The fact that some don’t like them or don’t do them, is no reason to think they are not there to “bring us to Christ.”

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you are getting at.

This is hardly the only “want it both ways” I’ve come across in my life. This is the on going tension of wanting to accomplish an ideal and the reality of trying to implement it.

Home teachings purpose is love for your neighor and building on Church unity. The ideal is love and unity. The reality is home teaching.

Could home teaching be done away with? Yes, of course. Thus it’s of “lesser importance.” Could love and unity? No.

Could we accomplish love and unity some other way? Yes. Could we come up with a replacement for home teaching that is more effective in accomplishing that purpose? Perhaps.

But the key point is that as of yet we haven’t come up with a better way.

I think what you might be getting at (I don’t want to put words in your mouth here, but I have to start somewhere) is that perhaps we should leave more to individuals to come up with ways to accomplish love and unity in the way they see fit and not worry so much about a specific program.

But of course, now that I’ve put that into words, the problem with that approach is obvious: the average person will often not do anything using “love and unity” as an excuse. We all do that sometimes.

Thus we circle back to the original point. There is no perfect solution here.

You are correct that the quotes were from two different people. First consider John M.’s Dieter F. Uchtdorf quote in #40 that says that “Sometimes, however, it can appear that these programs and activities are closer to the center of our heart and soul than the core doctrines and principles of the gospel.”

This leads to the idea that the core doctrines and principles of the gospel are more important than the programs and activities. If you start talking about this and which specific programs and activities are of lesser importance, it generally leads people to start talking about how a lot of the programs really are vitally important. I was just noting that we as members seem to want it both ways–we want to say that the principles and doctrines are of primary importance, but we are reluctant to say that any of the programs and activities are of relatively low importance.

Ray is probably right that one quote was about an ideal and one a reality, so there probably isn’t a contradiction. However, even if that is not true, it’s hard to understand the point you were making since it was a statement of fairness between two different people’s views, thus there was no need to reconcile them at all. (And presumably normally we don’t reconcile different people’s views as they are both entitled to their own opinions.)

I ask because I’ve noticed that some people, usually outside the Church (Lawrence O’Donnel comes to mind), have an assumption that all believing Mormons think or believe the same so any believing Mormon can speak for all other believing Mormons and all must account for every statement made by another Mormon.

We have a fairly strict black or white response toward activity: Attends Church or Doesn’t attend Church. I did a study some years back as a member of the HC with members of the Stake council where we concluded that many members exist in a facade of activity (because they show up for Church each week) but, as Bruce points out, are not fully converted nor committed. Not doing HT or VT is one indication of that condition. But there are others which are more personal in nature.

“those things that the Church asks of us should be the same things that Christ would ask of us”

And then turn around and complain that:

“Sometimes, however, it can appear that these programs and activities are closer to the center of our heart and soul than the core doctrines and principles of the gospel.”

I agree with this comment. All too often the “I can use the time better” argument is just an excuse.

Here is the problem I see, and it’s why I think everyone that commented had a valid point:

1. In theory, we have an ideal: Christ communicates and controls the Church via his chosen prophets (Acts of the Apostles style) and thus what the Church asks us to do to be active is what we should do because, at a minimum, it’s sanctioned by Christ as what he currently wants.

2. In reality, no one is completely converted or committed (or very few anyhow.) So in reality, we want to accept any level of commitment that a person has to offer and treat it as a positive.

3. But in practice, Bill’s question suggests that maybe sometimes a person that, say, skips Sunday School, might feel estranged and thus we aren’t really “accepting” what they have to offer.

4. But of course, seeing as #1 is the ideal, it does make sense to encourage someone to “do more” and join in Sunday School too.

Thus we have a dilemma that never has any perfect answer and never can.

It seems to me that the best we can hope for is to learn to encourage “more activity” while not making people “feel judged” for less activity but instead sincerely accept it as a good thing. But of course, this isn’t as easy as just saying it.

One other point, Bill’s underlying concern that we might make a person feel “less active” if they (using the same example) not come to Sunday School is unrealistic in my experience. I have no idea who goes home during Sunday school and I’m the instructor. Unless the ward makes an effort to figure it out, no one knows. People *do* go home during Sunday School as it’s the lowest attended meeting in our ward.

Contrary to popular belief (amongst some anyhow), most adult members of the Church aren’t sitting around judging each other over every little thing. A lot of that is just in our mind and is part of living so close to each other in a ward (here in Utah anyhow.)

Perhaps a more realistic example would be someone that steps out of Church, during Sunday School, to have a cigarette. My experience there is different. Then we tend to be more judgemental because often we don’t now the person’s story (say they are addicted and working hard to quit) and instead think they just need to be “taught the truth” so we inadverdantly end up saying things that make them uncomfortable by getting “preachy.”

But then again, maybe they really do just need to be told. You can’t know for sure.

I see where you are coming from, but it is a slightly flawed analogy in that the Mom & Dad come from two different backgrounds and bring that to the party. In this case, we are, in this case, talking about a much tighter alignment as the Savior is supposed to be leading and guiding the Church through His Prophet.

I also understand that the human element of leadership is going to present some things in a different light, but does God given the Church itself agency to follow His direction?

This is not the thread for it, but I have been considering writing a post about meetings, focused on some excellent quotes I’ve heard over the years. Perhaps this is the impetus to actually do it.

Like Silver Rain said, to try rationalize that away by saying that Jesus would rather us do this other thing rather than that is useless, IMHO.

The problem comes when we put the cart before the horse. Attending meetings and other forms of participation in a ward is an outgrowth of activity, not a definition of it, much like charity is an outgrowth of a personal relationship with God, not a definition. For example, one can give money or time and call it charity, but it isn’t necessarily so. If you attend meetings out of duty or habit, rather than out of a desire to serve and be involved with God’s children in His church, you may be outwardly active but inwardly uncommitted.

I speak as one in this situation now: you can even attend all your core meetings, but if you do not feel engaged with your ward, you are not truly active in your heart. Going out and serving in the community is good, but you should do such good things and not leave your Church activity undone. Performing charitible works outside the church does not replace doing them within the Church. It is more vital to strengthen and cleanse the inner body of Saints before or along with doing outward charity. It is even worse to speak of charity as if it is an activity and not a state of being.

It is misleading to say that one’s Church hours would be better spent finding something more “spiritually fulfilling.” In my experience, in my life, that excuse has only been a cloak for expressing the desire to do what I want. I am not serving to be spiritually fulfilled, I am serving to be Spiritually filled. If my activity in the Church does not fill me with the Spirit, the fault is mine alone, not the fault of the activities. It’s not about labelling people “less-active”. Such labels are meaningless. It is about becoming better disciples and servants of Christ.

I apologize if I sound preachy. I feel strongly about this topic right now because I am in the middle of struggling with it personally. It is not meant as a sermon, but as an expression of passion in sharing what I have been taught as I struggle.

I want members involved in any and every activity that will bring them closer to Christ and help them become more godlike. The only “required” meeting to be considered “active” is Sac Mtg, and the only other meetings mentioned in temple recommend interviews are Priesthood meetings. Someone who is unendowed and attends Sac Mtg is “active” in my mind; an endowed man who attends Sac Mtg and PH is active in my mind.

If anyone attends those meetings and is involved in worthwhile and Christain/godly activities instead of other “supplemental” meetings and church activities, I have no problem whatsoever with that. That person has my respect and admiration, just as does the other member who chooses to attend as many church activities as possible if s/he thinks that will bring a closeness to Christ and make him or her more godly.

“I personally believe the ordinances provided by Church membership are necessary.”

OK–lets say that the ordinances provided by the church are necessary. Are we prepared to let people worship in a way that they feel comfortable with, rather than pushing them into the full mormon model? For example, lets say that a member attended sacrament meeting each week (to get the ordinance of the sacrament), but skipped the other meetings to do something that they found more spiritually fulfilling. Maybe they did some community service or studied the scriptures at home with their family or just spent quality time with their family. Are we OK with this, or do we label these people as ‘less-active’? If we don’t allow people to skip certain church programs, then aren’t we putting these programs and activities closer to the center of our heart and soul than the core doctrines and principles of the gospel?

From my #37, “Are we really prepared to teach that membership in the church isn’t critical–its just intended to be an aid in our attempts to follow the Savior and commune with God?”

“Let’s be honest, don’t we really teach that your relationship with God is through the Church and its leaders? Don’t we have a tendancy of making our members dependant on the Church?”

Yes, I agree–that is what we generally teach. Is this good? I don’t think so. Are we ready to change? I’m not sure. Are we really prepared to teach that membership in the church isn’t critical–its just intended to be an aid in our attempts to follow the Savior and commune with God?

“I am not saying that Church leaders are not teaching truth. I believe they are, but if you served a mission you know that people don’t teach gospel truths, the Spirit does.” So we have good active members of the Church that are “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.””

I somewhat understand what you are saying, but perhaps not fully. Are you saying that the spirit just isn’t teaching these people? The church is teaching them and they are good and active and doing what they are supposed to. Who is dropping the ball? If we assume that we can’t blame God, is it then the church’s fault for not teaching these people correctly? It doesn’t seem to be the people’s fault–they seem to be following the program of the church. Or are the people not REALLY following the program of the church–just going through the motions?

I’m not sure where you are going with your questions about knowledge. I’m willing to discuss those things, but would prefer to stick to the points in my #28 (reponse to your #21):

-I question that lots of people are mentally converted, but not spiritually converted. Sure there may be plenty of people who aren’t spiritually converted, but these people usually aren’t mentally converted either.
-I question how you can claim that someone is a good active member of the church and not know where to find the truth.