Where is the Joy in Mormonism?

[_ajax18]

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-

Perhaps, I've never learned of a difference between the two. For me it's just a fundamental philosophical difference I have with most people. I strongly reject the criticism that it is selfish or evil in some way to choose to do the right thing because you know it is in your ultimate best interest. In fact, I think that if most of these critics were to examine themselves a little more deeply they would recognize that most of what they do is in fact for their own sake. Nor do I think they would maintain that doing something for yourself is inherently evil. Yet if we listen to talks on selfishness and follow them to their logical conclusions, one could very easily get the idea that doing anything for yourself is somehow evil.

I don't think I'm in a minority when I say that I could find a lot more appealing things to do than go to church, regardless of how captivating and inspiring the service seems to be. So, just going because I wanted to would probably never happen. It barely happens when I believe my eternal salvation depends on it.

[_Analytics]

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-

I agree that we can and should choose a proactively joyful disposition, but that doesn’t negate the responsibility for proactively choosing environments that facilitate joy.

In Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl claimed something to the effect that even when he was imprisoned in a concentration camp, he was still fully autonomous in his own mind and was able to chose to live a happy, purpose-driven, fulfilling life. If he was capable of that, I’m sure most of us could be happy in an LDS ward.

However, for some of us trying to find internal joy while in an LDS Church service is like somebody finding an internal sense of physical well-being while eating a diet consisting of nothing but doughnuts and an exercise routine that consists of carrying Coke from the fridge to the couch.

A lot of Mormonism is driven by a commitment to endure to the end. If Mormonism itself (e.g. the theology, the correlated lessons, the standardized worship services, gender roles) doesn’t do it for you and if you don’t happen to be assigned to a ward where you are energized by the other people who were assigned to be there, then you can find yourself motivated by nothing more than a commitment to obey the law of obedience and endure to the end.

I totally agree with what others have said—it works for many people and if it works for you then that’s great. But if it doesn’t work for you, then you have the moral obligation to take responsibility for your own life and choose an environment that is more conductive to the joy of yourself and the people around you.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I totally agree with what others have said—it works for many people and if it works for you then that’s great. But if it doesn’t work for you, then you have the moral obligation to take responsibility for your own life and choose an environment that is more conductive to the joy of yourself and the people around you.

Very wise counsel, Analytics!

KA

[_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-

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?

I am not sure what "poor" (understated) statments of Joseph Smith you have in mind. But I suppose one could go back through the centuries and selectively mine anyone's church history for "interesting" and "funny" quotes. After all, there are documented instances of Methodist (including Methodist ministers) among the various parties who tarred and feather Joseph at times--including the time when his twins sons were deathly sick. But, I am not sure how that would speak to my point, let alone help us personally to improve and better our lives.

The same is true for alleged comments on MAD.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_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.

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).

Who said anything about "negating" joys? The thread is entitled, "Where is the Joy in Mormonism?" Rather than mentioning anything specific, you've instead opted to dive into this void of "ah, well, in CBT, it all depends on your attitude, and la de da, etc.!" Why not offer up specific, concrete, external examples? Is it because you cannot, or are afraid to?

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.

Fair enough. But I'm still interested in seeing evidence for real, concrete, "external" joy---something within the Church which can objectively be labeled, "joyous."

[_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-

Perhaps, I've never learned of a difference between the two. For me it's just a fundamental philosophical difference I have with most people. I strongly reject the criticism that it is selfish or evil in some way to choose to do the right thing because you know it is in your ultimate best interest. In fact, I think that if most of these critics were to examine themselves a little more deeply they would recognize that most of what they do is in fact for their own sake. Nor do I think they would maintain that doing something for yourself is inherently evil. Yet if we listen to talks on selfishness and follow them to their logical conclusions, one could very easily get the idea that doing anything for yourself is somehow evil.

I don't think I'm in a minority when I say that I could find a lot more appealing things to do than go to church, regardless of how captivating and inspiring the service seems to be. So, just going because I wanted to would probably never happen. It barely happens when I believe my eternal salvation depends on it.

To me, the difference between self-interest and self-centeredness (or "selfishness") is the former is a secondary focus or objective or even a by-product of one's primary focus or objective, whereas the later is the primary focus or objective. For an example, a mother's love may cause her to sacrificing her time and energies and so forth for her children, from which she may derive joy and happiness that are in her interest, though her love makes her children-centered rather than self-centered. Were she self-centered, she would not make the sacrifices, or if she did, it would be primarily for her own benefit rather than her childrens. In other words, as maturity tends to teach us, it may be in one's interest to be loving and selfless (so-to-speak), while it may not be in one's interest to be self-centered. Such would not be possible if the two were equivolences.

But, this is not said in an attempt to persuade you to attend church again. As an adult you have the right to choose and decide what is in your best interest. Rather, it is intended to provide a different perspective to the one you gave regarding the supposed motives and actions of the Church. While the Church may rightly promote self-interest, the gospel it espouses is intended to promote selflessness and love, which is quite opposed to self-centeredness--though not a few members and former members may get the two confused. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Moniker]

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.

Yah, that's in the article I linked to, KA. I was just attempting to point out to Wade that they do not join many of the other Protestant Churches that say the LDS Church is Satanic or other such nonsense. Joseph Smith specifically talked poorly about the Methodists and yet, the Methodist Church is still not calling the LDS Church a false Christianity.

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.

When I first joined MAD I saw mention of Methodists and Joseph Smith so that was something I researched. I was surprised at the history. I was more surprised at the sentiments I saw expressed at MAD, at times. It's interesting that some can talk poorly about other sects of Christianity, yet, call foul when theirs is targeted. It's so silly!

[_wenglund]

Who said anything about "negating" joys? The thread is entitled, "Where is the Joy in Mormonism?" Rather than mentioning anything specific, you've instead opted to dive into this void of "ah, well, in CBT, it all depends on your attitude, and la de da, etc.!" Why not offer up specific, concrete, external examples? Is it because you cannot, or are afraid to?

Neither (see below).

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.

Fair enough. But I'm still interested in seeing evidence for real, concrete, "external" joy---something within the Church which can objectively be labeled, "joyous."

Given the inherent subjective nature of emotions, I don't know that emotions (including "joyousness") can be "objectively" labelled. Certainly, I have not suggested that they could. So, I am not sure why you are asking for evidence of things I have not asserted.

But if you wish to have evidence of joyousness (subjectively speaking) about the Church, then paradoxically that will necessitate your making the proactive choice to be joyous. And, you will know when you have succeeded when the evidence becomes self-evident. Until then, it is unlikely that the evidence will be viewed by you as such.

Either way I am fine with it.

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?

I am not sure what "poor" (understated) statments of Joseph Smith you have in mind. But I suppose one could go back through the centuries and selectively mine anyone's church history for "interesting" and "funny" quotes. After all, there are documented instances of Methodist (including Methodist ministers) among the various parties who tarred and feather Joseph at times--including the time when his twins sons were deathly sick. But, I am not sure how that would speak to my point, let alone help us personally to improve and better our lives.

The same is true for alleged comments on MAD.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, perhaps if we want to personally improve and better our lives we shouldn't make statements such as these?

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. ;-)

Why don't you go say that a few times at MAD, Wade? :)

[_harmony]

Fair enough. But I'm still interested in seeing evidence for real, concrete, "external" joy---something within the Church which can objectively be labeled, "joyous."

Here's a dozen:

1. Any Elder's Quorum party where Harley Davidson motorcycles are the decorations.
2. the High Priest Corn Feed
3. The 24th of July celebration in the park
4. the New Year's Eve Party
5. the Christmas in Bethlehem activity
6. listening to special music numbers that skirt the decree.
7. the picture of Christ that still hangs in my chapel, 30 years after we were ordered to take it down.
8. dances in the parking lot for the opening social after school starts every year
9. water skiing for Mutual.
10. Girls' Camp
11. the father's face, after blessing the baby
12. playing with my grandkids in the foyer.