- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We had that 9:00 vs. 10:00 argument for years. Truthfully I don’t care, but I do like getting home earlier vs. later. At the time the argument started and I was in the bishopric and we had small children. To them there is a big difference in noon and one – they’re more hungry and more tired at 1. There were some who argued they could be more on time if meetings were at 10 instead of 9. Having once lived where our building was shared by 3 wards I knew that not to be true – the same people were late whether our meetings started at 9, 12, or 3 (they hadn’t got the overlapping thing down yet in those days). And there was one handicapped sister who swore that she could be there later but not at 9 because her aide didn’t come to get her up early enough to be there at 9 (but 9:30 was OK). So in the end a new bishop (who was in the 10:00 camp even though he did have small children) ended up splitting the difference and we meet at 9:30. The same people are always late and the handicapped lady has never come. There’s a sister who moved into our ward a couple years ago who thinks meeting at 9:30 is the weirdest thing and simply cannot get used to meeting on the half hour – not that she’s late, she just constantly struggles with what time meetings change. FWIW, in that old ward I personally loved the noon year and hated the 3:00 year – but I was a YSA at the time.
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 curernt focus on improving Sunday worship – which proves my point, I think) and not caring are very different things.You’re right; that was just my initial wild guess and stab at mind-reading based on what we see namely no significant changes in the overall format and content of the meetings for decades while many members do not find these meetings to be particularly interesting or enjoyable. But the way I worded this made it sound like I was already convinced that Church leaders were intentionally disregarding the dissatisfaction of many Church members in a callous way when in reality for all we know these leaders possibly are not even aware of how many members are currently dissatisfied with the Church and why in the first place.
What I meant to say is simply that Church leaders have shown no interest in making Church meetings more interesting and enjoyable or community oriented so regardless of whether the reason is because they think the Church is already the way it should be and if members don’t like it then it is their fault for not doing it right or whether they would like to improve the Church but don’t know how and/or can’t agree on the best way to do that or if it is something else entirely the results are the same (no significant changes for better or worse). Even if they did surveys to try to get some honest feedback it seems like many TBMs and possibly even inactive members would not necessarily accurately identify the most significant sources of dissatisfaction with the Church at this point. When I was inactive but still believed in the Church for years I would have blamed myself saying that I was too selfish and lazy and didn’t feel like going back, etc. instead of saying that it just didn’t sound very interesting or worthwhile to me.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:When I was inactive but still believed in the Church for years I would have blamed myself saying that I was too selfish and lazy and didn’t feel like going back, etc. instead of saying that it just didn’t sound very interesting or worthwhile to me.
Speaking of dismissing people as lazy… I went to priesthood yesterday for the first time in 2 months. The lesson was on “Why the church?” The question was asked how might we approach individuals that claim a sort of independent spirituality (“the outdoors are my chapel”). The EQP stated that such people are too lazy to sacrifice their time to come to church on Sunday. I could not believe that non-members with different beliefs than we have were being maligned for not making the same sacrifices as we do. As someone who has not attended priesthood in some time I did not feel that I had the necessary credibility to challenge the EQP. I quietly sat in the back with my 8 year old son that refuses to go to primary.
Quote:DA wrote -TBMs and possibly even inactive members would not necessarily accurately identify the most significant sources of dissatisfaction with the Church at this point.
And this
Quote:when in reality for all we know these leaders possibly are not even aware of how many members are currently dissatisfied with the Church and why in the first place.
Addressing both of these points. I believe we sometimes don’t see what we have,or don’t have, until it gets removed. I was 16 when the block program was instituted. I believe some areas rejoiced with it. Others groaned under it. My ward lost it’s spark because of it. The other served us better. If the leadership did change to a different program – even just a two hour block it would rattle cages enough to cause reflection, dissension, and delight. It just kind of depends on the area. I for one am all about a 2 hour block.
As to the leaders I do think they are unaware of a lot of what it feels like to be a regular member. The two worlds are so different and neither side will spend enough time in the others area to get a glimpse of what it’s like. The top team doesn’t go to 3 hour blocks any more. And we don’t live in their world of dropping into different wards/stakes/areas for a quick event then out the door. Nor do we go to work for the church. I can’t even fathom that.
The separation between the two reminds me of being a parent. I have no clue, honestly, what it feels like to be a kid or teen in life these days. Even when my kids talk to me I can only process it through my memories. And my memories did not include cell phones, school shootings, peanut allergies or Face Book. This is huge. I don’t know what cyber bullying feels like. I don’t fully comprehend the pain of opening FB and finding everyone went to an event and I wasn’t invited. I don’t have a clue what a lock down feels like, but my kids do.
As a church, especially an Anglo-American one we are much like my kids and I – disconnected and we may not even realize it. For that disconnect there is no solution.
mom3 wrote:Quote:As a church, especially an Anglo-American one we are much like my kids and I – disconnected and we may not even realize it. For that disconnect there is no solution.
I think the connection is fairly easy. My daughter is in the Laurel category, and she routinely tells me what is going on her life, candidly. Her life centers around her friends, social settings, self-discovery, parental boundary-testing (minor) primarily. There is minor drama, interpersonal problems with friends, wonderful support for other teens in times of needs, boyfriends, dates. Instagram and Tumblr and Twitter are key in their social circles. Facebook is something they use but it’s perceived as for the older generation.
Of course technology, texting and maybe phone calls are important too. Apple is king it seems, to that generation. In the LDS culture, getting into BYU is important, and there is a strong affinity for the “dating” culture where you go out with no expectation of commitment. And then, working and learning to be an employee is also important, and opens up a whole new set of temptations and invitations from co-workers who do not have LDS upbringing. Prom (both the Mormon one and High School one) are major big deals…
Of course, that is only the culture in which my daughter engages — I’m sure there are other cultures out there among kids with a different spiritual/moral orientation. She has had brushes with other teens who have experienced the usual trilogy of drugs, alchol and sex, some even with distressing situations attached and she has given them emotional support…
Back to church — all it would take are a few focus groups to reveal what people in different phases of church experience feel about their experience. Many old timers love it still. People like me, with 30 years in it and a weakened testimony find it torturous. Interviews and surveys would reveal the sentiment of the general population.
I have to confess, I find Sundays a real test of my patience now. I absolutely hate the experience and wish it could be more engaging. I feel hollow when I sit there and read about Structural Equation Modeling or the latest book on my Kindle.
The part that confuses me is that everyone says everything on Sunday centers around Sacrament meeting — the most important meeting of the day. I agree that the few minutes devoted to taking the sacrament is important for remembering the savior, renewing covenants etcetera, but the rest of it? The one-way transmission model does not work for me. Whether in a block program format or an all-day format, it does not fortify me unless the speaker is somehow engaging. At least in SS and PH, there is an opportunity for discussion, for participation etcetera. Not so in Sacrament.
I know, I know, we should be there for others, but I don’t even get to give the speakers “constructive” feedback on how to improve, and it would be unwanted if unsolicited. Set up a cardboard cut-out of me in the pews to make it real
I fell asleep in gospel doctrine the other day. The high point, was when the teacher described her process of going less active, and then coming out of it again. That part was fascinating to me and the rest of the audience (although I only caught the last 60% of it due to being asleep previously).
None of this is changing any time soon — the monotony for some people. So, it’s a matter of coping with it — Kindles, books, using the time to ideate, perhaps pray silently, etcetera.
I will say this — after we left our home ward (for about 2-3 years), and the new Ward eventually saw through our “excuse” for attending their Ward in a different stake, my wife and I stopped going altogether, as did my son. My daughter started attending a different Ward that had youth with whom she got along very well.
The message we were getting from the PH leaders in the bootleg ward was that it was over from us (my wife’s interpretation). So, she started watching BYU TV on Sundays. They would broadcast older sacrament meetings from very “good” Wards, there would be program from BYU Scholars on gospel topics, often historical, and I venture to say — I enjoyed watching it with my wife. The drudgerous parts — callings and releases, even the sacrament passing, were taken out of the broadcast, leaving only the meat, and it was actually something I didn’t mind. The quality of the BYU Professors was astounding. How they pulled from multiple scriptural sources that described the same phenomena, reconciled differences, and then highlighted areas of debate and unknowns, was phenomenal.
Yes, there is a better model out there, somehow, I am not sure which the magic formula is that would make it interesting, yet not a Disney show, and satisfy the GA’s at the same time. I do believe they appear to see very little need for any change.
mom3 wrote:As to the leaders I do think they are unaware of a lot of what it feels like to be a regular member. The two worlds are so different and neither side will spend enough time in the others area to get a glimpse of what it’s like.
About 4 bishops ago a bishop that was very good friends with my dad confided in me that now that he was going to High Priests (first time in 15 years since he was always in bishoprics or other presidencies) he found it outrageously boring. I was visiting and he asked what I thought about the lesson. I said, “that was the norm”.
Quote:Back to church — all it would take are a few focus groups to reveal what people in different phases of church experience feel about their experience.
My management training just screams for the church to do more surveying. They have such little feedback that isn’t heavily filtered. It could help all involved. I do understand the issue that comes that if you ask for feedback you are setting up some expectation of action. But they are flying so blind (IMHO) that it would be better to know and make some adjustments where they can and deal with some of the side issues. But they are not asking me.LookingHard wrote:
My management training just screams for the church to do more surveying. They have such little feedback that isn’t heavily filtered. It could help all involved. I do understand the issue that comes that if you ask for feedback you are setting up some expectation of action. But they are flying so blind (IMHO) that it would be better to know and make some adjustments where they can and deal with some of the side issues. But they are not asking me.They need to ask different groups — the TBMers, the semi-actives, and the stone cold inactives, as a suggested start.
They will likely find different issues depending on the group they ask. I also think there is a risk they will blame the less actives and semi actives for their own boredom.
mom3 wrote:Quote:DA wrote -TBMs and possibly even inactive members would not necessarily accurately identify the most significant sources of dissatisfaction with the Church at this point.
And this
Quote:when in reality for all we know these leaders possibly are not even aware of how many members are currently dissatisfied with the Church and why in the first place.
Addressing both of these points. I believe we sometimes don’t see what we have,or don’t have, until it gets removed…
As to the leaders I do think they are unaware of a lot of what it feels like to be a regular member. The two worlds are so different and neither side will spend enough time in the others area to get a glimpse of what it’s like.The top team doesn’t go to 3 hour blocks any more…The separation between the two reminds me of being a parent. I have no clue, honestly, what it feels like to be a kid or teen in life these days. Even when my kids talk to me I can only process it through my memories…As a church, especially an Anglo-American one we are much like my kids and I – disconnected and we may not even realize it. For that disconnect there is no solution.I think it is possible for them to understand things that are foreign to their own experience at least well enough to implement some effective solutions but they would have to be willing to really listen and consider the idea that the Church could use some significant improvements from the top down which I don’t believe is the case at this point. Also, I don’t believe they could simply ask a bunch of yes/no questions such as, “Do you like church meetings, callings, home teaching, going to the temple, etc.?” and get very accurate results because too many TBMs would probably answer the way they think they are supposed to rather than how they really feel so they might have to dig deeper than they have so far and read between the lines to some extent to interpret what is really going on and understand what some possible solutions would be.
DA and SD – I hear what you are saying. Maybe I want to see things my way, but I find that even when I think I understand someone else or their point of view I often don’t. Or at least not as fully as they do. I am adult now I forget what teenage pressure really feels like. It’s a memory and I may brush it a bit, but not fully. I have had 3 children. I recall that labor is long, painful and exhausting – yet I don’t fully remember it until I am in something similar. Most of us here do not remember what it feels like to be a fully orthodox believer and practicer. We may remember what we did, but we don’t have the same emotions or impressions that orthodox believers have. We can’t even remember their fears. If we can’t feel what they feel or get what they get. If Nephi isn’t our hero or every word the prophet speaks becomes our mantra, how can we expect people who don’t participate like us to feel at all what we feel.
Three hours is a joy for many members. If they keep attending, the block will remain. And no amount of polling will change that. The initial change happened so more people could/would attend church. I keep praying for two hours but no one is listening or if they are they aren’t doing it my way.
I agree that there’s a disconnect in the top leadership and the average member for a variety of reasons. On this particular issue, it has been pointed out that the top leadership rarely live the week-in-and-week-out three hour block. They rarely attend the meetings we see as regular. So, from their point of view it ain’t broke and therefore doesn’t need fixing. The problem is that I’m not sure the majority of members see it as broken, either – or at least they aren’t willing to admit it. Interestingly, everyone I have ever mentioned it to (and that is admittedly a fairly small and exclusive group of individuals) would love a two hour block. The other aspect of the problem is that even if people do see it as broken, there is no way to express that to the leadership because it is so top down focused (which is also true of so many other things). Also, Pollyana -ism is alive and well in the church. If you express constructive criticism of the church in any way (such as mentioning the monotony of the 3 hour block) there is a certain percent of the leadership that will reply “Church attendance is a beautiful experience” and they will dismiss what you say. There is very little room for constructive criticism locally. Nor would it change anything as those decisions are made at the top. So, you are in coping mode — taking one Sunday off, effectively reducing your hours/Sunday in a 4 week month from 3 per Sunday, to 9/4 = 2.25 hours per Sunday. You can routinely skip certain meetings as well. I prefer to skip sacrament meeting or priesthood meeting.
I have skipped SS a few times in the last few months and I admit it does make it a bit more tolerable. I might skip the last hour, but I am on the hook right now for that. DevilsAdvocate wrote:Even if they did surveys to try to get some honest feedback it seems like many TBMs and possibly even inactive members would not necessarily accurately identify the most significant sources of dissatisfaction with the Church at this point. When I was inactive but still believed in the Church for years I would have blamed myself saying that I was too selfish and lazy and didn’t feel like going back, etc. instead of saying that it just didn’t sound very interesting or worthwhile to me.
Well, while I guess most inactives wouldn’t be all that interested in a detailed survey, and certainly the majority of the folks having their name removed just want the Church to go away, not sit through some sort of exit interview with a long list of “customer retention” questions, it does seem like the missionaries at least make an effort to ask inactives why they’re inactive. OTOH, it doesn’t appear that they even make a note of the specific reasons, so even though the information is essentially being collected, it’s not making its way to even local leadership to be studied and used.
IMO, there should be an effort across the board to collect and use some sort of “inactivity report” that would include the member’s stated reason for inactivity. (Obviously categorizing those inactive due to hospitalization, military service or other non-Church-experience-related reasons separately.) It could even be a part of the member record, though maybe best to have that part expunged (or more usefully, anonymized so it can still be used as a statistic but not associated with a particular person) if the member becomes active again for, say, 60-90 days, so it’s not used against them in the future.
NightSG wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:Even if they did surveys to try to get some honest feedback it seems like many TBMs and possibly even inactive members would not necessarily accurately identify the most significant sources of dissatisfaction with the Church at this point. When I was inactive but still believed in the Church for years I would have blamed myself saying that I was too selfish and lazy and didn’t feel like going back, etc. instead of saying that it just didn’t sound very interesting or worthwhile to me.
Well, while I guess most inactives wouldn’t be all that interested in a detailed survey, and certainly the majority of the folks having their name removed just want the Church to go away, not sit through some sort of exit interview with a long list of “customer retention” questions, it does seem like the missionaries at least make an effort to ask inactives why they’re inactive. OTOH, it doesn’t appear that they even make a note of the specific reasons, so even though the information is essentially being collected, it’s not making its way to even local leadership to be studied and used.
IMO, there should be an effort across the board to collect and use some sort of “inactivity report” that would include the member’s stated reason for inactivity. (Obviously categorizing those inactive due to hospitalization, military service or other non-Church-experience-related reasons separately.) It could even be a part of the member record, though maybe best to have that part expunged (or more usefully, anonymized so it can still be used as a statistic but not associated with a particular person) if the member becomes active again for, say, 60-90 days, so it’s not used against them in the future.
The problem with such a survey/report would be that the reason people think people are inactive often has little to do with the real reason they are. When I was inactive I didn’t tell anybody why and few asked. They
assumedit was because I was offended, which was obvious by comments some people made and the shock when I didn’t return when we got a new bishop. Truth is I was offended, but that’s not why I was inactive. And even though few asked, I wouldn’t have told them if they did because they didn’t really want to hear the truth and I didn’t want to be anybody’s project.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.