Church Services

If I was a Bishop, I would put together a ” sacrament meeting engagement” team to figure out how we can make the meetings more interesting without breaking the guidelines too much. The watchful eye of the stake is always upon us, waiting, to pounce.

Composition would be the Sunday School, Music Director, Member of the BPric, as well as representation from the youth and primary auxiliaries. They would first get an idea of how members feel about sacrament meeting, their concerns and likes, and then go foward to make some recommendations to make it more interesting.

The biggest hurdle I see to this is that our membership is somewhat conditioned to be outwardly positive about the boring parts of our religion. So, people may not be willing to be honest about their true feelings about what they don’t like about it. This new kind of innovative thinking would probably put a lot of the old-timers off and cause resistance, however.

By the way, I saw an informal survey on the web about people’s engagement in Sacrament meeting. This site is frequented by TBM Mormons, with TBM rules for participation and generally positive attitudes about the Church. Here are the stats:

Consistently Engaged in the meeting: 42%

Somehwat engaged: 15%

Neutral: 16%

Somewhat bored: 16%

Consistently bored: 11%

It was based on a survey of only 19 people, but it still bothers me that among those who are relatively positive about the Church 42% are neutral or bored stiff.

Without some kind of structural or content change to the meeting, I don’t think a name change will help. For example, if I’m the ugliest person in the world and my name is “Ugly Silentdawing”, then changing my name to “Handsome Silentdawning” won’t help; people will still find me ugly. In fact, they might even stop trusting the person who effected the name change since there is no truth behind it.

Look, I agree that structural and content change is needed to accompany a name change.

But you can’t deny that presentation and names matter. They set expectations and give behavioral clues.

If you started calling yourself “Ugly Silentdawning,” guess what people are going to notice first about you? And whether you call yourself “Ugly SD” or “Handsome SD,” both send an immediate message about how you see yourself and how you wish to be seen. And people (not all, but many) will respond to you based on your self-presentation.

Clearly, a name change alone would not do enough to make our Sunday meetings as engaging as I personally would like them to be; but focusing on “worship” rather than “meeting” might energize us a bit, inspire us to lift our voices when singing the hymns a bit, encourage our speakers and testimony-givers to be a bit more reverence (in the literal sense of the word, not in the contemporary LDS usage of the word) and filled with praise and joy.

It really depends on who is speaking, how they’re speaking, and how restricted they are. For me, the most boring talks are a review of a GC talk. The GC talks are good, but the redux versions tend to be badly done.

SamBee: I cannot stand listening to re-hashed conference talks. It especially becomes nauseating when they say something along the lines of “I was asked to give a talk on so and so’s Conference talk” or “I was asked to speak on this topic and was given two talks from so and so to use.” I tune out almost immediately upon hearing that.

Ugh this is a pet peeve of mine. I don’t know if it’s because I took a public speaking class or what but I feel it’s the number one rule in speaking to not say I’m going to speak on ____. Whenever I’m asked to talk I take the GC talk or article and use it for jumping off points. The best compliment I got after a talk was that it flowed very nicely.

SamBee: I cannot stand listening to re-hashed conference talks. It especially becomes nauseating when they say something along the lines of “I was asked to give a talk on so and so’s Conference talk” or “I was asked to speak on this topic and was given two talks from so and so to use.” I tune out almost immediately upon hearing that.

Ugh this is a pet peeve of mine. I don’t know if it’s because I took a public speaking class or what but I feel it’s the number one rule in speaking to not say I’m going to speak on ____. Whenever I’m asked to talk I take the GC talk or article and use it for jumping off points. The best compliment I got after a talk was that it flowed very nicely.

Yeah, this is one of the worst trends in the church. It allows speakers and lesson givers to get away without doing much thought, prayer, and study of their own and rely on the crutch of authority.

It also seems to promote my pet peeve in Sunday School and EQ lessons: “So, the manual (or Elder so-and-so) says…”

Don’t tell us what the manual or the speaker said! We can read it. Tell us what it means in light of past teachings, what it means in your life, etc. Basically, tell us just about anything other than what it merely says.

I find that once I went through some rough times, and really turned to the Lord to find strength and guidance and answers to important questions…I became more frustrated at church than ever! 😡 I was sincerely wanting the church to provide me with spiritual upliftment, and I was sincerely going to church to feast on the word and I prepared myself for such, and then it became more apparent that I was on my own and the church talks and lessons were more fluffy than meaty.

When times were good, and things were simple in my life…going to church was more about being where I should be on Sunday, associating with people, helping to fulfill callings … and the spiritual experiences that occasionally happened from talks or lessons were just gravy to confirm my existing feelings about myself and church.

When I needed them badly, I became more aware of how few and far between the meetings provide them. I began to look outside of church for what I needed, and then returned to church to try to apply things … and found frustration but also found I do occasionally get uplifted at church too. And so I choose to stay, because I find it is more about me and less about the church. I wish it wasn’t, but have accepted it is what it is…and I can still benefit from being at church even if that is not the main source of my spirituality.

I recognize that is a “me” issue … but it seems ironic to me. When I need it most, I can’t find it at church. At least that is what it seems like from my experiences over the past several years.

The ideal is to be self-sufficient – but groups are organized to deal with those who are not self-sufficient. That’s vital to understand:

Religions, by their very nature as organizations, are designed to help the non-self-sufficient.

Thus, as individuals become more self-sufficient, they lose more and more their former NEED for the group that cared for them prior to their emerging self-sufficiency. Their only “need” is if they transfer that former need and help others become self-sufficient, also. Otherwise, the group loses its former potency and benefit and becomes something that limits and restricts, instead.

How do I deal with that? I separate “religion” from “theology” and “faith”. I attend a religion to be a help to those who once helped me, and I move “theology” and “faith” into my own, individual sphere.

I attend a relgion; I construct a theology; I practice my faith.

I love what you just said. It seems to be the essence of what Elder Poelman was trying to say:

“As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.”