-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2006/08/16/should-objectivists-become-mormons/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- A Little Mystic Nationalism
- Scott Winship on Income Inequality
- Now Let Us Praise Results-Facilitating Virtue!
- Why Are There So few Women in Philosophy?
- Hey, I Can’t Actually Quite Imagine a World in Which Things Are Exactly as Different as the Need to Be to Give Me What I Want, but It Would Be Neat if I Could!!
Oh, and for happiness, what of the disproportionately high number of Objectivists who are angsty teens? These should only be compared to angsty mormon teens.
Chad, No minimum. I don't actually plan to survey Objectivists. I would count people who call themselves Objectivists Objectivists. I would, however, be careful to break them up into sub-groups by ID-ing how much of Rand they disagree with, who they consider the best living authorities on Objectivism to be, etc. All of them will score lower than Mormons.
I don't think it's irrelevant if a disproportionate number of O'ists are angsty teens. One of my suspicions is that the O'ist are less happy than Mormons because of negative self-selection. Angsty people, socially isolated people are more likely to become O'ists than sanguine extroverts. Anyway, it's just a thought experiment unless somebody comes up with the money to do a proper survey of Objectivists, which would truly be a weird way to spend money.
Also note: for a philosophy derived from "objective reality," Rand has some awfully Judaic notions of, for instance, the differences between animals and humans.
What should we do about it? (excluding conversion to Mormonism)
http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89
Of note is verse 2:
"2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the aword of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days"
I've been baffled at Mormons who say its a commandment to not drink alcohol, but they're own scriptures states the complete opposite.
Or course, verse 12 is usually ignored:
"12 Yea, flesh also of bbeasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;"
How many Mormons eat meat multiple times per day?
Weird huh?
How is that not doctine?
Objectivists are more critical beings, of course, including of themselves. I know from experience that critical self-analysis has left me with a feeble value system. I am constantly questioning my beliefs.
Thus, objectivists may score low on the achievement scale. What good are your values if you don't trust them?
I'm not sure you could have chosen two more disparate groups on the happiness spectrum.
The Church picks and chooses which parts to constrain members by (alcohol and tobacco), against God's intentions, and which parts to accept as mere advice (eating meat sparingly).
For kicks, go ask your local Mormons if its a commandment from God not to drink alcohol. Then point them out to that verse. You'll get a really whacky answer:
"Afterwards, the Church decided to have a vote and they voted to make parts of the Word of Wisdom commandment"
Talk about ballsy! Since when can mere mortals have a vote to decide devine law?
That's an interesting point. Are people happier when they achieve their value system's goals, or when they continue to strive towards them? (insert tired platitude about "the journey" vs the "destination" here)
For the record, I consider myself a happy objectivist. :)
- The Mormons, while often dealing with psychological repression to different degrees, are as a whole, one of the happiest, most loving, most fulfilled, longest living groups on the planet. Their path works for them (until it doesn't).
- As an executive coach, I've learned that the #1 factor that creates growth and change is a person's level of commitment. The Mormons, on the whole, have an extremely high level of commitment to loving and to personal growth - their organization demands it from them - and this is perhaps the single biggest strength of their church. Whether their beliefs are right or wrong, effective or ineffective, they COMMIT to them, both individually and collectively, and do all that they can to "walk their talk."
- This greatest strength is also the organization's greatest weakness (as is typically the case). When the members get to the place where they want to hold on to their commitment to love, but have outgrown some or all of the particular beliefs of their container (as we will all do, multiple times in our lives, if we keep growing) they often get caught in an extremely painful bind, as I did. When I left the church at 18, it was because I could no longer tolerate the civil war in my core - I could no longer deny my personal truths in order to be part of the loving collective. This was a *remarkably* painful choice, which is why there are so few of us "ex-mormons" who have done the healing work necessary to become "post-mormons."
- When this happens, and someone breaks away, it creates a tremendous learning opportunity both for the "leavee" as well as for their family. Sometimes the family fails to rise to the occasion (as happened with my grandfather and uncle) and sometimes they do (as happened with my father and I). When they do, it is typically because they learn and practice a truly profound truth - that love is greater than beliefs.
- If we would like to find more of the love and happiness the Mormons have, and don't feel called to their path, we can still learn from them. Namely, we can strive to find and immerse ourselves in growth processes that are "bigger than ourselves," we can strive to create the same over-arching level of commitment to loving no matter what it takes, and when faced each day with the "master choice" of "do you want to be right or loving?" we can strive to choose loving.
Thank you for opening such a provocative thread (at least for me!) I'm at a family reunion with my Mormon tribe right now, and this sparked my own process of working to see how I can choose my love for them over my remaining anger, hurt, and self-righteous judgments about their path and what it forced me to go through as I left it.
Namaste,
Brian
Which would you rather be: someone who lives in prison for 100 years, or someone who lives free for 50 years?
Longevity has not nearly as much to do with "flourishing" as you make it to be.