-pity, etc., that prevent us from experinecing joy, even when it is there to be had in abundance.

Think of it as not unlike choosing to be optimistic and positive in one's outlook on life. Making such choices don't rob things of inherent or explicit positivity and optimism, though they do enable us to see things in that way--whether inherently so or not.

What I am advocating is taking personal responsibility for, and control over, ones disposition--a form of proactive joyousness, rather than leaving oneself at the mercy of reactive joyousness.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-