Things We Lost with the Block

[Anonymous]

What I miss was Sunday Socialization. Especially as kids and teens in our ward, the two or three hours between morning meetings and evening were precious. As kids we could take naps, get out of our Sunday clothes and unwind. (There were no conference talks on Sunday dress all day long.) As we matured we often had ward friends or went to there house. Again we all shed our Sunday duds and hung out.

My ward covered 3 school districts, so church time was our only connection together. Mid week primary helped, too. We also had more fun. Mid week primary didn’t require Sunday dress, we had snacks, play time, more creative and energized singing times. Our primary put on an annual Christmas plays, so November and December were rehearsals. No class.

I do understand the long distances, the money, even the need to make it a one time a week only church thing. But to me some of the joy of the religion got lost. We became to religiously zealous. Everything had to have a spiritual purpose, Sunday dress and tons of reverence. I even remember attending mid-week Relief Society with my mom a couple of times and it was much more fun then as opposed to now. But women could take classes on more diverse less “Priesthood Purpose” activities, they could mingle, reconnect.

I was much more inclined to invite non-member friends during the unblock era, than I am now. Even now as a leader I find the block system and it’s tight companion of correlation the death nell of Christian relationships. It makes me sad. And we now spend as much time running to the church as we did then, it’s just not as fun.

[Anonymous]

I can only ever remember the block schedule but it sounds like many Church members felt like it was more fun and more of a real community before and not only in this case but also in the case of nostalgia about other things like road shows, long temple trips, etc. I wonder how much of this is really due to actual changes for the worse in the Church and how much is due to other differences between then and now. For example, I can remember plenty of activities that were fun for me as a child/youth that would mostly seem like a hassle and waste of time to me now especially if they were a specific assignment (e.g. calling) where I would feel obligated to be there when I don’t really want to. I do think the Church has moved in the general direction toward all work and no play over time by design because of a few leaders like Boyd K. Packer that thought it was important to focus on the “gospel purpose” behind practically everything we do and correlate Church activities in a closely controlled way. Russell M. Nelson and other current leaders seem to have a similar mindset exemplified by the recent push to keep the Sabbath day holy as a supposed solution to many members losing faith and falling away from the Church.

[Anonymous]

Three hour block or not, I don’t think I have felt community for the longest time. The love and fellowship of the members is so very conditional on a variety of factors. I can’t be myself. Even when I have been a full contributor, unless the people have at least a few things in common with me, I find it hard to sustain any kind of interaction with any interest over time. The Ward I moved into doesn’t really have the right composition to create an attractive community for me.

During my active days, on Sunday, having a calling and being busy often helped me — I had something to do so that was great. But that ship has also sailed. I asked my wife and she said that as she has gotten older, and has more things to do, her time is more precious so the 3 hour block is a bit more of a burden than it once was, but she is not complaining.

I have often wished that one of the hours could be used for conducting church business. It is so hard to get people to come together for a meeting, and for some reason, there is a significant portion of the population that resists conference calls. It would be nice if we could dedicate some of the 3 hour block time to presidency meetings, to quorum planning meetings and committee work, etcetera. We used to do that anyway, now and then — provided it wasn’t a regular thing gobbling up every Sunday, and there wasn’t a HC there or someone with a manual to thump, it worked.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I can only ever remember the block schedule but it sounds like many Church members felt like it was more fun and more of a real community before and not only in this case but also in the case of nostalgia about other things like road shows, long temple trips, etc. I wonder how much of this is really due to actual changes for the worse in the Church and how much is due to other differences between then and now. For example, I can remember plenty of activities that were fun for me as a child/youth that would mostly seem like a hassle and waste of time to me now especially if they were a specific assignment (e.g. calling) where I would feel obligated to be there when I don’t really want to. I do think the Church has moved in the general direction toward all work and no play over time by design because of a few leaders like Boyd K. Packer that thought it was important to focus on the “gospel purpose” behind practically everything we do and correlate Church activities in a closely controlled way. Russell M. Nelson and other current leaders seem to have a similar mindset exemplified by the recent push to keep the Sabbath day holy as a supposed solution to many members losing faith and falling away from the Church.

In some wards everone wants “all work an no play”. I was in one Ward and the youth, adults, all came together to work, but didn’t have much interest in socializing. Other wards have thrived on the social aspect, yet weren’t very good at execution. So, I think the optimal level of work/play really depends on the personality of the ward.

I remember one HPGL tried to plan a HP Quorum social. The quorum was full of retired SP’s, BP’s, HC, Temple Presidents and the flak he got was amazing. “What is the purpose of the meeting??” was asked of him multiple times. His response “it’s just to socialize” was his answer, which was unacceptable to the informal leaders in the group. Some people said they already had enough to do rather than book off a night simply socializing (as if socializing was not productive).

In other Wards (like my current ward), they would shy away from anything that involved work (service projects, home teaching blitz’s etcetera) but when you talked about socializing and building relationships they were all excited about it. That was a ward where execution would have to happen with some strong social aspect.

I am finding that as I get older, I am envisioning a World where I live my life largely independently, seeking satisfaction from achievement, personal entertainment, and meaningful service to others that I find interesting. I will be busy, but I will likely not have close friends where I can share my deepest darkest feelings and the intimate parts of my life….Church will likely not fill that need again. I am too contrarion in my thinking now.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I can only ever remember the block schedule but it sounds like many Church members felt like it was more fun and more of a real community before and not only in this case but also in the case of nostalgia about other things like road shows, long temple trips, etc. I wonder how much of this is really due to actual changes for the worse in the Church and how much is due to other differences between then and now. For example, I can remember plenty of activities that were fun for me as a child/youth that would mostly seem like a hassle and waste of time to me now especially if they were a specific assignment (e.g. calling) where I would feel obligated to be there when I don’t really want to. I do think the Church has moved in the general direction toward all work and no play over time by design because of a few leaders like Boyd K. Packer that thought it was important to focus on the “gospel purpose” behind practically everything we do and correlate Church activities in a closely controlled way. Russell M. Nelson and other current leaders seem to have a similar mindset exemplified by the recent push to keep the Sabbath day holy as a supposed solution to many members losing faith and falling away from the Church.

In some wards everone wants “all work an no play”. I was in one Ward and the youth, adults, all came together to work, but didn’t have much interest in socializing. Other wards have thrived on the social aspect, yet weren’t very good at execution. So, I think the optimal level of work/play really depends on the personality of the ward…I remember one HPGL tried to plan a HP Quorum social. The quorum was full of retired SP’s, BP’s, HC, Temple Presidents and the flak he got was amazing. “What is the purpose of the meeting??” was asked of him multiple times. His response “it’s just to socialize” was his answer, which was unacceptable to the informal leaders in the group. Some people said they already had enough to do rather than book off a night simply socializing (as if socializing was not productive)…In other Wards (like my current ward), they would shy away from anything that involved work (service projects, home teaching blitz’s etcetera) but when you talked about socializing and building relationships they were all excited about it.

I think the move toward all work and no play in the Church goes beyond the personalities of individual members at the local level and is something basically institutionalized into the Church from the top down at this point so it is in the structure of the meetings, lessons, etc. The result is that many members go to Church meetings, do callings etc. as essentially a chore to complete and are largely going through the motions because they think it is what they are supposed to do, it’s what others expect them to do, etc. not because they enjoy it or really want to do it. It seems like Church leaders have basically correlated the life out of the Church to some extent. For example, I found the following blog article that talks about some similar ideas regarding what is wrong with the Church.

http://www.wheatandtares.org/19398/an-aside-why-are-people-going-inactive/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.wheatandtares.org/19398/an-aside-why-are-people-going-inactive/

He has some statistics that show that the percentage of inactive members started to increase after about 1980 and it sounds like he is trying to claim that this means that the internet, learning about historical issues, etc. are not the primary reason Church members become inactive because it really started happening on a large scale long before these more recent developments. Instead he suggests that the main things that changed around this time were changes to the Church curriculum and intentional efforts to separate “Church from community.” Of course he overlooked another major factor pointed out in some of the comments that having missionaries focused on baptizing as many people as possible fairly quickly resulted in many Church members that are essentially just names on a list at this point and never really integrated into the Church over the long term compared to many members raised in the Church.

Personally I don’t think more meetings is the best answer to foster a sense of community and make church a more enjoyable and less tedious experience than it currently is but I do think they could make much better use of the existing time with better lessons, talks, activities, etc. But it seems like Church leaders don’t care if many members feel like church is an uninteresting pain and hassle, that it doesn’t fulfill their desire for a sense of community and belonging, etc. because the general idea seems to be that it is simply the members’ obligation to attend the meetings and accept every calling and the primary purpose of these meetings is to teach and reinforce “correct” beliefs and it’s almost like it doesn’t even occur to them that the Church could possibly provide a more uplifting and enjoyable experience as well as more value as a community than it currently does in many wards and branches.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

But it seems like Church leaders don’t care . . .

Um, no.

Lots of good, interesting things in the comment, DA, but the final conclusions is way off, imo. Not knowing what to do to make improvements (and trying to make improvements that some / many people don’t see as improvements – like the curernt focus on improving Sunday worship – which proves my point, I think) and not caring are very different things.

[Anonymous]

I have often wondered if they care about the experience of being a Mormon. I know they care when it comes to new converts — they have put systems in place like the new member checklist, encourage referrals from other members to ensure the newbies have someone to be their friend for the social conversion.

But when it comes to the experience of people who have been adult members for a while, I am not aware of any effort being placed toward monitoring satisfaction with the experience. In Armond Mauss’ memoirs, he talked about pilots in his stake regarding prospective elders and what it might take to make their experience better, but the goals is always focused on advancement into the priesthood, receiving various ordinances eteceetera. I think those are good metrics as they show a commitment to certain behaviors and are measureable. ON the other hand, what about people who have made all the commitments and are in the repetitive grind of the experience? You can still measure % of endowed members with current TR’s and temple attendance, and even activity, but I have not seen any evidence they measure the “why” behind less activity rates to address issues such as:

a) The monotony of the service they require

b) Misalignment between personal skills and passions with the current “serve where placed until released model”

c) The negative effects of the home teaching program.

d) The lack of emphasis on teaching quality (no institutional systems or even personnel in place who focus primarily on that goal).

I do believe there is room for improvement in what it means to be a Mormon, and the weekly, daily experience at church…but I don’t see it being measured or improved upon. Granted, there is some movement toward greater assimilation of American cultural values (elevating the status of women, repudiating racism), but I don’t see the experience of being a Mormon getting any better for people like myself who are long in the tooth in the Mormon experience.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

But it seems like Church leaders don’t care . . .

Um, no.

Lots of good, interesting things in the comment, DA, but the final conclusions is way off, imo. Not knowing what to do to make improvements (and trying to make improvements that some / many people don’t see as improvements – like the current focus on improving Sunday worship – which proves my point, I think) and not caring are very different things.

I agree that church leaders do care. I also believe that it is generally a mistake to say that someone does not care. Suppose I am a teacher and I convince myself that a particular struggling student doesn’t care. I have just absolved myself from helping this student until his attitude changes. How nice for me and how unfortunate for the student with challenges and struggles that I will never know beyond a surface level. Similarly, a frustrated bishop might conclude that I do not care about the eternal wellbeing of myself or my family and just write me off.

However, This is not what I believe that DA was saying. I perceive two different business models with churches. The first is where the environment is so great and enviting that people attend even without any burning conviction about the truth claims presented. It is an environment first and religion second approach. The second model is where people gain a testimony of the truth claims and then acclimatize themselves to the environment for the sake the testimony. It is a religion first and environment second approach. Mormonism seems to fit in this second business model. Being a member is hard work and the culture is often not welcoming towards half milers. This is what I believe that DA meant when he said that church leaders don’t care about the experience.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

But it seems like Church leaders don’t care if many members feel like church is an uninteresting pain and hassle, that it doesn’t fulfill their desire for a sense of community and belonging, etc. because the general idea seems to be that it is simply the members’ obligation to attend the meetings and accept every calling and the primary purpose of these meetings is to teach and reinforce “correct” beliefs and it’s almost like it doesn’t even occur to them that the Church could possibly provide a more uplifting and enjoyable experience as well as more value as a community than it currently does in many wards and branches.

He seems to be saying that church leaders might be less responsive to complaints about the church experience because it was never in the program to make the experience into a spiritual Disneyland. We have a “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” model.

In fact I believe that some feel that the more uncomfortable aspects of the church experience are actually there for our progress and growth. I do believe that overcoming obstacles and coping with disappointment and difficulty are useful life skills. However it can also be a handy excuse for placing additional burdens at the feet of the members. When the church removed the church custodian position, it was explained that cleaning the chapel would be good for the members. When the SS and PH/RS were using the same manual and there arose a possibility that members might receive the same lesson back to back, it was explained that the repetition was good for the members. When the church discontinued student wards and tightened down on YSA ward hopping (a process where one actually tested different YSA wards until you found one that was best for you), it was explained that this change was for the benefit of these members.

Quote:

“This age group tends to drift a little bit, to different units, different wards,” said Elder Steven E. Snow of the Presidency of the Seventy. “We hope it will provide enhanced opportunities for them to serve in leadership positions, and to teach, to lead. . . . We hope it enhances their opportunities to meet other people and to do meaningful service, and we want to deliver these opportunities in their geographic area.”

[Anonymous]

Good points. I have never liked the idea that onerous requirements are for our own good. I have heard that in business contexts as well. There are times such reasoning can even sound Orwellian such as the strengthening the members committee. Which was really a watchdog and somewhat punitive effort. Kind of like telling a kid that a spanking is for their own good. For me, whether anyone cares is found in our institutional habits, structures and systems. If we were experiencing surveys about our satisfaction with the LDS experience regularly and receiving their results, with changes to the LDS experience occurring regularly as a direct result of this feedback I would really believe they cared. Sadly, at this point, I am not sure it would change my orientation toward the church as too much has happened.

[Anonymous]

I like that explanation, Roy.

[Anonymous]

What I’m hearing in this conversation is that essentially two things have been lost: socialization and to a smaller degree spirituality.

I am probably in the minority. While I can’t say socialization has never been a part of the church for me, I can say it has never been the main part of the church for me. I’ve said here before that I would be OK as a hermit – and I truly believe that. These days when I go to church I am going to be spiritually nourished – that doesn’t always happen as a result of what is happening at church, I sometimes I have to create my own. I don’t go because I have many friends there, although the people I do consider friends are there. Generally speaking, three hours is more than enough lingering, and I’m not-so-secretly happy when my wife doesn’t bring anything for the linger longer on second Sundays (she usually doesn’t BTW). It’s not that I dislike most of the people there, and in fact there are a few I like very much (as well as a few I avoid) – I just like going home more. It’s sort of hard to explain but at the same time it’s pretty simple – I don’t care much for socializing.

My wife joined the church about the same time I did but we were in different states. Hence, it was shortly after the institution of the block that she joined as well. She lived in an area where the closest ward was about 30 miles away. Her mother joined the church shortly before she did, and they are still the only two members in her rather large family. While both my wife and MIL are very social and probably would have otherwise thrived pre-block, it’s likely dear old MIL would not have attended all day meetings 30 miles away, nor would her husband likely have tolerated that. They may have attended one meeting or another, but they would not have made the 60 mile round trip twice on Sundays, nor camped out at church. The block was probably a blessing to them. Still, if things had never changed DW would probably thrive later on (we now only live 10 miles from our meeting house and probably would make the two trips).

So while I can certainly see how many thrive on and need the socialization the existed pre-block, I am not one of those. I would wager that there were those back in the day who did choose to attend only one of the meetings, and I would wager weeknight PH/RS were more lightly attended than they currently are in the block.

I actually think spirituality is a concern of the Brethren and in truth I think the Sabbath day emphasis is something they are trying to improve the church part of that. I can say I saw slight improvement at first, but I haven’t seen more improvement and I haven’t heard much about it lately – pretty much nothing this year except that one of our stake areas of focus is a rather nebulous “improve Sabbath observance.” As alluded to above, I often resort to making my own spirituality and sometimes that is rather short (not at all 3 hours worth).

Living out here in “the field” as I do, I don’t see a solution to having what some of you miss from the good old days – separating the meetings again is probably not viable even though most people in my stake now live with 15 miles of their wards/branches (although some live much farther) and even though most of our wards meet in buildings by themselves (only the singles branch shares with another ward). I do see the advantage of having a stand alone SM, and I can see how that might greatly influence increased spirituality and focus on Christ. However, I don’t see the Brethren wanting to eliminate SS or move PH/RS/Primary/YM/YW lessons back to weeknights and I don’t think the membership would much like it either. I’m not sure there’s a happy medium here.

Side note: When I was in the bishopric the second time we had a bishop who was very focused on everything having a priesthood purpose all the time. This frustrated me to no end because I thought it was fine and even necessary for the kids to sometimes just hang out. Our ward has 5 school districts in it (typical for this area) and these kids don’t see each other during the week except Wednesdays nights (if they go) and everything had to be structured around some perceived (or contrived) purpose. Fast forward, my son is the only LDS kid in his high school. He has good non-member friends (all of which are team mates in various sports). He has not one single friend in our ward – and I can honestly say the other four “active” priest age boys in our ward also don’t have friends at church. There really is something wrong there.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. I just asked my husband about this and he said, “I think the church is at a point where they need to stop trying to make one size fit all. Adapt the meeting schedule to local circumstances.” As in, two neighboring stakes, or even wards, could have completely different set-ups. Wouldn’t that be chaotic … and really cool?

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Interesting. I just asked my husband about this and he said, “I think the church is at a point where they need to stop trying to make one size fit all. Adapt the meeting schedule to local circumstances.” As in, two neighboring stakes, or even wards, could have completely different set-ups. Wouldn’t that be chaotic … and really cool?

Interesting, Ann. I agree the church could do better at embracing diversity but also recognize it does some. I’d be interested to hear some thoughts on how schedules could be different or tailored to specific places, keeping in mind the squashed Boston 2-hour attempt (a branch here tried that too with the same outcome). The church sort of prides itself on being the same wherever one goes (which in most ways is true), but I think more as a misguided way of demonstrating the gospel is the same everywhere (which in all ways is true). Were two neighboring wards to have differing schedules with one similar to pre-block and the other block, wouldn’t people who dislike one or the other then be clamoring for the opposite and vice versa? They’d have to relax the ward boundary thing and I don’t see that happening for that reason.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Ann wrote:

Interesting. I just asked my husband about this and he said, “I think the church is at a point where they need to stop trying to make one size fit all. Adapt the meeting schedule to local circumstances.” As in, two neighboring stakes, or even wards, could have completely different set-ups. Wouldn’t that be chaotic … and really cool?

Interesting, Ann. I agree the church could do better at embracing diversity but also recognize it does some. I’d be interested to hear some thoughts on how schedules could be different or tailored to specific places, keeping in mind the squashed Boston 2-hour attempt (a branch here tried that too withe same outcome). The church sort of prides itself on being the same wherever one goes (which in most ways is true), but I think more as a misguided way of demonstrating the gospel is the same everywhere (which in all ways is true). Were two neighboring wards to have differing schedules with one similar to pre-block and the other block, wouldn’t people who dislike one or the other then be clamoring for the opposite and vice versa? They’d have to relax the ward boundary thing and I don’t see that happening for that reason.

True. It does get into a slippery slope. I recall a ward near mine (it was the “country” ward that had 80% of the square miles of the stake). They had a small building with no other wards or branches meeting in it. They had meet at 9 AM for more than a decade and some were asking for a later time (given some of the driving distances were >30 minutes). The bishop eventually had a quick vote via a slip of paper for 9AM vs 10AM. It came out 50/50, so the bishop said, “OK, we are split and the 9AM’ers club has had that for more than a decade, so we are moving to 10AM.” Not more than a few months later a Spanish branch was created and the ward had to move back to 9AM.

[Anonymous]

50/50. Why not 9:30AM?

DarkJedi wrote:

Were two neighboring wards to have differing schedules with one similar to pre-block and the other block, wouldn’t people who dislike one or the other then be clamoring for the opposite and vice versa? They’d have to relax the ward boundary thing and I don’t see that happening for that reason.

Those were my thoughts as well. It helps to know that church the next ward over is every bit as boring as it is in my ward. :angel: 🙂

I recognize that for every person like me that would like to see things shaken up a bit that there are probably 10 people that find comfort in knowing what to expect in any given ward. It’s like going to McDonald’s when you’re visiting Japan. You might not be a big fan of the local cuisine so you occasionally want to go somewhere where you can say #3 and get back to something you’re more familiar with.

I’m not sure how I feel about giving local congregations more autonomy. The benefit is that people may feel more ownership in their religion. The downside is at what point does a unit lose its identity as a unit of the CoJCoLDS? Strict top down doesn’t work well for me but neither would many alternatives.

[Author]

Posts