- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
nibbler wrote:
I think a 5 minute conversation with a family membershouldbe more rewarding and fulfilling than 60 minutes at church.
I agree! And well said..
nibbler wrote:
I think people are silent unless called upon because most of the questions are geared towards very specific responses and people are either tired of regurgitating them or they’re afraid of saying the wrong thing and looking like they don’t know the answers in front of others.
I know I’m silent a lot because the canned Sunday School answers just don’t work for me. I like open discourse and discussions, but I also understand that the teacher has an agenda and doesn’t want to go too far off topic. We also have a few people that as I would put it like to hear themselves talk. They are the ones that usually answer the questions and take up most of the time.
nibbler wrote:
I think people are silent unless called upon because most of the questions are geared towards very specific responses and people are either tired of regurgitating them or they’re afraid of saying the wrong thing and looking like they don’t know the answers in front of others.I’ve found that it’s hard getting any discussion going at church. I’m not sure why that is other than the material fails to capture people’s interest.
As a RS teacher and observer for a long time, I have a few observations to contribute (and they overlap with points already made a bit sometimes):
– The larger format of having 20+ students in Gospel Doctrine requires either a) breakdown in to smaller groups (with the quality of the thoughts being shared at risk) and/or b) a “lecture” (of unknown content) with some “call and response” stanzas.
– For a good year or so as a RS teacher, I chose my own talks from the list. Eventually, my RS President let me know that the “presidency” was supposed to be choosing the talks (with my “input”). They were nice about it, and I was able to pre-emptively provide a list of talks I could teach on that they rubber-stamped, and I set boundaries on what talks they wanted that I couldn’t teach. But I am a “bossy” assertive female who was reading her Brene Brown and who insists on “Win-Win” situations – I also wasn’t afraid to spend my social capital on topics – and I had an above average amount of social capital because I am located in a small branch.
– Our teacher trainings focused on “connecting to the text”, “connecting to church principles”, and “connecting to the students” – they were not practical tips about managing the teacher/student conversational balance, inducing thinking, or about planning inclusive lesson plans. Also, there was no information on the concept “less (talk from the teacher)” is “more (conversation from the group)”. Most of the best advice I got on how to be a better gospel doctrine teacher came from Silent Dawning in this forum.
– The lessons took 1-4 hours 2x a month (which I found the time for) and a few weeks of “in the back of my mind” processing – some women didn’t have that kind of time. I was motivated to create inclusive lessons because I trying to include myself and knew how hard it was to be included (not left out of malice, just accidently excluded) – and that matters. I proactively set boundaries to keep myself socially safe – including also knowing how to exit gracefully if needed.
– I insisted on including at least 1 quote a from a female general authority for every general conference talk I gave. In part because they are our leaders, and because we don’t hear their words (for us sisters) as often as we hear words for the general audience. I think it mattered. Another example is that from comments on this board, efforts to connect the students to the groups who wrote the text (History, Group Customs etc.) are appreciated here. This is an important step. When I was well-prepared with some questions and general directions the topic could go – and the topic was really important AND relevant to my students – that is when I got the most classroom participation. The best classroom discussions I had were a 2 part series on suicide, depression, and mental health from a talk given by Sister Aburto. There were several times just before COVID where I didn’t prepare as much, and where I was finding fewer “common ground” talking points where the class ended up in those awkward silences and the rambling, less helpful comment students got carried away.
I am coming to the realization that it’s not the church, it’s not the lessons, teacher or my lack of participation that causes me to be bored. The solution lies within me (or each of us). It is my responsibility. I’ve read from a number of you on this
site who are participating in other religious organizations, charitable organizations, etc. in an effort to be inspired, fulfilled,
or spiritually feed. I applaud what you’re doing outside of the formal church & I would love to read more about what you’re
doing.
Life within the LDS church is very interesting. On the one hand, we declare to the world that this is the church designed, organized
and administered according to the will of God. Then in the execution of the programs, they can be uninspiring & boring.
I really hate being this judgmental. So now, I have to make a decision: what should I be doing to be inspired, fulfilled and
spiritually feed? (What I’m doing now isn’t working.)
Minyan Man, I glad you posted this because I’m planning on going back to church myself. I was inactive the entire time the COVID was in full swing, but I have a calling as a ward missionary that seems attention. Luckily, I’m good friends with my ward mission leader who’s a very kind, laid-back man. Since my ward is in a small town in northern Illinois, it tends to be generally laid back as well. I would like to get more active in church, since after praying about it a few times, I feel the Lord keeps telling to eventually go back. I love to take the sacrament, even if sometimes I don’t always like feel blessing or passing it. For some reason it’s hard for me to feel the Spirit as strongly as when I just take it. I seem to have an easier time talking to God when I’m sitting still during the sacrament than when I’m moving around and doing other things. I don’t know why that it. The talks can be hit or miss, just like they can be for me in stake conference or General Conference. Since I’m ward missionary and become a more nuanced member of the years, it’s more challenging for me to share the gospel with others in ways that are more authentic to me. And my other issue is that I don’t how I’m going to be able team from certain teach from certain sections of the Preach My Gospel Manual when called upon by the full-time missionaries when I’ll come across certain doctrinal or historical statements that I don’t agree with. So, my friend, I wish I can tell you a lot. The only thing I could say it maybe supplement your spirituality in the church in some ways. Try to find other things that can also bring you joy. That’s good advice for me too. I hope and pray you’ll somehow work it out. I recently found a talk given by Elder David A Bednar, Jan 2016, BYU-Idaho In the talk he emphasized the importance of repetition in learning, teaching and receiving spiritual revelation.
I don’t know if it applies here but it’s worth posting. (maybe)
Quote:He explained in detail an account in Joseph Smith-History, a segment of LDS scripture, in which Joseph Smith is visited four times by the angel Moroni. Bednar noted a pattern in the text: that the angel delivered the exact same core message but added a personalized warning or instruction during each appearance.
Bednar said repetition in teaching is a hallmark for religious leaders and showed examples of this in his own life as an apostle.
He said many members of the church hear repetition of topics or messages in Sunday meetings or General Conference and do not see the value in the repetition, but he encouraged appreciation for it.
He went on to point out how key ordinances of the church, like baptism, use repetition and said the Holy Spirit can help enhance knowledge already obtained and bring new knowledge.
The full talk is:
https://www.byui.edu/devotionals/elder-david-a-bednar I’m wondering if this could be part of my problem: I want to discuss my thoughts & ideas while the church wants to make sure the members
learn the basics?
If the only thing we ever do is repeat the same things people willget bored and disengage. If people become bored and disengage they won’t learn either. Moroni visited Smith four times and repeated a core message… but Smith went on from there to ask more questions and learn more things. He built on prior revelation by exploring new thoughts and ideas.
I agree with Bednar in that repetition is useful and helps us learn and grow. There’s the famous Bruce Lee quote, “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”
On the other hand, I think we can take the idea of repetition to an extreme, maybe even going so far as citing the importance of repetition as an excuse to avoid exploratory discussions. I’m not saying that’s what Bednar has done in his talk, but I do see the phenomenon in our culture. We say we have to have milk before the meat. We say that nothing inspiring was said during conference because we haven’t been sufficiently obedient to what’s already been said during previous uninspiring conferences.
It’s an issue of extremes. Repetition has its place, exploring new thoughts and ideas has its place. We use repetition to reinforce the good we’ve learned and we explore new thoughts and ideas to add to that good.
It’s a complex issue but I think one contributor is that people aren’t comfortable with exploring/speculating. We feel much safer listening to authoritative voices (scripture, leaders, manuals, etc.). For example, we don’t like talking about Heavenly Mother because it’s all speculative… until someone in a position of authority makes a declaration, then it becomes safe to have an opinion because we then know what our opinion should be.
Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society which is mostly repetition. It’s really on us to supplement. I’ve found that there’s not much appetite to explore supplemental topics at church. It’s almost required to look elsewhere for those sorts of discussions.
I did want to add a post on one of the benefits of repetition. I think I’ve posted this before but… repetition. :angel: I used to attend other religions’ services once a month, if nothing more than to get a fresh perspective. I attended Buddhist services a few times during that period. Their services were almost an inverse of our typical sacrament service; 90% ritual and 10% sermon. After one visit I came home and discussed my experience with my wife. The bowing, walking in circles, incense, chanting. It was very repetitive.
My wife helped me understand the importance of the rites I had experienced. She said that the rites had the effect of helping people arrive at a spiritual state of mind. I found that to be true. I’ll butcher my thoughts trying to put them into words but…
The idea is that you feel the spirit while you’re at church. It may take a while, maybe even weeks, but you make some sort of connection. Meanwhile you’re bowing, chanting, walking in circles, smelling the incense, etc. the entire time. You do this over and over again. You might even do it so much that the original meaning gets lost.
Then you have a bad day.
You go to church, and right when you walk in the door you smell the incense. That’s it. Just the sensation of smell alone can connect you back to the spirit. The repetition has created an association, maybe it even becomes Pavlovian, the familiar smell of incense brings everything back, and what would have taken hours or weeks to arrive at a spiritual place can happen in an instant.
I’m not sure how to frame that in the context of our church. Whenever I hear someone repeat “covenant path” it usually has the opposite effect, it puts me in a foul mood.
😈 But the principle can be the same. Hearing and experiencing the familiar can bring tremendous comfort.
It requires balance. The familiar for when the familiar is needed, exploring when exploring is needed. When there are wrong and right opinions things typically get out of balance.
nibbler wrote:
Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society which is mostly repetition. It’s really on us to supplement. I’ve found that there’s not much appetite to explore supplemental topics at church. It’s almost required to look elsewhere for those sorts of discussions.
The interesting part here is that I think from a big picture perspective Come Follow Me was meant to provide the supplementation.
Ifwe all really did study(as opposed to just reading and not thinking) and discusswith our families the insights we gained and talked about other sources of information our faith and understanding as a people could dramatically increase. Then ifwe had those same discussionsin our classes at church our shared understandings and faith could increase dramatically. I think the system breaks down both at home (although I am positive some families do as I described) and at church where people are stuck in the old ways of doing things (very similar to ministering vs. home teaching). Minyan Man wrote:
I recently found a talk given by Elder David A Bednar, Jan 2016, BYU-IdahoIn the talk he emphasized the importance of repetition in learning, teaching and receiving spiritual revelation.
I don’t know if it applies here but it’s worth posting. (maybe)
I feel that we engage in a good deal of explaining/justifying why things are the way they are.
Q. Why is there sickness and death in the world?
A. It is because Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
Q. Why doesn’t the snake have legs?
A. Because it was cursed by God for tricking Adam & Eve.
Q. Why can’t black people hold the priesthood?
A. Because they were less valiant in the premortal life.
Q. Why must we wear white shirts at church?
A. Because white represents purity which represents Jesus.
Q. Why must church lessons be so repetitive?
A. Because repetition is how God teaches important things.
This can be fine when it describes things that are fixed and cannot change. Where it becomes a more serious problem is where the explanations/justifications become additional barriers to changing what can change and what should change.
nibbler wrote:
We feel much safer listening to authoritative voices (scripture, leaders, manuals, etc.). For example, we don’t like talking about Heavenly Mother because it’s all speculative… until someone in a position of authority makes a declaration, then it becomes safe to have an opinion because we then know what our opinion should be.That’s a nice theory about safety:)
We haven’t “lost” Heavenly Mother from our culture’s vocabulary BECAUSE of who the “core influencers” are. We collectively “authorize” Eliza Snow’s hymn as “evidence” BECAUSE she was such a cultural gem at the time (and her words got into print) AND a strong woman leader AND paid her RS dues AND other women were also strong and vocal at the time in the co-creation of the church were supporting her and reinforcing her brand of culture AND has such a close connection to Joseph Smith, who said/taught things about God and our connection to God that it’s plausible her thoughts were based on a foundation Joseph Smith set.
In my opinion, the insistence on the standardization that we “know stuff” about God – that we in our culture insist on the “First Vision” being a “Visitation” instead of a more malleable “Vision” made having a perfect description of God a “zero-sum-game” (not that it needed that push per se). There was no “Heavenly Mother” reported at the “Visitation”, ergo the existence of and function of Heavenly Mother is nebulous, not an important fact. I don’t think that at the time of the First Vision, that Joseph Smith was thinking about a “Mother” at all – it is my understanding that he felt guilty for the sins he had committed and wanted to chat with God (We assume that it is Heavenly Father or Jesus Christ – but I don’t know that that is an accurate assumption – Was Joseph at 14 looking for a gender when looking at God?) about that, and that he was looking for which church to join on a participation level.
Also, I think that to cut Heavenly Mother completely out of our culture is basically a form of religious suicide – because when you cut Heavenly Mother out of the equation with our other beliefs about God and our path of progression, you are clearly and completely making the statement to the female members of the congregation, “Oh, sorry – we lied. Gender is so eternal and so important that it doesn’t change – and there is no divine path for you, but we have a nice pedestal set up for you to rest in and we can visit 1x – 2x a year the lot of you.”
It was groundbreaking for the Young Women presidency to be able to shift to “Heavenly Parents” in the first place and providing some modern institutional authorization for Heavenly Mother – that is slowly being (and most recently not so slowly) being eroded. I get it – Heavenly Mother does not fill a specific need/role model for the male leadership the way that She does for some church members. I get that when push comes to shove, talking to Heavenly Mother in place of talking to Heavenly Father is very uncomfortable – and the “why” that might happen that way – because of the failure of some men in the lives of these women – can feel like a gut punch. I also get that the “cool kids at the religious organization table” are likely to kick us out of their exclusive club if we don’t toe specific culture lines in our descriptions of God.
DarkJedi wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society which is mostly repetition. It’s really on us to supplement. I’ve found that there’s not much appetite to explore supplemental topics at church. It’s almost required to look elsewhere for those sorts of discussions.
The interesting part here is that I think from a big picture perspective Come Follow Me was meant to provide the supplementation.
Ifwe all really did study(as opposed to just reading and not thinking) and discusswith our families the insights we gained and talked about other sources of information our faith and understanding as a people could dramatically increase. Then ifwe had those same discussionsin our classes at church our shared understandings and faith could increase dramatically. I think the system breaks down both at home (although I am positive some families do as I described) and at church where people are stuck in the old ways of doing things (very similar to ministering vs. home teaching).
I agree with what Dark Jedi is saying… AND
– There is a lot out there that is more engaging then scripture study (the default knee jerk reaction is gender-segregated “pin interest” and “video games”. But people have busy lives – there actually may not be the time the scripture study needs to produce those results.
– the Women’s Broadcast was when it was rolled out. President Eyring especially handed it off to the women of the church as part of their “nurturing” duty. I remember this quite well because I got the memo about “being the gender responsible for the spiritual wellbeing of my children” – and I nearly left the church over that. I barely felt OK handling my own spiritual stuff – and here is a bunch of general authorities trying to coax (that’s the most generous words I can find) me into taking on the spiritual stuff of my family through this specific program – No Thanks! NOTE: I gather/remember that at the next broadcast for the brethren, it was presented as a “task of presiding – to make sure it gets done” more or less. I remember that much because dark thoughts may or may not have crossed my mind at the time.
(Or it never reached my ears) – Shifting the conversational “battleground” from “Sunday School (where distancing and not taking things “personally” was a known thing)” to “the Living Room” without any personal conflict management training set the families who didn’t have those skills up for failure. I hear over and over again that for some families, it is a “15 minute box to be checked” and a source of frustration and unresolved expectation mismanagement. Discussions over content went from being “impersonal” in a public environment with safeguards to being very “personal” by importing it into the family.
It can be a lot more. I hear stories of (usually retirees) for whom it works well. IF it is an equalized executive functioning deal (all spouses are engaged in the logistics of it), IF the content is relevant to the family members, IF family members have the time and resources to devote to study, listening, and thinking about it, and IF there is a family culture of solid communication skills, it probably works really well.
nibbler wrote:
I’m not sure how to frame that in the context of our church. Whenever I hear someone repeat “covenant path” it usually has the opposite effect, it puts me in a foul mood.😈 But the principle can be the same. Hearing and experiencing the familiar can bring tremendous comfort.
It requires balance. The familiar for when the familiar is needed, exploring when exploring is needed. When there are wrong and right opinions things typically get out of balance.
I think that church attendance can “ground the body” sometimes. The rituals of getting ready, of showing up, of knowing what to expect, and knowing that you were doing something that others around you were doing to can do that. Whatever it takes to trigger that sense of community and belonging – I think that is what you are talking about.
I have found that most of my spiritual “problem” foundationally was that I fundamentally found evidence that I didn’t “belong” in my religious community anymore (losing Faith in God in a Faith Forward community will do that you when you are already an outsider/poor fit) – but I did “belong” because it is part of my heritage and part of my family.
My mother-in-law passed away a year ago and we went to her funeral. The funeral was held in the same stake that I grew up in. In my sleep-deprived, stressed, overburdened, grieving state – it was a huge comfort to know the building, to know the songs, to see people I hadn’t seen in 10-15 years. I guess that it mattered so much because the gentle matriarch of my husband’s family had just left us – there was so much uncertainty (my experience with Mormon funerals was nil, so even more uncertainty on my part) that it was amazing to feel the certainty of belonging there in that experience.
AmyJ wrote:
It can be a lot more. I hear stories of (usually retirees) for whom it works well. IF it is an equalized executive functioning deal (all spouses are engaged in the logistics of it), IF the content is relevant to the family members, IF family members have the time and resources to devote to study, listening, and thinking about it, and IF there is a family culture of solid communication skills, it probably works really well.
I agree, and in the cases where it is working for individuals and families the breakdown is clearly at church on Sunday. I think the church has not done a very good job at training teachers how to facilitate discussions of this nature. There could be several reasons for that beyond just those who like the status quo in the way it’s always been done. A big reason might be the shock that might come from a perspective outside the church narrative. I have said this before, we really don’t do justice to the Old Testament in our “study” and classes. Not all of the stuff we skip is repetitive, some of it just doesn’t fit the narrative. And the narrative comes from a very singular point of view where 2+2 doesn’t always equal 4 when you look at it (or more correctly it’s made to look like 2+1=4). Specifically in regards to the OT we almost wholly ignore the Jewish point of view – and it was their text! We put everything in the Christian context, even if there isn’t really any Christian context (in fairness we’re not the only ones who do that).
As an aside but related, I think many faith crises have their roots in missionary service for the same reasons alluded to above. We’re giving missionaries at least 2 hours every day to actually study the scriptures on their own and together. The ones who actually do study as opposed to just reading (often absently) and checking the box often have those “Huh? That’s not what my seminary teacher said!” moments. The seeds of my own FC were undoubtedly planted on my mission. For those individuals and families who really undertake Come Follow Me the same sorts of things could happen (and I am aware of a couple instances with people I know where it has happened). This is particularly true for people who are willing to look at other translations and outside viewpoints on the same material. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that while Jesus was the son of God he was not and is not a God himself (they are in that respect unitarian – 1 God). They justify that belief by citing the New Testament where Jesus never claims to be a God (and I have not seen any translation where Jesus does make that claim). I have also never heard a statement that Jesus never claimed to be God made in our church and I bet many members would be surprised to learn he never said any such thing because the narrative is different.
DarkJedi wrote:
AmyJ wrote:
It can be a lot more. I hear stories of (usually retirees) for whom it works well. IF it is an equalized executive functioning deal (all spouses are engaged in the logistics of it), IF the content is relevant to the family members, IF family members have the time and resources to devote to study, listening, and thinking about it, and IF there is a family culture of solid communication skills, it probably works really well.
I agree, and in the cases where it is working for individuals and families the breakdown is clearly at church on Sunday. I think the church has not done a very good job at training teachers how to facilitate discussions of this nature.
I always thought that was a feature, not a bug for the situation. The idea of it was to mitigate teaching/staffing requirements at church while “strengthening the family”. [Tongue in cheek – the same reasons “why” cleaning the church went to unpaid volunteers – with roughly the same results. YMMV]
I think unintended consequences of it were a) alienating the population who does not have a spiritual family base aka “proper home environment” for home centered, church supported church, b) making more work for the woman at home because she is running/co-planning the lessons at home AND doing church work AND living a life (for less “peer recognition” – everyone is doing it), and c) creating echo chambers in family structures.
I think the bigger problem is assuming that men and women had the time and resources (and communication skills) to handle interesting, thought-provoking gospel conversations without at least a heads up along the lines of, “Don’t do this until you and your partner can communicate well enough to handle these issues without fighting”. The church makes a stab at teaching facilitation/communication skills for the teachers – the couples don’t even get standardized pre-marital counseling to start the process.
DarkJedi wrote:
There could be several reasons for that beyond just those who like the status quo in the way it’s always been done. A big reason might be the shock that might come from a perspective outside the church narrative. I have said this before, we really don’t do justice to the Old Testament in our “study” and classes. Not all of the stuff we skip is repetitive, some of it just doesn’t fit the narrative. And the narrative comes from a very singular point of view where 2+2 doesn’t always equal 4 when you look at it (or more correctly it’s made to look like 2+1=4). Specifically in regards to the OT we almost wholly ignore the Jewish point of view – and it was their text! We put everything in the Christian context, even if there isn’t really any Christian context (in fairness we’re not the only ones who do that).
I think that the 3 hour church services were a way to solve the problems of “correlation” and “ensuring that people had the opportunity for spiritual nourishment”, “many hands make light work” staffing philosophy, and had a stronger community tie. People had fewer ways that they considered profitable for spending their time (at a cultural, community, and family level). It was a glaring problem (from a church administration standpoint) that when people had to choose between spending their time at employment (both Sunday work and 2 wage worker recovery from work) and spending their time at church – it was a harder sell to keep their butts at church then not.
SIDE NOTE: We spent a good hundred years or so with a selling point that “we aren’t like other churches” in our theology (still state that to a degree) – so we don’t give their scholarship the credence it deserves. When push comes to shove, the scholar resources (bucks) are going to get paid for OUR take on scripture, OUR correlated understanding of events/controlling the narrative, because “we” are not like “them”.
DarkJedi wrote:
As an aside but related, I think many faith crises have their roots in missionary service for the same reasons alluded to above. We’re giving missionaries at least 2 hours every day to actually study the scriptures on their own and together. The ones who actually do study as opposed to just reading (often absently) and checking the box often have those “Huh? That’s not what my seminary teacher said!” moments. The seeds of my own FC were undoubtedly planted on my mission. For those individuals and families who really undertake Come Follow Me the same sorts of things could happen (and I am aware of a couple instances with people I know where it has happened).
I can totally see that.
From women I know who are trying to do this, who actually took President Eyring seriously, I hear snippets of “I am trying to run Come Follow Me and have spiritual experiences – and my husband checks out before it even starts”. What their verbal language says at the time is “I am defeated before I start, I am not good enough for this, and I am not being listened to.”
We tried running CFM the first month it came out – we had 3 official lessons lasting 5-10 minutes before we threw in the towel. It wasn’t worth the resources it took to run it for my young family.
DarkJedi wrote:
This is particularly true for people who are willing to look at other translations and outside viewpoints on the same material. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that while Jesus was the son of God he was not and is not a God himself (they are in that respect unitarian – 1 God). They justify that belief by citing the New Testament where Jesus never claims to be a God (and I have not seen any translation where Jesus does make that claim). I have also never heard a statement that Jesus never claimed to be God made in our church and I bet many members would be surprised to learn he never said any such thing because the narrative is different.
Our faith transition’s overarching narrative of “1 way of thinking” makes it a lot harder to accept other viewpoints without being threatened. When “Unity (1 thought)” and “Correlation [there is a correct thought] are the most important values, it makes it a little hard to have a narrative with diverse worldviews.
Case in point, I have an ongoing narrative with my very active sister. It’s a good conversation actually.
But it always comes back to her view that there is 1 “best way” of doing things or a “best belief system” – and that fundamentally impacts her ability to meet her “wandering siblings” where they are and be comfortable. She cannot sit with them comfortably in their living arrangements or words “because she knows better” and the siblings know that she knows better.
She was very frank in her assertion about how gospel living and being Christian are important in her life and some ways that they drive her narrative – and then closed the conversation as if I was going to get really mad and cut her off. I totally get it – my siblings have not had this site (or anthropology training or counseling to normalize diverse points of view), so they would (and probably did) take it personally and dramatically sever the relationship for a while. I wasn’t offended, and it made sense what she was saying. But I did do a double take when she started talking as if I was going to cut her off and spent several paragraphs clarifying my stance and making her comfortable in the conversation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.