One thing I’ve been asked after switching from Mormonism to atheism is if I’m happier. The first response I typically give is that I pursued truth, not happiness, and that I let the consequence follow. I give this response because the people asking are generally doing so to convince me that their truth is the better truth based on resultant happiness, as if that were somehow a determinant. However, I certainly have made a few observations on happiness as it relates to my transition.

Mormonism (and likely all organized religions) is a suppressant. If the full potential for joy looks something like this:

Mormonism suppresses that reality to look something like this:

In that sense, yes, I’m significantly happier since leaving Mormonism. But it works on the back end as well. So if the full spectrum of joy AND sadness looks like this:

Mormonism suppresses from both ends to make it feel more like this:

So I must also concede that (along with experiencing more joy) I do experience more sadness.

It does this on other spectra as well. Freedom and chaos. Pleasure and pain. Safety and risk. Positive and negative aspects of your personality. Moral stances (e.g., acceptance and rejection of others). Healthy concern for the environment and terror of the destruction of the earth. Sexual pleasure and… whatever the downside of orgasms might be. (Obviously it’s not having too many babies, according to Mormonism. I’m seriously drawing a blank here, but it’s VERY important to nearly every religion to suppress sexual enjoyment for some reason.)

Critics of Mormonism tend to focus on the suppression of joy while proponents focus on the suppression of sadness. And they debate endlessly because they’re both correct, but never concede that the opposing argument is correct as well.

Reality is broad. And scary. There may be great value in trimming off the edges. A narrower view of the world offers security, provides comfort, reduces distractions, makes life more manageable.

Religion is ignorance. Ignorance is suppression. And suppression of reality tends to have that effect on both ends no matter what its origin. If it sounds like I’m criticizing religion by calling it a form of ignorance, it’s only because you’ve affixed a negative label to ignorance (and because I freely criticize religion all the time). However, I’ve done no such thing (this time).

The extended version of the famous line “ignorance is bliss” is “where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise” and it is probably most accurately read as a criticism of wisdom and the promotion of ignorance.

Shortly after Robin Williams ended his own life I stumbled upon an interview with Chris Rock, who made one of the most poignant observations I’ve ever heard. When asked if he was surprised by Robin’s suicide, Chris answered as follows:

Nah, I mean it wasn’t a surprise. Comedians can be a sad bunch, you know. You know what’s the saying? Ignorance is bliss. So if ignorance is bliss, what’s the opposite of ignorance? Must not be bliss. And your job as a comedian, you know, is basically to notice everything. And the better the comedian, the more aware he or she is of the world around them. So you know, it can be not a happy place. Sometimes you can have too much information. Sometimes you can know too much. So no, I was not, I’m never shocked at a comedian dealing with depression.

The real tragedy is that you generally don’t get to pick your ignorance. By the time you’re aware of your wisdom, it’s too late to undo it. You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube, as the saying goes. (I bet you actually could, but it would be pretty gross).

So is there a happy medium when it comes to suppression through ignorance? And if so, are religions doing humanity a huge favor in keeping them in that safe zone? Maybe. And I’d be cool with that if they weren’t also bullies or shamers or murderous conquerors wherever they have a majority. (Now I’m criticizing religion.)

But I think Mormonism is too small. Especially in this age of free-flowing information. It suppresses too much. And when people burst that tiny bubble, they tend to continue along, tearing down layer after layer, expanding their world both in frustration and delight, banking on the fact that they were ignorant before and likely continue to be so. Some continue this way, suffering one existential crisis after another, until they reach the point of nihilism. Relationships end. Marriages are broken. Even lives are thrown away.

I’m not even condemning any of that. I’m simply observing that it happens. But why does it happen?

Some might argue that it’s a self-control or discipline thing. We say they “lost it” or they were “self-destructive”. We’re so quick to frown upon the non-conformists, to condemn anyone who makes choices different from our own, to slap “bad” and “good” labels on things, and even to celebrate the suffering of these people. I don’t see it that way.

Others might argue that reality is really just that awful. I don’t think that’s it either. I’ve been delighted by virtually every new discovery of reality along this path of wonder and change. It may be the most overused adjective there is to describe it, but life truly is beautiful.

But you know what does suck? Being at odds with society in general, and especially with the people with whom you associate the most.

I think that’s the reason why ignorance is blissful. Because most of the people are ignorant. I don’t say this pretentiously. I think it’s a matter of statistics–or perhaps human behavior. Ultimately, we are all infinitely ignorant (we’ll never know everything), and so “ignorance” becomes a comparison between the people who know the most about something and everyone else. Shifts in wisdom don’t happen with the majority of people leading the way and the minority trailing behind, but rather with individuals stepping out into the darkness, making discoveries, and reporting them back to the masses. And how is this teaching received? Generally with scorn and rejection. Don’t mess with our blissful ignorance, wise guy.

No, reality and wisdom about it aren’t terrible. Though it may be folly to be one of the firsts to acquire it, especially if you’re into bliss.

Imagine you were transported back in time to your very own society a few hundred years ago. How would you feel about slavery? Hopefully you would find it unconscionable. And what could you do about it? How could you change the perceptions, which you know to be flawed (because of your wisdom), of those around you? How blissful is your existence among people with that and so many other disdainful ideas? Go back even 50 years ago. Civil rights of racial minorities and women? It would be hell given your wisdom vs the ignorance of those around you.

What hell might someone from 200 years in the future experience living among us today? (Ideas of sexuality and theism come to mind.)

From the book Living the Secular Life by Phil Zuckerman:

Luke Galen is a professor of psychology at Grand Valley State University…

When I asked Professor Galen about the many studies which report that religious people seem to enjoy better levels of mental health than secular people, he explained that while this may certainly be due to the social support factor, it may also be a result of conformity–the positive outcome of simply being in line with one’s broader social context.

In other words, people who are doing what most people are doing tend to report better states of mental health than people who are not…

…religious people have a slight edge in terms of life satisfaction or lower depression. But that may be because they are engaging in what is considered to be normal, common behavior in their societies: participating in religion.

…So, for example, when looking at the more secular countries of Europe, religious people there don’t exhibit better mental health. And even within the United States, in the more religious parts of the country, religious people tend to report better mental health–but not religious people in the least religious parts of the country. So it looks like at least part of good mental health is just being embedded in the normative community.

Perhaps ignorance is not the bliss, but rather solidarity.

I frequently call Mormonism “conformonism”. (I coined the term, though I’m sure others have as well.) Members are continuously encouraged to follow prescribed dress codes, grooming habits, and speech patterns. Lessons are correlated and radical thoughts discouraged. Think this way. Speak this way. Act this way. Be like Jesus. All of us.

And people find a lot of bliss in that. I used to. But not any longer, because I squirted out all the toothpaste.

However, I am happier. Without question in the world of my own mind. I experience more joy, more sadness, and less suppression of these and other experiences. As I interact with those sharing similar worldviews, and also as society makes its snail-paced steps toward progressive ideas, I find even more bliss.

I sent this to my former bishop on 11/9/2015. We had been discussing the policy a bit. He had linked me the official video response with Christofferson. I replied that I had seen it and discussed it and debated it; that I still found it disdainful; and that I would be willing to discuss further. He hadn’t responded. But I sent this anyway:

[Name],

You didn’t show interest in understanding the other side of the coin, so I apologize that this message doesn’t come in response to your own inquiry. However, it’s become very relevant to our personal situation, and I would appreciate you lending an ear, and ideally, your support.

As I said, yes, I have seen Elder Christofferson’s explanation of the policy. It’s very similar to numerous other explanations I had read prior to the official press release. This is the best summary I can give:

– This is being done for the children
– This is being done for the family
– This has been done before with polygamous families
– The church does not want to put them in the difficult place of choosing between what the church teaches and what their parent or parents teach until they are older and more capable of handling that sort of decision

A few highlights:

“And these questions that have arisen, we’re sympathetic to. They’re difficult, they’re sensitive, they tug at the heartstrings and they’re very real. And this is about family; this is about love and especially the love of the Savior and how He wants people to be helped and fed and lifted, and that’s the whole motivation that underlies our effort.”

“Well, in answering or responding to your question, let me say I speak not only as an apostle in the Church, but as a husband, as a father and as a grandfather. And like others in those more enduring callings, I have a sense of compassion and sympathy and tender feelings that they do. So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they’re living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don’t want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don’t want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different. And so with the other ordinances on through baptism and so on, there’s time for that if, when a child reaches majority, he or she feels like that’s what they want and they can make an informed and conscious decision about that. Nothing is lost to them in the end if that’s the direction they want to go. In the meantime, they’re not placed in a position where there will be difficulties, challenges, conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years.“

These arguments present a very positive image of the church and the policy. I agree with the agendas highlighted. I would describe them as “noble” and “admirable”. Does this policy accomplish these goals? Let me be one of the few post Mormons to say that yes, it does at least push things in that direction. And for that I’m glad.

The issue, [Name], lies in inconsistency.

If these are the attitudes and stances the church is taking, there should be countless other policies (or at a minimum encouraged practices) which CONSISTENTLY push toward the same goals: Don’t break up families. Don’t force kids to deal with conflicts in beliefs.

But instead, this is what we can expect to see with a child has a parent or parents in a same-sex relationship: Will they be permitted to attend church? Yes. Will they be allowed to sit in classes and be indoctrinated? Yes. Will they be encouraged to join social settings, activities, camps, firesides, etc where this indoctrination will be reinforced? Yes. Will they be exposed to ideas which condemn and vilify their loving parent(s)? Yes. Will they be encouraged to “disavow” (quoting the policy) their parents’ lifestyle? Yes. Will they be pursued in neighborhoods, at school, via the full-time missionaries, through missionary efforts of ward members? Yes. Yes. Yes.

And after all of that, will they be allowed to get baptized and be “in” the group? No.

And that solves the conflict?

The issue extends far beyond children of a parent in a same-sex or polygamous relationship. What about unmarried parents who cohabitate? And what about children with parents who do not believe in Mormon doctrine? What about my kids, [Name]? From a Mormon standpoint, are my beliefs not far worse than any of them? I support same-sex relationships and would even support polygamy (were it informed and consensual). Plus I don’t even believe in Jesus or God or the Spirit.

Where’s the policy to keep my children from the “conflicts that can injure their development in very tender years”? Do you know what has happened instead over the past five years? I was encouraged by three bishops and one stake president to baptize my kids myself. Because I’m heterosexual and monogamous. (Note: I’m only pinning the ALLOWANCE on the church. I accept the moral conflict of the action upon myself. Condemn if you will. It was a terrible time of balancing my beliefs against social pressures and the inevitability that my kids would be baptized anyway and I wish that sort of conflict on no one.)

So the policy is very targeted. It doesn’t matter that there is one other target (polygamy)–that’s problematic as well. It’s completely inconsistent with all other behaviors, culture, policies and even doctrine (Matthew 10:35), and with that inconsistency, this policy by itself ends up just being hateful and mean.

A week or so [Wife] told you she doesn’t believe either. Yesterday she told you she wants out of being the Primary President and attending. Yesterday we told our kids [Wife] doesn’t believe either. We talked about our reasons why. We asked them how they felt about church and the gospel. None of them care about the teachings or beliefs and there was surprisingly a lot of unprompted moral disagreement they themselves added to the mix.

We told them they could choose if they would like to attend. [Son] and [Son] are out, no hesitation. [Daughter] wants to attend classes to see a friend. [Son] wants to attend because he receives a lot of praise for playing the piano and because he feels responsible to the other boys in the teachers quorum, especially since he just got put in as the secretary yesterday.

They are both feeling very conflicted and emotionally overwhelmed, especially [Son]. It would be nice if there were a policy against this sort of thing.

But there isn’t. And because this has already happened, and because he’s already in the grips of the social pressures of Mormonism, releasing him now may be a personal offense, forcing him to stay home may incite indignation, and pressuring him to believe as his parents do (even if only to counter the shameless and relentless pressure to believe the other way which he can expect so long as he associates with Mormons) may lead to resentment.

Is it about family? Is it about the children?

Future topic: What IS the motive behind the policy? Of the many theories I’ve read, the hardest ones to discredit or dismantle are some of the most chilling (e.g., leveraging children for legal maneuvering).

Use extreme caution with the label “evil” as when misapplied you create evil where none existed before.

When I was a believer, if it came from the proper authority, I would have done anything I had been instructed to do. I would have harbored any thought imposed upon me. I would have accepted any worldview dictated to me. Again, only if it came from the highest ranks. It wasn’t about them. It was because I believed in god, and I believed that they were his mouthpiece.

I’m pretty certain I would have killed someone, you know, if it meant an entire nation would not dwindle and perish in unbelief. (Side note: studies show they don’t–they thrive.) The thing of which I’m uncertain, is whether or not I even would have needed that rationalization.