- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve seen a couple of you mention the idea of children being in SS during SM as is done in some other churches. I have to say one of the things I like about the church is that we sit together as families. We have been to other churches where families are separate, and like it better when we’re together. Just saying. I think this is why this is so complex, what would work well for some might not work as well for others. Again, I have no answers, but I think there should be room to experiment (like maybe only once a month we have primary during SM). Bishops should be able to adapt to the needs or desires of their congregation (within reason) and try different and new things.
Old-Timer wrote: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.
Ray, I think this is my broader point. Let’s try some different things and see how they work. Share best practices across stakes and regions (Innovate!!). Also I think we could have more meaningful meetings if we were actually able to talk about meaningful things; so focus SM on Christ. Instruction should be exploring the broader themes of our theology (I read your lesson postings and your youth lessons sound 100X more interesting than our current GD lessons. We have very Orthodox teachers) and let’s explore some of the messiness of the scriptures and our past. Those lessons are interesting! (but again perhaps good for me, not so good for the rest of the flock). I know our HPGL has said something to the effect; we are really good at vertical revelation, not very good at horizontal revelation (as in learning from each other).
nibbler wrote: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.
Good point. I would also like to add this — I once held a Ward Teacher Development workshop when I was a Ward Teacher Development coordinator. Guess who came? Two people — neither of whom were called as teachers!!! They WANTED to learn how to teach better. Unfortunately, our system of calls and releases doesn’t seem to recognize the role of passion and desire on the part of members — it’s a “served where placed until released model”.
That is why I suggest (in geographically close areas) that the Stake puts on monthly/bi-monthly teacher development meetings people can just come to. At a stake level, it might make attendance enough to make it worth it. You would get passionate teachers out of the stake and newly called people who want to be there. And don’t forget YouTube. I had to orient a lot of volunteers in the last year in my community service (a surrogate for my church service) and YouTube is a phenomenal place to let people learn on their own time.
Quote: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?
I viewed this generally — essentially that people in this age group often have family (children) who did not engage with the gospel, so the idea of eternal family doesn’t resonate as much. Call it eternal empty nest syndrome. I know a couple families like that. Meanwhile, they are expected to keep the ball rolling in their Wards, and it can become very tedious and monotonous.
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.
By this I think Ray is suggesting that when we complain about certain things, the leadership responds, it leads to new unintended consequences and new complaints. It’s the cycle of change in life — there is a status quo,people balk at it, leaders change it, new complaints emerge, and there is subsequent change or a return to the original status quo. Maybe he’s just suggesting that we are complaining eternally about things.
I personally don’t think the argument is a sound one in this case, though. My issue is with the quality of the meetings, and the quality of the socials. I would surmise that on average, our meetings and socials are about a 6/10 on dimensions of quality. Part of the problem is the incredible repetition in what we do. For people who like the predictability and consistency of our church habits, it works, but for people like myself with active minds, and tendencies toward boredom, it can be nighmarish.
I agree completely, SunbeltRed. I wish Bishops felt empowered to try new things, within reason – but defining “within reason” is part of the issue, always, in every organization. I think it also is important to look historically at how we got where we got – and take responsibility (speaking of the general membership) for the results of our complaining.
We have correlation largely because of a lot of really off-the-wall stuff that was being taught at the local level decades ago. Yes, it stifles creativity –
but I think every single person here probably doesn’t want full creative license to be exercised by MANY of the people they know at the local level. Correlation stifles us – but it also stifles the opposite extreme. If we want “full freedom of expression”, we need to be willing to grant that same freedom to the rest of the membership – which means those who live in generally conservative areas already need to be ready to buckle up and hold on tight, since the most outspoken traditionalists would have free rein to create and present lessons that match their views even more than the current lessons might. Personally, I could handle meetings that were completely open, no-holds-barred, passionate, intense debates – but I understand completely that such an environment at church would be really bad for lots of people. In the end, I’m saying we need to focus on what we can do, individually, in our own local congregations – and, for every person here, that is something. Exactly what it is will vary from person to person and location to location, but there is something – even if, in extreme cases, that something is not attending. I just like to try to do something rather than accept doing nothing or eliminating things that I know, with absolute certainty, quite a few other people really need – like Sunday School.
Old-Timer wrote:I agree completely, SunbeltRed. I wish Bishops felt empowered to try new things, within reason – but defining “within reason” is part of the issue, always, in every organization.
I think it also is important to look historically at how we got where we got – and take responsibility (speaking of the general membership) for the results of our complaining.
We have correlation largely because of a lot of really off-the-wall stuff that was being taught at the local level decades ago. Yes, it stifles creativity –
but I think every single person here probably doesn’t want full creative license to be exercised by MANY of the people they know at the local level. Correlation stifles us – but it also stifles the opposite extreme. If we want “full freedom of expression”, we need to be willing to grant that same freedom to the rest of the membership – which means those who live in generally conservative areas already need to be ready to buckle up and hold on tight, since the most outspoken traditionalists would have free rein to create and present lessons that match their views even more than the current lessons might. Personally, I could handle meetings that were completely open, no-holds-barred, passionate, intense debates – but I understand completely that such an environment at church would be really bad for lots of people. In the end, I’m saying we need to focus on what we can do, individually, in our own local congregations – and, for every person here, that is something. Exactly what it is will vary from person to person and location to location, but there is something – even if, in extreme cases, that something is not attending. I just like to try to do something rather than accept doing nothing or eliminating things that I know, with absolute certainty, quite a few other people really need – like Sunday School.
Good points Ray. Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I hope in my calling I can have some influence in creating that space for people. I also know my wife and I sometimes don’t feel very spiritually fed, thus this (the bloggernacle) definitely helps.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.