- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There is a great post over on BCC about the church losing ground in the UKOne of the comments really struck me about our meetings.
Quote:
As for meetings, convincing potential converts that three-hours of rather boring worship services and Sunday school classes, plus travel time, is a wise use of their time on a Sunday is a hard sell. Let’s face it: Meetings are to Mormons what self-flagellation is to Jesuits—both are pious acts that are presumed to please the Almighty simply because they are a source of discomfort to the participant. The Jesuits have modified their views on self-mortification; perhaps we should scale back the length of our meetings.
I see there is already a thread talking about the Church in UK on StayLDS hereSo I’ll start.
When I teach SS or HPG, they are NOT boring lessons. But, I don’t use “correlated” material. I use stuff like those “essays” on LDS.org. I ALWAYS get complements after every lesson I teach. But there are a few in leadership that don’t like my teaching. The result, I’ve been given a “rest” from teaching the 4th Sunday lesson in HPG, so that “others can have the opportunity”.
Sheldon, I am with you. I was a go to as substitute for GD for a while and I would bring in RSR and lots of other outside sources. I would not teach very controversial things but would make comments about multiple first vision accounts (not go into details). I got compliments from a member of the SP told to him by his wife who attended our ward.
I have a good friend who taught the way you did also be “released.” He would also get lots of positive comments from people. I think a lot of people crave the deeper connection with our theology and doctrine. IMO, our leaders underestimate members capacity to deal with sticky topics because we’ve been raised in a culture to not question. But I don’t think a lot of people are getting what they need (as the article linked above talks about).
I also see it from the other side, that might be really great for a smaller minority but might be poison for the majority. I don’t know the right way to strike that balance. But we definitely need to move to a more open, thoughtful, and questioning teaching IMO.
In addition, reducing the meeting length, or a varying schedule each month would help. As I suggested on the other thread, having Primary during sacrament meeting (teachers could switch out each week) so that adults could get something more out of Sac. meeting (having three small kids sac. meeting is almost worthless, and when I am gone to another ward on Sunday for my calling it is completely worthless for my wife. except the actual taking of the sacrament).
My two cents…
I think that cutting back Sacrament meeting to 45 minutesm, primarily taking the Sacrament and having one short speaker or two (if youth) would be enough. And then one meeting like Sunday School one week, and perhaps Priesthood/RS as the second hour, the next week, alternating. Week 1:
Short Sacrament
Sunday School
Week 2
Short Sacrament
Priesthood/RS/YM/YW
Week 3
Short Sacrament
Sunday School
Week 4
Short Sacrament
Priesthood/RS/YM/YW
I also think that some kind of ongoing teacher development class for new teachers hosted by the Stake would be a great facility for improving the quality of lessons and teaching. For example, if newly called, you can attend a Stake Sunday School teaching workshop the Stake hosts monthly for all new teachers. One that stresses preparation, activity-oriented lessons, how to make class interesting, etcetera. Rather than leaving it to ad hoc local Teaching the Gospel courses.
I don’t want to reduce the three-hour block to two hours; I want to make all of the meetings worth attending. I’ve been in wards and branches where that has been the case, and it is wonderful. Almost nobody complains when it works like it’s supposed to work – and two hours of boredom is only better than three hours by degree (and won’t eliminate the underlying concern one bit). I also recognize that MANY members truly need as much time on Sunday as they can get, and I don’t want to rob them of Sunday School, for example, just because it might not be wonderful for me every week.
Having said that, if the meetings are going to be boring, I’d rather have two hours than three. If a reduction is going to happen, I like alternating the second hour between Sunday School and RS/PH/YW/YM.
I just think it’s not all that hard to tackle the root issue. There is no way to make every class and meeting spirit-filled and growth-inducing, but focused effort can make a HUGE difference and an important change.
(It looks like SD and I were typing at the same time.)
Yep, we agree, although I have a feeling the excitement-o-meter is not going to move off boring on average until there are structural changes in how we train and orient people to their callings. The article on the OP made this point:
Quote:
The converts of the 70s-80s are still running the church but are now less socially tied to it. More than all of this, the old guard are carrying the weight of the unfulfilled promise of eternal families to mundane services every week; and that is not sustainable.This speaks to me as I was part of the old guard. Baptized as a convert in the early 80’s. I definitely feel zero social ties to the church now. Also, the budgets for Ward activities as been cut to almost zero in many different Wards I’ve attended, so you’re stuck with pot luck dinners where, when I try to talk to people, I get monosyllabic answers.
It is worth noting that the reduction in sociality everyone laments is a DIRECT result of the meeting consolidation everyone wanted when members tended to be at church almost every day. We wanted less time at church, so we got it – and now we complain about losing what we used to have. There is a lesson in there, if we can recognize it.
Old-Timer wrote:It is worth noting that the reduction in sociality everyone laments is a DIRECT result of the meeting consolidation everyone wanted when members tended to be at church almost every day. We wanted less time at church, so we got it – and now we complain about losing what we used to have.
There is a lesson in there, if we can recognize it.
See, I don’t feel the lack of sociality is a result of less time at church. It’s a result of the incredible busy-ness that the church puts on people (which I hope is changing) that makes socializing seem like a hassle. Also, lack of budgets for purely social events also hurts.
I was once in a HP quorum where one of the assistants said they were going to have a social for the HP group. Everyone started demanding “What’s the purpose of the social”. The assistant simply replied “it’s just to socialize”. This answer was not good enough for the quorum, who asked again what the purpose of the meeting was.
Also, church time doesn’t really allow for socializing — we are encouraged to bustle to classes, the be reverent in the meetings (both good things) and after 3 hours, a lot of people are ready to get home, starving, depending on when the meeting is.
Hate to be “that guy” again but I feel that this voice needs to be added: They do have a teacher development class. My experience has been that when it is offered people are forced to take it and many people come out the other end of the course exactly the same as how they came into the course. I think it’s the way we dole out callings. If someone hates teaching and they are asked to be a teacher they are probably going to begrudgingly accept the assignment and it’s going to have an impact on their instruction. A teacher development class might make such a person more miserable.
Quote:The converts of the 70s-80s are still running the church but are now less socially tied to it. More than all of this,
the old guard are carrying the weight of the unfulfilled promise of eternal families to mundane services every week; and that is not sustainable. I don’t follow the bolded portion of the quote. The unfulfilled promise of eternal families? I guess they mean bitterness because some of their children are inactive?
Old-Timer wrote:It is worth noting that the reduction in sociality everyone laments is a DIRECT result of the meeting consolidation everyone wanted when members tended to be at church almost every day. We wanted less time at church, so we got it – and now we complain about losing what we used to have.
There is a lesson in there, if we can recognize it.
I’m going to need this one explained to me as well.
Having joined the church in the early 90s all I’ve ever known is the “3 hour block.” I have friends that have been around the block and I’ve heard what meetings used to be like. Different meetings spread out over the entire day, other meetings occurring on a day of the week, etc. Frankly if all other things remained the same but we moved back to a non-consolidated model I think church would be absolutely nightmarish, but that’s tempered by me not having a concept of what it was like before.
These same seasoned friends lament the loss of
activities(read: notmeetings) that the church used to hold. A lot of people I talk to claim that activities “used to be fun” and the blame is usually laid at the feet of reduced budgets or requiring that each activity have some agenda. It is impossible for me to tell if the activities used to be fun due to some now absent factor or whether a person “grew up.” Meaning the activities are designed for youth and young families but now they are being viewed through the eyes of a cynic adult. 
I’m also sure it varies from unit to unit. When I was in a singles ward (different beast) there was always something going on. You could find something to do almost every day of the week. Then I’ve been in wards where they would have an activity and two couples (out of a ward of 200+ actives) would show up.
I’m deviating… I think the difference Ray is meetings vs. activities. And I think it’s fine to have an activity without an agenda. Sometimes children need that. Church can be a safe place where they can simply hang with friends until they reach the stage where church becomes something more for them. Often we suppress those kinds of interactions in our meetings and during our activities, so much so that church becomes a place that children just hate.
I’ll cut it off there for now.
It’s the loss of activities that I also lament – NOT meetings. Those activities are what was lost first when the consolidation occurred to the three-hour block. I’m not saying I want to go back to being at the church most nights each week. I’m saying I don’t want to keep consolidating to the point where we go to church one hour a week and have even less chance of being spiritually fed AND socially integrated AND communally involved.
I’m saying it’s interesting to complain about too much “church” and then turn around and cry that we need more. I’m saying we need to be MUCH more specific than that – for example, differentiating between meetings and activities, and also focusing on quality rather than quantity (even as we look at how to eliminate or streamline some meetings to enhance quality). I’m also saying we can’t blame “The Church” completely for the reduction in activities when it was done at “our” insistence and also in order to free up more time for us to spend as families and to serve in our communities. That was why it was done, so one important question is:
Quote:“Did we take advantage of that and fill our days with those things – or did we just keep the same busyness we used to have by filling our days with other stuff?”
Personally, I appreciated the downsizing of meetings AND socials. That alone kept me interested and active for a few years. If it was up to me, all Mormon Church would be done via internet.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
There continue to be some really good comments being made on that article. Bob Wrathall says: July 24, 2014 at 10:06 pm wrote:The rise of the internet has provided a substitute socialization. It has provided the ability to choose the groups we socialize in. It is the facilitator, a necessary component for effect but not sufficient. For example, if it were not for the Mormon blogs I would feel despondent in the current situation. I enjoy my online experience much more than the real live sacrament meeting. I enjoy the analysis and generally left of center thought found here more than our Stake Young Women’s presidency talking, pretty non-informatively, about pornography in Sacrament Meeting. It appears that many of you find yourselves in a similar situation. By comparison the life has been sucked out of our meetings (by correlation, to make sure we do not teach false doctrine).
Bob brings up an interesting point, world culture has shifted. People are starting to fill their needs for social interaction via technology. Good, bad, and ugly it’s happening all the same. The internet does more than provide a place where people can more readily access information about church history, etc. Technology also replaces people’s need for face to face social interaction, and that’s a generational shift.
cwald wrote:If it was up to me, all Mormon Church would be done via internet.
I admit that I kind of chuckled at that suggestion when I first read it, but perhaps you are on to something.
I just took an excerpt from Bob’s post but the rest of it is interesting as well. Here’s another that I will lift:
Rose says: July 24, 2014 at 11:28 pm wrote:Aaron – My husband and I sat reading this last night and said to each other that our parents are the people you are talking about. Despite them doing everything – scripture study, family home evening, 100% visiting teaching, calling after calling, we have still left. Yet not in our teens. At the age of 40 and 41 years. Former Branch President, former Stake Relief Society President member with both fathers, former stake presidents. We left for many reasons. Church history being part of it but mainly because we did not believe it any more or most importantly DID NOT LIKE IT – our children finding it particularly difficult even though very young.
We found it an utterly miserable place to be. However, we don’t blame this on the members. Rather this is an exhausting religion. Far too complicated and systemised. In my little world you can’t systemise faith or more importantly love.The concept of ‘being saved’ and a merit system of doing good and then getting rewards felt highly un deity like to us. We do good for good sake now – expecting nothing – and believe in a mysterious deity who we feel would just want all his children back, without needing special physical rituals or anything else for that matter. We respect others believe differently. Despite our four parents being over seventy or heading that direction they are certainly heavily engaged in the work. Just the other week one parent was called as the Bishop and the other parent has regional responsibilities. I’m not sure they miss the social part of the LDS church though. Perhaps because they have advanced up the ladder the pay off for them is still the feeling of being useful. Being the leaders. Status in their community. They are all good people but their life is the church. They seldom mix with non LDS and Temple attendance is very frequent as is indexing etc. However, they spend little time with us as time and energy is in short supply. Perhaps the most tragic thing about all of this is that the LDS is set up for a certain type of family. Once you leave the fold it is very difficult for believing members and non believing members to have fulfilling relationships. The two worlds struggle to mix in our experience.
We’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. Well I shouldn’t say that because I think that’s one of the reasons we’re here, the solution always being more work. Perhaps… we’ve got a lot of changing our hearts ahead of us.
cwald wrote:Personally, I appreciated the downsizing of meetings AND socials. That alone kept me interested and active for a few years.
If it was up to me, all Mormon Church would be done via internet.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I certainly don’t attend all socials and never did, and I’m always in favor of fewer/shorter meetings. I’ll just throw in here that during much of my inactive time my “worship service” substitute was the weekly Tabernacle Choir broadcast on BYUTV.
Quote:I’m not saying I want to go back to being at the church most nights each week. I’m saying I don’t want to keep consolidating to the point where we go to church one hour a week and have even less chance of being spiritually fed AND socially integrated AND communally involved.
Many other Christian churches (and maybe non-Christian religions?) that I’m aware of have an hour long service, where the children are in SS, and then they have a social afterwards where they eat and visit. That’s what they do in my MIL’s church. She said if we did something like that, she might be more interested in coming since she doesn’t really believe in the theology of her church. She thinks our church is mostly busy work, though, and doesn’t see much of Jesus in it. No wrong?
Anyway, I would love church like that.
Fwiw, writer63, those denominations also tend to be the ones struggling the most to engage youth who stay actively involved as adults. I’ve looked at the membership data, and this is an extremely difficult, complicated issue. I still say, however, that if we made our meetings spiritual and had fun, engaging, meaningful activities, I think much of the issue would be resolved.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.