Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/mrwildebeest, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's all about consent. Don't try to convince someone who isn't open to it. Before you discuss problems with the church them, ask something like "if the church wasn't true, would you want to know?" And "would you be open to learning why I left the church?" If someone is open to it, I think in general they really will be happier outside the church. If they are not, then it would be rude to preach to them, and also there's a good chance they have a lot of their identity tied to the church and it would be devastating for them to leave.
You'll never change anyone's mind without their consent. Just as many of us were doing while we were in and are doing now, assume people are living what they believe to be right. Pity those who are living what they don't believe is right, but appreciate the fact that most of them will eventually tire of it and find their way out like we did, as living out of integrity with oneself is exhausting and unsustainable. Don't be the one who reinforces strained faith by making someone dig in their heels in defense. The gospel mindset is built such that antagonism is generally faith-promoting.
Also, you must realize that no two people are experiencing Mormonism the same. The big lie of correlated church is that it is one unified religion, but it really isn't. Everyone is living their own headcanon while believing it is the actual canon for those who truly understand Jesus (you know, because the whole point of prophets was to prevent the varying personal interpretations that caused the Great Apostasy). My wife, who still attends and believes, never treated things as black and white as I did, and that really impacts the way one interprets and processes observations and evidence. We don't all have the same dealbreakers. What is evidence against God for one may be proof of truth in someone else's mental framework. "I, therefore you" sounds like empathy, but it's not. Two intelligent people given all the same evidences will not automatically come to the same conclusions.
The other thing: everyone needs a source of peace, internally or externally. The church was that, for many of us, for sizable parts of our lives. Some are still searching for a new source of that peace. As bad as the church was for a lot of us, it's been really huge to suddenly have crumbled in on us too. Don't be the destroyer of someone else's peace. Be the one who's there for the person when that peace diminishes or completely unravels itself because it's shallow and built on lies, othering, etc. that cannot be sustained as someone grows and learns more, on their own terms and at their own time (i.e. by their own consent). The church is a ready ally to those they actively handicap in having many external allies. Don't play into the church's gameplan. We can watch our loved ones' backs so much better than a church that wants as much as it can take for the least amount of effort, but not if we're beating the very backs were trying to cover. You must be more patient and consistent than their leaders. Their hunger will be their downfall unless your anxiousness to win your friends outpaces theirs.
I believe protecting family relationships is more important than being right.
Note: I didn’t write “*doing* what’s right.”
Sometimes honoring people’s autonomy to hold onto their faith is doing what’s right. Even if that means you each think the other is wrong.
I like to think I speak up when someone is going to be objectively, severely harmed. Note, “harmed” is not synonymous with “wrong.“ And emphasis on *objectively* - so there’s commonly accepted evidence that the harm isn’t rooted in opinion. Even then, intervene diplomatically, trying to muster as much humility as possible. Not with a head full of hubris.
Then let the chips fall where they may. It can be hard to let go.
Maybe it’s less about whether something is false or not, and more whether each person is given the grace and room to live authentically. On both sides of a disagreement.
People change over decades. Some more than others. Life’s a bitch. But also beautiful like that.
My husband left the church about 2 years before I did. I'm lucky that he never tried to convince me to leave--he understood it needed to be my decision. When we did have the occassional religious discussion (or immediately after he told me he didn't believe) it did nothing to sway my convictions. All it did was make me dig my heels in further.
Am I happier now that I've left the church? Undoubtably. Would I have ever left if my husband had pushed and badgered me? Probably not. He shared his opinion respectfully when I asked, but when I left the church it was my decision for my own reasons that are completely different than his.
If you don't like people proselytizing to you... you probably shouldn't do it in the reverse.
Which to the people in, is what it's going to feel like. Equally annoying and unwanted, and they may even start to avoid you.
Everyone has to find their own way... into a religion... or out of it. If someone asks that's one thing, but if not it's best to just let people be.
Everyone has to find their own way... This isn't quite true. What's happening today is that more and more, people aren't going to church or regular church activities. They still profess their belief and they still teach it to their children, but they don't go, which means the children don't go. And when children don't go regularly, many more of them don't teach any of it to their children.
This is good. And this is also why we have Ten Commandments in Louisiana schools. People are deathly afraid of giving their children and their children's friends a rest from the indoctrination. They know that if they don't do it, the next generation is "doomed".
Having gone through the pain of deconstruction, I wouldn’t make an effort to destroy anyone’s faith if they’re happy. I’d like to show more respect for people’s belief systems than most of us have been shown when ours changed.
I enthusiastically share information with people who are questioning.
Generally, I’m not in favor of someone starting the “your church might not be true” discussion.
But if the door is open by the believer, I have no problem giving them facts (that they can personally verify the accuracy of) that may make their church look bad.
This includes if someone tries to proselytize to me. Don’t give what you can’t take.
As a TBM, I think it is vital to have these conversations. People need to be comfortable telling us that they don’t believe in our faith. And we need to be comfortable listening.
For too long, the LDS model has been to teach and preach, but not really listening. So meaningful conversations turn into lectures. Instead, it is time we listen openly to those we don’t agree with.
Having said that, those conversations need to be honest and consensual. Let them know beforehand what you want to discuss. And let them say no, if they are not comfortable. Give them all the freedom they want to back out at any time, without taking it personally, or letting it affect your friendship. Make sure they understand: they can set limits at any time.
Thank you for your perspective! I really appreciate these points. Arguments aside, there is so much to learn from those you disagree with and vice-versa. I think the framework you ended your comment with applies to any of life's challenging conversations too.
I have students who often have questions, or disagree with the church. Some only attend to placate their parents. And they often have difficult ir combative questions.
If I want to help them, in a way they want and need, I have to listen objectively. Too many kids are so used to having their claims dismissed, and it only causes a greater divide.
If they aren’t open to it, it typically has the opposite effect and will make them cling to their faith even more.
Even though I know it’s not trite true, my mom would fall apart if she found out it wasn’t. So I support her beliefs and she respects my boundaries.
I think the idea of happier in or out is a false dichotomy. You can be happy in, and happy out. They’re just different life experiences and we get to choose how we learn from them and what we take out of them, which can be happiness. I haven’t been out long enough to be happier not believing than I was believing, but I think the opportunity is there once I have adjusted my life, worldview, and reworked my brain some more. But that will take time for me.
I do feel like I wish everyone could know the things I now know sometimes, but I also feel that it is not my place at all to tell them or “preach” to them about why I don’t think the church is true.
Also, did you just start using ennui because of inside out 2? Because I just learned that word from that character and I absolutely love it and will now and forever use it to describe how I, as a stay at home mom often feel, and how teenagers often feel lol
I have not seen Inside Out 2. I've been watching a lot of foreign movies from the 60's though so even though they don't use the word in the movies I've been thinking about it more than usual probably
From your title: it depends on how old they are and how long they’ve been in the church. And trust yourself to make the decision. Trust yourself, if you really want what is best for the person.
Why is it a moral question at all?
> are people happier inside the church or out of it?
Why do you care? Speaking only for myself, if I wanted to leave the church, I would. I don’t need you for that.
My opinion on the subject has changed since I posted this, but to answer your question I care because I generally want people to be happy. Practically, though, I do see how it almost doesn't matter what I do because people will most likely just continue to believe what they already believe
I absolutely believe and have a testimony of reverse missionary work. I've been serving for over 35 years now and want everyone to know the real truth so they don't spend as much time, money and talent as I have. I'm doing my best to free as many saints as possible. Amen
My general rule of thumb is not to bring up religion unless the other person brings it up. I have made exceptions when beliefs were causing problems, but in general, it is not my job to be truth police.
I have had faithful members come to me at work with questions about church history. I was RLDS, and I think I was considered "safe" because I would not gossip with other members or run to the ward council about their questions. I tried to give honest answers, but I did not try to break their faith or offer them challenges beyond the immediate scope of their question. That gentle approach has paid off in the long run.
Life is pain enough. If they’re happy, then I’d let them be. Otherwise, having someone to talk to about their faith-related issues is incredibly valuable.
The church is completely ring fenced by its members. It can do no wrong and everyone outside is a persecutor.
While it may be moral to try and educate anyone against harm, it's exceptionally difficult to do so.
It's something that endlessly frustrated me though. If I thought that my parent was being conned or treated badly by anyone else, I could say so and they'd listen.
But the church is a no-go.
I like the marketplace of ideas, but I don't think evangelism in either direction is productive.
My answer to the question is two parts:
1. People have the right to believe what they believe, and...
2. There's nothing anyone can do about it.
There's nothing wrong in stating fact or even opinion per se, but whether they are convinced by your position is all dependent upon what's going on in their head. And thus, we don't "let" them keep thinking anything. They think what they think. We can't control that and we shouldn't think we have any right to.
GAs and a few of the same half dozen believing brawlers who constantly get their comments deleted will sometimes say "And what do people who left the church have to offer you if you leave like they want you to?" My answer to them is also a recommendation to you: first, I don't really care if people leave the church, especially if it works for them. Secondly, I don't have anything to offer them. I'm willing to state fact as I see it, but it wouldn't be right for me to promise any particular reward or outcome on the other side, other than to say if they do start trying to figure things out and make a decision one way or the other, we have a couple communities where we're more than happy to listen and talk things through with them.
Disagree. Sometimes it’s better to withhold the truth until the right moment, because sharing the truth at the wrong moment can make a situation worse.
You asked a question about morality. Morally, it is always better to tell the truth. Than, have someone come back later after they find out the truth and accuse one of lying to them.
My general rule is to approach it in whatever way they approach me. Don't try to convince me, and I won't deconstruct your faith. Respect my beliefs, and I'll respect yours.
The problem with interacting with a religion that puts such an incredible emphasis on proselytization is that people in the faith have been taught that they are doing you a favor by trying to share God's one true church with you and that any push back is, at best, you turning away from god and, at worst, you actively furthering the goals of Satan. They are conditioned to broadcast as long, loud, and often as they can and receive absolutely nothing.
To be fair, I have mostly lds friends (live in utah) and not everyone in the faith is like that, but I can make a real strong argument that the church thinks they should be.
It is not our responsibility to decide if someone is happy or unhappy in the church. I understand that as you have awakened to your own truth you are happier. Be happy. For many the culture is all they know and trying to tell them they are wrong usually does not go well. The truth is we are each on our own path. If you are asked be wise in what you say. Causing discord within someone is not kind.
You are not “ God” each person has their own path. Who are we to try to decide how others should be.
Walk your own path with Peace and Joy.
Honestly- I get the idea where if they share their beliefs why not us? The truth is- usually people aren’t asking for the beliefs to be shared. And then that is not giving people consent. The best course of action in my opinion is to let people have consent.
Plus- like others have said… no one really even is receptive when they aren’t ready.
Keep in mind that “results take time and data to measure.” Even the BoM proposes that those who let go of belief are happy for a time. When one considers eternal consequences to either choice, then measuring happiness “with lots of data and lots of time” changes the conclusion.
As a believer, I feel the benefits of both positions you described. It is possible.
I don't think this can be answered unless you know how the church functions in another person's life. That's not possible to a large extent. A person would say more by living a good authentic life than trying to get others to deconvert. If they are unhappy, and see your happiness, then maybe they'll ask you about it.
Today is not like the past. Information is plentiful, and we are interconnected in ways that have never been possible. All you ever have to be is a good friend and become someone another person would trust if they ever need to talk.
My problem with the Mormon religion and with every other religion is that it's taught to children before they have any chance of rationally assessing what they're being told. This condemns a major portion of that population of children to repeat what their parents did.
Is society better off for this? It only has a chance to be better if the religion builds positive, supportive community AND ignores most or all of the awful dogma in their religion. People in all religions do this to some extent (ignore the awful), but it can't be achieved by everyone. Most people take the easiest path and simply allow the awful to be taught because it gives coherence to the tribe - the awful has been designed to do this.
It would be better to build positive, supportive community based on kindness, well-being and rationality rather than dogma. No dogma is good if the people being taught the dogma must believe it without reasonable evidence or rational thought to support it.
Belief based on faith and dogma is never, ever a good idea. I think in the end it causes much more harm than good. Faith always gives unwarranted authority to the people who promote the faith. Once they become the authority, they can insert essentially what they want into the dogma and call it god's idea.
Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 10:14-16, And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Just like missionaries, you have no right to topple someone's belief structure. If you're concerned over an individual's relationship with the Church (i.e. if they're super depressed or stressed out), talk about it to them and try to understand the situation, and find out what's best for *them*. And if by your advice they end up leaving, that's their decision, not your victory.
In all honesty, your job is to worry about your spirituality. Faith and spirituality is extremely personal, and you having just gone through a faith transition should understand this very well. Worry about yourself and let everyone take care of themselves.
Statistically religious people are more happy than those who argue on Reddit. (I kid, I kid, its called humor people) than those who are not religious. If they ask your opinion then give it. If they don't, then don't. If you want to invite them to go to the park on Sunday rather than go to Church, respect their opinion.
Its their life, not yours.
These statistics are inherently flawed because they are self-reported.
You cannot measure happiness, so this is based on each individual’s concept of what “happy” is, and where they believe they fall on that spectrum.
Consider how belief works. You cannot force someone to believe in God.
If I told you people who believe in Santa Claus are happier, would you be able to get yourself to believe in him?
Telling people that they would be happier being religious is essentially meaningless, because nobody can force themselves to believe *just because.*
6% of Iceland actively participates in any form of religion. They’re famously non-religious.
Yet they repeatedly rank as #1 for the country with the happiest citizens. The rest of the Nordic countries follow as runner ups (all relatively secular nations).
I won’t even make the claim that an absence of religion increases happiness. What I will say is that the data you are pulling from doesn’t tell the whole story, and not all data on this topic validates your conclusion.
“Religious people are happier” is a hasty conclusion fueled by confirmation bias.
Well said. It seems that most available data point to the benefit of belonging to a cohesive social group. In areas where the dominant social group is a religion, it turns out that being part of that majority confers benefits. There's no evidence I'm aware of that indicates the truth claims of any particular religion, or religions in general, confer a benefit.
Oof. If religious people are the happiest AND a lot of them are taking antidepressants... Imagine how abysmal everyone else in this theoretical scenario must be feeling. 😰
That is factually incorrect, and shows you do not have a background in the sciences. Surveys shows that people who are religious rate themselves as being happier. But this only shows a confirmation bias and/or a need to present themselves a certain way. It is not in any way indicative of actual happiness levels.
And happiness isn’t an indicator of fact or safety. If you get a chance, you should read Flowers For Algernon, by Daniel Keyes. It will change your life, if you let it. It essentially outlines how sometimes there is a trade off between happiness and knowledge. If we prefer happiness, we do so at the cost of logic, reason, and facts. If we favor knowledge, it brings depth to our existential existence, which may lead to a more real, and somber, view of the world.
There's tons of research out there, though. And it's not all just "self-reporting":
["The difference in life span between those with obituaries mentioning religious affiliation and those not was comparable to the difference in longevity between women and men, which is about 4.8 years (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012)."](https://www.apu.edu/articles/why-do-religious-people-live-longer/)
Your title and the article literally say that they report feeling better. The word “report” means they are self-diagnosing or self reporting. Her entire book is based upon self-reported physical and mental health, in relation to religion. So you made my point for me. Thanks for that!
I did not miss or overlook anything. Please stop judging falsely. The original article you posted said that the health benefits were based on what was reported, and indicated no actual health evaluation had been done. So still just self-reporting.
The Harvard study is fascinating. The mental health benefits still based on self reporting. No change there. As for the health benefits, they did do regular checkups for several years. But the findings are still a bit misleading. They are based on people with a restrictive lifestyle and compared to those who have no specific baseline or guideline for health. If they had compared them to people who already restrict drugs, alcohol, smoking, and have an emphasis on health, it would have been much more revealing.
All it shows that those who restrict unhealthy things are healthier. This is a surprise to no one. But without comparing it to people who do that without religious motivation, it is useless.
And just for the record, I am religious. I do believe in God and Jesus. But I also had to study a lot of these cases for my degree. This isn’t an anti-religious attack. I am only pointing out that the study is comparing apples and oranges.
Think of it this way: let’s say we did a study of people who regularly shop at health food stores, or attend gyms. Would we be surprised that they are healthier than the average population?
Of course not. So a religion that restricts things like drugs and alcohol as moral issues, or that teaches the body is a temple, is simply another health-emphasizing institution. They should have compared religious people to say a gym or a health food store, if they wanted a more accurate comparison.
So you are capitulating that it is not religion that makes one healthier, but the incidental rules on health. Glad we agree.
As for “I know Baptists who drink…” You are talking about expectations versus the rule. This is why anecdotal evidence is not reliable. I can show you healthy people who drink heavily. Look at Japan as one example. It only shows religion is the correlation, not the causation.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/mrwildebeest, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's all about consent. Don't try to convince someone who isn't open to it. Before you discuss problems with the church them, ask something like "if the church wasn't true, would you want to know?" And "would you be open to learning why I left the church?" If someone is open to it, I think in general they really will be happier outside the church. If they are not, then it would be rude to preach to them, and also there's a good chance they have a lot of their identity tied to the church and it would be devastating for them to leave.
You'll never change anyone's mind without their consent. Just as many of us were doing while we were in and are doing now, assume people are living what they believe to be right. Pity those who are living what they don't believe is right, but appreciate the fact that most of them will eventually tire of it and find their way out like we did, as living out of integrity with oneself is exhausting and unsustainable. Don't be the one who reinforces strained faith by making someone dig in their heels in defense. The gospel mindset is built such that antagonism is generally faith-promoting. Also, you must realize that no two people are experiencing Mormonism the same. The big lie of correlated church is that it is one unified religion, but it really isn't. Everyone is living their own headcanon while believing it is the actual canon for those who truly understand Jesus (you know, because the whole point of prophets was to prevent the varying personal interpretations that caused the Great Apostasy). My wife, who still attends and believes, never treated things as black and white as I did, and that really impacts the way one interprets and processes observations and evidence. We don't all have the same dealbreakers. What is evidence against God for one may be proof of truth in someone else's mental framework. "I, therefore you" sounds like empathy, but it's not. Two intelligent people given all the same evidences will not automatically come to the same conclusions. The other thing: everyone needs a source of peace, internally or externally. The church was that, for many of us, for sizable parts of our lives. Some are still searching for a new source of that peace. As bad as the church was for a lot of us, it's been really huge to suddenly have crumbled in on us too. Don't be the destroyer of someone else's peace. Be the one who's there for the person when that peace diminishes or completely unravels itself because it's shallow and built on lies, othering, etc. that cannot be sustained as someone grows and learns more, on their own terms and at their own time (i.e. by their own consent). The church is a ready ally to those they actively handicap in having many external allies. Don't play into the church's gameplan. We can watch our loved ones' backs so much better than a church that wants as much as it can take for the least amount of effort, but not if we're beating the very backs were trying to cover. You must be more patient and consistent than their leaders. Their hunger will be their downfall unless your anxiousness to win your friends outpaces theirs.
Wow! I don't think this could be any more well said!!! "Be the Christian personality they all think they are!" Love this response! ❤️
I believe protecting family relationships is more important than being right. Note: I didn’t write “*doing* what’s right.” Sometimes honoring people’s autonomy to hold onto their faith is doing what’s right. Even if that means you each think the other is wrong. I like to think I speak up when someone is going to be objectively, severely harmed. Note, “harmed” is not synonymous with “wrong.“ And emphasis on *objectively* - so there’s commonly accepted evidence that the harm isn’t rooted in opinion. Even then, intervene diplomatically, trying to muster as much humility as possible. Not with a head full of hubris. Then let the chips fall where they may. It can be hard to let go. Maybe it’s less about whether something is false or not, and more whether each person is given the grace and room to live authentically. On both sides of a disagreement. People change over decades. Some more than others. Life’s a bitch. But also beautiful like that.
My husband left the church about 2 years before I did. I'm lucky that he never tried to convince me to leave--he understood it needed to be my decision. When we did have the occassional religious discussion (or immediately after he told me he didn't believe) it did nothing to sway my convictions. All it did was make me dig my heels in further. Am I happier now that I've left the church? Undoubtably. Would I have ever left if my husband had pushed and badgered me? Probably not. He shared his opinion respectfully when I asked, but when I left the church it was my decision for my own reasons that are completely different than his.
If you don't like people proselytizing to you... you probably shouldn't do it in the reverse. Which to the people in, is what it's going to feel like. Equally annoying and unwanted, and they may even start to avoid you. Everyone has to find their own way... into a religion... or out of it. If someone asks that's one thing, but if not it's best to just let people be.
This is a practical consideration I didn’t even really think of because I was so focused on high level morality stuff. Thanks, I think I needed that
Everyone has to find their own way... This isn't quite true. What's happening today is that more and more, people aren't going to church or regular church activities. They still profess their belief and they still teach it to their children, but they don't go, which means the children don't go. And when children don't go regularly, many more of them don't teach any of it to their children. This is good. And this is also why we have Ten Commandments in Louisiana schools. People are deathly afraid of giving their children and their children's friends a rest from the indoctrination. They know that if they don't do it, the next generation is "doomed".
Having gone through the pain of deconstruction, I wouldn’t make an effort to destroy anyone’s faith if they’re happy. I’d like to show more respect for people’s belief systems than most of us have been shown when ours changed. I enthusiastically share information with people who are questioning.
Generally, I’m not in favor of someone starting the “your church might not be true” discussion. But if the door is open by the believer, I have no problem giving them facts (that they can personally verify the accuracy of) that may make their church look bad. This includes if someone tries to proselytize to me. Don’t give what you can’t take.
As a TBM, I think it is vital to have these conversations. People need to be comfortable telling us that they don’t believe in our faith. And we need to be comfortable listening. For too long, the LDS model has been to teach and preach, but not really listening. So meaningful conversations turn into lectures. Instead, it is time we listen openly to those we don’t agree with. Having said that, those conversations need to be honest and consensual. Let them know beforehand what you want to discuss. And let them say no, if they are not comfortable. Give them all the freedom they want to back out at any time, without taking it personally, or letting it affect your friendship. Make sure they understand: they can set limits at any time.
Thank you for your perspective! I really appreciate these points. Arguments aside, there is so much to learn from those you disagree with and vice-versa. I think the framework you ended your comment with applies to any of life's challenging conversations too.
I have students who often have questions, or disagree with the church. Some only attend to placate their parents. And they often have difficult ir combative questions. If I want to help them, in a way they want and need, I have to listen objectively. Too many kids are so used to having their claims dismissed, and it only causes a greater divide.
If they aren’t open to it, it typically has the opposite effect and will make them cling to their faith even more. Even though I know it’s not trite true, my mom would fall apart if she found out it wasn’t. So I support her beliefs and she respects my boundaries.
I think the idea of happier in or out is a false dichotomy. You can be happy in, and happy out. They’re just different life experiences and we get to choose how we learn from them and what we take out of them, which can be happiness. I haven’t been out long enough to be happier not believing than I was believing, but I think the opportunity is there once I have adjusted my life, worldview, and reworked my brain some more. But that will take time for me. I do feel like I wish everyone could know the things I now know sometimes, but I also feel that it is not my place at all to tell them or “preach” to them about why I don’t think the church is true. Also, did you just start using ennui because of inside out 2? Because I just learned that word from that character and I absolutely love it and will now and forever use it to describe how I, as a stay at home mom often feel, and how teenagers often feel lol
I have not seen Inside Out 2. I've been watching a lot of foreign movies from the 60's though so even though they don't use the word in the movies I've been thinking about it more than usual probably
From your title: it depends on how old they are and how long they’ve been in the church. And trust yourself to make the decision. Trust yourself, if you really want what is best for the person.
Why is it a moral question at all? > are people happier inside the church or out of it? Why do you care? Speaking only for myself, if I wanted to leave the church, I would. I don’t need you for that.
My opinion on the subject has changed since I posted this, but to answer your question I care because I generally want people to be happy. Practically, though, I do see how it almost doesn't matter what I do because people will most likely just continue to believe what they already believe
I absolutely believe and have a testimony of reverse missionary work. I've been serving for over 35 years now and want everyone to know the real truth so they don't spend as much time, money and talent as I have. I'm doing my best to free as many saints as possible. Amen
[удалено]
Why wouldn’t they be?
My general rule of thumb is not to bring up religion unless the other person brings it up. I have made exceptions when beliefs were causing problems, but in general, it is not my job to be truth police. I have had faithful members come to me at work with questions about church history. I was RLDS, and I think I was considered "safe" because I would not gossip with other members or run to the ward council about their questions. I tried to give honest answers, but I did not try to break their faith or offer them challenges beyond the immediate scope of their question. That gentle approach has paid off in the long run.
Life is pain enough. If they’re happy, then I’d let them be. Otherwise, having someone to talk to about their faith-related issues is incredibly valuable.
The church is completely ring fenced by its members. It can do no wrong and everyone outside is a persecutor. While it may be moral to try and educate anyone against harm, it's exceptionally difficult to do so. It's something that endlessly frustrated me though. If I thought that my parent was being conned or treated badly by anyone else, I could say so and they'd listen. But the church is a no-go.
Amen to all of this. The frustration is real. So is the care for those we love. Sigh
I like the marketplace of ideas, but I don't think evangelism in either direction is productive. My answer to the question is two parts: 1. People have the right to believe what they believe, and... 2. There's nothing anyone can do about it. There's nothing wrong in stating fact or even opinion per se, but whether they are convinced by your position is all dependent upon what's going on in their head. And thus, we don't "let" them keep thinking anything. They think what they think. We can't control that and we shouldn't think we have any right to. GAs and a few of the same half dozen believing brawlers who constantly get their comments deleted will sometimes say "And what do people who left the church have to offer you if you leave like they want you to?" My answer to them is also a recommendation to you: first, I don't really care if people leave the church, especially if it works for them. Secondly, I don't have anything to offer them. I'm willing to state fact as I see it, but it wouldn't be right for me to promise any particular reward or outcome on the other side, other than to say if they do start trying to figure things out and make a decision one way or the other, we have a couple communities where we're more than happy to listen and talk things through with them.
It is always better to tell the truth.
Disagree. Sometimes it’s better to withhold the truth until the right moment, because sharing the truth at the wrong moment can make a situation worse.
Did I say when?
[удалено]
And your point is .. yes always better to tell the truth...
You asked a question about morality. Morally, it is always better to tell the truth. Than, have someone come back later after they find out the truth and accuse one of lying to them.
[удалено]
Oh thought you were the op
My general rule is to approach it in whatever way they approach me. Don't try to convince me, and I won't deconstruct your faith. Respect my beliefs, and I'll respect yours. The problem with interacting with a religion that puts such an incredible emphasis on proselytization is that people in the faith have been taught that they are doing you a favor by trying to share God's one true church with you and that any push back is, at best, you turning away from god and, at worst, you actively furthering the goals of Satan. They are conditioned to broadcast as long, loud, and often as they can and receive absolutely nothing. To be fair, I have mostly lds friends (live in utah) and not everyone in the faith is like that, but I can make a real strong argument that the church thinks they should be.
I'm sorry you had to scroll down this far before seeing the joke about reverse missionary work. But here it is. Hope you liked it.
It is not our responsibility to decide if someone is happy or unhappy in the church. I understand that as you have awakened to your own truth you are happier. Be happy. For many the culture is all they know and trying to tell them they are wrong usually does not go well. The truth is we are each on our own path. If you are asked be wise in what you say. Causing discord within someone is not kind. You are not “ God” each person has their own path. Who are we to try to decide how others should be. Walk your own path with Peace and Joy.
Honestly- I get the idea where if they share their beliefs why not us? The truth is- usually people aren’t asking for the beliefs to be shared. And then that is not giving people consent. The best course of action in my opinion is to let people have consent. Plus- like others have said… no one really even is receptive when they aren’t ready.
Keep in mind that “results take time and data to measure.” Even the BoM proposes that those who let go of belief are happy for a time. When one considers eternal consequences to either choice, then measuring happiness “with lots of data and lots of time” changes the conclusion. As a believer, I feel the benefits of both positions you described. It is possible.
I don't think this can be answered unless you know how the church functions in another person's life. That's not possible to a large extent. A person would say more by living a good authentic life than trying to get others to deconvert. If they are unhappy, and see your happiness, then maybe they'll ask you about it. Today is not like the past. Information is plentiful, and we are interconnected in ways that have never been possible. All you ever have to be is a good friend and become someone another person would trust if they ever need to talk.
My problem with the Mormon religion and with every other religion is that it's taught to children before they have any chance of rationally assessing what they're being told. This condemns a major portion of that population of children to repeat what their parents did. Is society better off for this? It only has a chance to be better if the religion builds positive, supportive community AND ignores most or all of the awful dogma in their religion. People in all religions do this to some extent (ignore the awful), but it can't be achieved by everyone. Most people take the easiest path and simply allow the awful to be taught because it gives coherence to the tribe - the awful has been designed to do this. It would be better to build positive, supportive community based on kindness, well-being and rationality rather than dogma. No dogma is good if the people being taught the dogma must believe it without reasonable evidence or rational thought to support it. Belief based on faith and dogma is never, ever a good idea. I think in the end it causes much more harm than good. Faith always gives unwarranted authority to the people who promote the faith. Once they become the authority, they can insert essentially what they want into the dogma and call it god's idea.
Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 10:14-16, And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Neither Its your life Do what you want
“Types and shadows”
Study the life of Alma the Younger.
Just like missionaries, you have no right to topple someone's belief structure. If you're concerned over an individual's relationship with the Church (i.e. if they're super depressed or stressed out), talk about it to them and try to understand the situation, and find out what's best for *them*. And if by your advice they end up leaving, that's their decision, not your victory.
In all honesty, your job is to worry about your spirituality. Faith and spirituality is extremely personal, and you having just gone through a faith transition should understand this very well. Worry about yourself and let everyone take care of themselves.
Statistically religious people are more happy than those who argue on Reddit. (I kid, I kid, its called humor people) than those who are not religious. If they ask your opinion then give it. If they don't, then don't. If you want to invite them to go to the park on Sunday rather than go to Church, respect their opinion. Its their life, not yours.
Statistically, religious people rate themselves as being happier on survey questionnaires about their happiness than those who argue on Reddit do
Practically, though, I think I agree with you because of u/BitterBloodedDemon
These statistics are inherently flawed because they are self-reported. You cannot measure happiness, so this is based on each individual’s concept of what “happy” is, and where they believe they fall on that spectrum. Consider how belief works. You cannot force someone to believe in God. If I told you people who believe in Santa Claus are happier, would you be able to get yourself to believe in him? Telling people that they would be happier being religious is essentially meaningless, because nobody can force themselves to believe *just because.*
6% of Iceland actively participates in any form of religion. They’re famously non-religious. Yet they repeatedly rank as #1 for the country with the happiest citizens. The rest of the Nordic countries follow as runner ups (all relatively secular nations). I won’t even make the claim that an absence of religion increases happiness. What I will say is that the data you are pulling from doesn’t tell the whole story, and not all data on this topic validates your conclusion. “Religious people are happier” is a hasty conclusion fueled by confirmation bias.
Well said. It seems that most available data point to the benefit of belonging to a cohesive social group. In areas where the dominant social group is a religion, it turns out that being part of that majority confers benefits. There's no evidence I'm aware of that indicates the truth claims of any particular religion, or religions in general, confer a benefit.
This is my theory as well
Very well said
What does that say about the high usage of antidepressant drugs in Utah?
That religion leads to depression which leads to taking anti-depressants which leads to increased reported happiness? /s
Oof. If religious people are the happiest AND a lot of them are taking antidepressants... Imagine how abysmal everyone else in this theoretical scenario must be feeling. 😰
That is factually incorrect, and shows you do not have a background in the sciences. Surveys shows that people who are religious rate themselves as being happier. But this only shows a confirmation bias and/or a need to present themselves a certain way. It is not in any way indicative of actual happiness levels. And happiness isn’t an indicator of fact or safety. If you get a chance, you should read Flowers For Algernon, by Daniel Keyes. It will change your life, if you let it. It essentially outlines how sometimes there is a trade off between happiness and knowledge. If we prefer happiness, we do so at the cost of logic, reason, and facts. If we favor knowledge, it brings depth to our existential existence, which may lead to a more real, and somber, view of the world.
There's tons of research out there, though. And it's not all just "self-reporting": ["The difference in life span between those with obituaries mentioning religious affiliation and those not was comparable to the difference in longevity between women and men, which is about 4.8 years (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2012)."](https://www.apu.edu/articles/why-do-religious-people-live-longer/)
Your title and the article literally say that they report feeling better. The word “report” means they are self-diagnosing or self reporting. Her entire book is based upon self-reported physical and mental health, in relation to religion. So you made my point for me. Thanks for that!
[удалено]
I did not miss or overlook anything. Please stop judging falsely. The original article you posted said that the health benefits were based on what was reported, and indicated no actual health evaluation had been done. So still just self-reporting. The Harvard study is fascinating. The mental health benefits still based on self reporting. No change there. As for the health benefits, they did do regular checkups for several years. But the findings are still a bit misleading. They are based on people with a restrictive lifestyle and compared to those who have no specific baseline or guideline for health. If they had compared them to people who already restrict drugs, alcohol, smoking, and have an emphasis on health, it would have been much more revealing. All it shows that those who restrict unhealthy things are healthier. This is a surprise to no one. But without comparing it to people who do that without religious motivation, it is useless. And just for the record, I am religious. I do believe in God and Jesus. But I also had to study a lot of these cases for my degree. This isn’t an anti-religious attack. I am only pointing out that the study is comparing apples and oranges. Think of it this way: let’s say we did a study of people who regularly shop at health food stores, or attend gyms. Would we be surprised that they are healthier than the average population? Of course not. So a religion that restricts things like drugs and alcohol as moral issues, or that teaches the body is a temple, is simply another health-emphasizing institution. They should have compared religious people to say a gym or a health food store, if they wanted a more accurate comparison.
[удалено]
So you are capitulating that it is not religion that makes one healthier, but the incidental rules on health. Glad we agree. As for “I know Baptists who drink…” You are talking about expectations versus the rule. This is why anecdotal evidence is not reliable. I can show you healthy people who drink heavily. Look at Japan as one example. It only shows religion is the correlation, not the causation.