I think there may be some truth to that.

But only a little.

Based on my own experience in church, as well as counseling outcome research (i.e. what factors contribute to success in mental health counseling–that’s where the percentages are coming from), I would like to propose the following mini-theory of the four main factors that contribute to the vibrance/dullness/spirituality of our meetings. The percentages aren’t that important as the actual factors though…

Factor #1: The Individual Members (40%)

This includes each individual member (including leaders) and what they bring to the table: their backgrounds, viewpoints, attitudes, individual preparation, chance events in their lives, etc. In a sense, if you don’t have a good experience at a church meeting, you (or just your life or circumstances) may be at least 40% responsible for that outcome. Seems reasonable to me. How prepared are you for the meetings? How prepared are you to receive spiritual promptings or experiences? How prepared are the speakers and teachers? A lot of us can improve on this.

Factor #2: Relationships (30%)

This includes the relationships between the leaders and regular members, and individual friendships in the ward. I know I tend to listen a lot more earnestly (and have better experiences) when a close friend is speaking or giving the lesson. Not that we all need to have close friendships with everyone in the ward, but I believe the better our relationships are, the better our meetings will be. We listen and participate more when we care more. Do we truly have empathy and respect for other people in the ward? Relationships also include a general agreement on the tasks and goals of our meetings.

Factor #3: Techniques (15%)

This is the area that I think gets debated the most, perhaps because it stands out the most: Simplified Gospel Principles manual? Do we have to stick to that? What hymns are we singing? How many? How many talks? What kinds of instruments are allowed? White or blue shirts? Snacks or no snacks in primary? PowerPoint in gospel doctrine? The point here is not that any one of these decisions is necessarily better than other, but to suggest that ultimately whether we decide to allow guitars or harmonicas, ban blue shirts from the sacrament table or ban visual aids from the pulpit, it will not have much influence on the overall outcome. Most techniques or teaching methods that are intended to be edifying will be, equally so.

Factor #4: Faith & Hope (15%)

How much do we really expect out of our meetings? Do we expect to receive spiritual guidance? Do we find hope there?

We get caught up in debates about who is to blame for our meetings. I personally believe that God has granted us the agency to have bad meetings, just as we can exercise our agency to make them great. Let’s be mindful of the various factors that may contribute to the outcomes of our meetings, and what our individual and collective roles are. Let’s make sure WE are prepared when we speak, give lessons, or participate in the music. Let’s work harder at building relationships in our wards, beyond the home-teaching assignment or the sometimes shallow greetings of the ward activity. Let’s put debates about specific techniques in their place–important, but not as much as other factors.

Using this mini-theory, it makes perfect sense why some people, non-members, ex-mormons, and even some active members alike would find the meetings to be boring: They may not be prepared themselves or be a type of person who would enjoy the meetings anyway, they may not have decent relationships with ward members (or may even have poor relationships there), and they may have little hope or expectation in the church. OF COURSE that is going to lead to a generally dull or even negative experience.

• What do you think contributes to a successful and/or spiritual church meeting?
• How much of it is on the individual and how much is on the speaker or teacher, or the institution of the church?
• What do you think of the idea that we are all contributors to our collective experience?
• Do we neglect the powerful influence that interpersonal relationships have on our meetings?

It’s not that I disagree with everything she wrote, it is the implications of some of her points I have a problem with.  And, in a point I think is extremely critical to discuss: Is the meeting itself dull or the people who attend it making it dull for themselves?

So, rather than a point by point rebuttal, I offer up a few of my own observations.

We now live in an over-stimulated society. First, there were those of us who grew up with Television. We could sit and watch the box for long periods of time. But TV didn’t take the place of reading books and newspapers, playing outside and doing other activities. Second, came the MTV generation. Music became visual and news went 24 hours a day. This began the gradual decline of other sedentary activities such as reading, playing board games, puzzles and just sitting.  Parents heard more and more from their children, “I’m bored.” Outside activities were also beginning to wane and obese children and adults are now more common.

Then, we ushered in the Internet, cell phones, video games, and VCRs. This just compounded the problems I noted above. Unsuspecting parents were turning their children and themselves into couch potatoes and anything less than flashing lights and extreme movement was just plain dull.  And, finally, we are now at the Text/Twitter generation, where anything less than instantaneous everything is slow. Where folks, especially young people cannot be away from their mobile device for a second less they miss an important “k” or some other cryptic message. In fact, most sleep with their devices and the thought of turning it off for any period of time, like a 70 minute church meeting is unheard of.

We expect to be entertained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In fact, many Church Services have become more like a show than a worship service. Even the Catholic Church has modified its mass to try to accommodate this trend. And many so-called mega-churches, loud bands, modern music, loud preachers and a loud congregation have been the norm for the folks who even bother to go. And they dress as though they are going to see Miley Cyrus rather than worship God and Jesus. The idea is we’d rather have them here at Church, such as it is, then sitting at home just drinking beer and watching football on Sundays.

The LDS Church has not succumbed to these trends and its worship service, the Sacrament Meeting has largely remained unchanged for many years. In Ms. Riess’ assertion that “we no longer expect spiritual manifestations,” she confuses a massive outpouring of the Spirit like that experienced at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple with the manner in which the Prophet Joseph always taught about how we generally commune and hear from God, by and through the still small voice.  She seems to assert that Latter-day Saints outside the US are having dramatic manifestations of the spirit while American Saints do not. Yet, I have attended a number of Sacrament meetings outside the US and it always seemed like a normal Sacrament Meeting to me.  No angels appeared, one writhed on the floor, spoke in a strange language or danced with snakes while I was there.

Yet, I have heard members say and I have often felt the presence of the Spirit at countless Sacrament Meetings, so I am not sure what she is talking about when she says, “we don’t truly expect God to show up” at our meetings. It is one of those things that people often pray for at the beginning and end of our meetings.

It is incredibly important to know why we are there at those meetings. We are at Sacrament Meeting to worship our Heavenly Father and His Son and partake of the Sacrament. That’s it.  That is why we are there. The talks and business conducted are secondary to that purpose. So, I probably agree with Ms. Riess that that purpose needs to be reinforced with members, as do the purpose and manner of talks as well.

For the most part, I love the music of Zion. Ms. Riess thinks it is “funereal.” And, it can be. But I also notice that many people in the congregation cannot be bothered to sing the hymns. They chat, stare off into space or have to deal with fussy children (a legitimate excuse, in my book).  With more people singing, the music would be better.

The final point I’d like to address are the talks.  She says, “Our talks suck.” Again, it is a matter of perspective. We know that most of our folks are NOT professional public speakers. They are moms and dads, many of whom have other full time jobs and responsibilities. So, they sometimes struggle to find the time to properly prepare talks for Sunday. That is no excuse. For the once in a while opportunity to teach the congregation, more time and effort could be made, for sure. But, we need to cut these folks some slack. Even so-called professional clergy can be just as bad and dull as any LDS member giving a talk. These are our Brother and Sisters. I think we can forgive them their speaking inadequacies and learn to hear the message rather than the delivery of the messenger.

In conclusion, any meeting or activity that is not well understood can be perceived as dull and boring. If I took many of you to a Jewish Sabbath day service, with its three-hour rote liturgy, all spoken in Hebrew, you might think that is dull, not having a clue what is going on, what is being said and the purposes behind it. Most Jewish services have little music, no screaming or yelling and the entertainment value is low. But, the devotion, respect and worship are there.

And that is the same way I feel about Our LDS Sacrament Service.

“Delegation Takes No Action on Human Sexuality Issues: Church Will Continue Dialogue.”

Headline  by John Hamer on BCC on Thursday, April 15, 2010:

“Gay Rights Revelation Added to The Community of Christ D&C”

———-

The two headlines above generally cover the spectrum of opinion about what happened at the Community of Christ World Conference as it completed the process of canonization of a new Section 164 for its D&C. The spectrum of opinions about whether what happened was a good thing or bad thing, of course, runs even more broadly. Indeed, I’m not at all certain that we’ll even be able to see how intense the various “colors” of that spectrum will prove until information about the conference filters down to the bulk of the North American church that maintains no real connection to the World Church in the “Blogitorium”. As in many churches on the Christian left in North America, that membership tends to be somewhat more traditionalist than its leadership.

Nevertheless, I’ll give my view as someone from one part of the peanut gallery, focusing on what was in each portion of Section 164 and the effects of associated legislation passed to begin implementation. A future post will provide a similar analysis on legislation considered by the Conference not specifically addressed by Section 164 and suggest something about the overall direction of the Community of Christ in the future.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 1-4

President Veazey describes the experiences of meditation, particularly on portions of Galatians 3:27-29, that led him to offer the Section. After commending the church for similarly seeking to discern the Spirit in a structured process that has been going on for well over a year, he makes explicit an understanding of the church and its sacraments which has been implicit in CofChrist theology for a number of years.

“…Instruction given previously about baptism was proper to ensure the rise and cohesiveness of the church during its early development and in following years. However, as a growing number have come to understand, the redemptive action of God in Christ—while uniquely and authoritatively expressed through the church—is not confined solely to the church. God’s grace, revealed in Jesus Christ, freely moves throughout creation, often beyond human perception, to achieve divine purposes in people’s lives.”

The Community of Christ is to see itself as “one true church”, not as the “one and only true church”. How serious is this theological intent was earlier signaled by something I haven’t seen commentators note elsewhere. The first sessions of Conference always feature certain speeches of welcome. One is usually a non-CofChrist speaker. This speaker is often a local Congressman or a Missouri Senator. The speech is strictly non-political even then, but the identity is interesting because trends over time seem to show the direction of the church leadership’s interest.

This year that slot went to the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. Kinnamon unabashedly spoke of the Community of Christ having unique gifts that should be seen as adding to bodies such as the NCC, rather than as a body going its own way. Ironically, contacts between the RLDS and the NCC were among the suspicions cited by fundamentalist opponents of the church circa 1970 as evidence of apostasy. Thus, such a speech 40 years ago might itself have been too controversial to occur.

Section 164 then lays out specific instruction (that will be followed quickly by formal administrative policy guidance to become effective by September 1, 2011). These policies will result in acceptance into membership into the Community of Christ upon confirmation by CofChrist priesthood – without requiring rebaptism if the original baptism: a) involved water;  b) was performed by an ordained Christian minister;  and c) as a personal expression of faith in Christ. In particular, we will not require someone to present proof of their baptism or the baptizing minister’s credentials, since that would be impossible in many places throughout the world. This clearly expands the notion of true priesthood authority beyond the boundaries of those called through the priesthood line passed to Joseph Smith.

The phrase “using water” also allows for baptisms done by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, while upholding the church’s own standard practice of baptism by immersion at the age of accountability. There is also some additional specific guidance regarding the substance of the prayer of confirmation (Baptism of the Spirit) that is now the means by which one moves from being part of the Body of Christ into membership within the denomination. And preparation for confirmation will now be a formal requirement for the ordinance to occur.

Paragraph 3 contains a call for all members to serious consider and live the meaning of their baptismal covenants (water and Spirit). Paragraph 4 ties this call to consideration of the role the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should play in renewing, witnessing, and amplifying our covenant. (Portions of the preamble specifically warn us to NOT make the meaning of the covenants atrophy even as we broaden the procedures, because of the concern that in some places this has happened with open communion).

This portion of the Section makes the Community of Christ look very Protestant – if you can call becoming more Protestant through modern revelation a Protestant concept in the first place.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 5-7

These are the paragraphs whose approval generated the widely divergent headlines above. Their actual content is to call attention to “serious questions about moral behavior and relationships” – but to prioritize those questions not simply as they are listed within the dominant culture of the denomination.

“These issues are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture. For example, the issues include female submission, female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and sexual permissiveness. They include cleansing and exploitation of widows, harsh conflicts over same-gender attraction and relationships, and varying legal, religious, and social definitions of marriage, to name just a few.”

More importantly, the Section calls us to see the solutions for these moral dilemmas as arising from an understanding of Christianity as a community that transcends definitions by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity. They simply are no longer primary. Relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.

Section 164 then extrapolates that these principles require that the church move the resolution of moral issues to the church in the cultures most affected by them rather than let the dominant North American church decide for the rest of the world. Field Apostles, under the guidance of the Presidency, are authorized to call and set the agenda for field, national, or (non-geographical) cultural groups to deal with issues such as those listed above as they feel directed.

Uncertainty about the nature and timing of these conferences is generating the widely divergent headlines about gay rights. First, everyone in the Community of Christ seems to understand that the leadership feels that it must not expose our leaders and members in cultures where discussion of gay issues is taboo. If so, they can hardly move toward expanded gay rights in the United States unless they can find a way to maintain what the government would call “plausible deniability”.

Second, there is a large body of conservative members in the US church (and non-members in society) whose reaction must be anticipated and allowed for. The LDS experience with Prop 8 shows what happens when the church in the US takes any position on controversial issues in the political arena. Many feel the church has moved too hesitantly and will continue to do so; others are likely to feel the church is moving in the wrong direction entirely.

Finally, there are logistical questions. It seems unlikely that the US church has the resources to assemble a national conference on gay rights issues before the spring of 2012 at the earliest. It will take until September, 2011, simply to implement the new conditions for membership.

The greatest sign of movement toward gay rights comes from something in administrative minutia. It is normal for the church to realign Apostolic Fields following a World Conference (our Apostles retire, so there are usually changes in the Twelve). This time a gerrymandered field has been carved out for Apostle Susan Skoor that stretches from Southern Australia to Eastern Canada – and just happens to cover all of the non-US jurisdictions that proposed World Conference legislation expanding full priesthood and sacramental rites for gays. The extension of rights in that Field or in nations within that Field might be granted while maintaining sufficient distance from the World Church (and prying media) to protect the church in cultures hostile to gay rights.

Expansion to the US is much more difficult to do while maintaining any credibility to foreign governments and religious bodies that “this is just local jurisdictions acting on their own.”

Perhaps more significantly in the long run than the particular moral issues – at least from the perspective of this Washington spectator – is the change these paragraphs make in the legislative rights of mission centers to set the agenda for the church. The Presidency immediately ruled 21 legislative proposals that had been painstakingly brought to the conference as out of order because they reflect National or Regional concerns. These rulings were entirely appropriate under Section 164 guidance.

However, the Conference later passed implementing legislation for the field and national conferences that make them “special conferences”. Such conferences operate under different parliamentary rules than World Conference. In particular,  Mission Centers lack the right to place items on the agenda of special conferences; that agenda is set only by the Apostle who calls the conference with the approval of the Presidency. In short, this revelation makes the Community of Christ less democratic and more theocratic than it was a year ago.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 8

Paragraph 8, by contrast, shows the flexibility and speed with which the Community of Christ can move on organizational issues when it wishes to do so. The Twelve and the Presidents of the Seven Quorums of Seventy have been meeting for several years in response to the immediately previous revelation (Section 163) to consider organizational changes to increase evangelistic effectiveness. Paragraph 8 is taken as authorization to make these changes.

Within 24 hours of Section 164 approval, the number of Quorums of Seventy was increased from seven to ten, the additional Quorum Presidents were named, and they were approved by the Conference and set apart to that calling. Jack Bauer couldn’t have moved faster. Clearly, the outcome of these discussions among the leading quorums was well prepared in advance, while they are still feeling their way around the notion of how and when national conferences will function.

Reorganization of the Twelve, while not fundamental, essentially separates the world into 10 Fields for the moment, each led by an Apostle, with the remaining two Apostles focusing on Headquarters-oriented tasks. For the first time, a single Quorum of Seventy will be aligned with the geographic or other missionary focus of a Field Apostle.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 9

The final paragraph of the document is a benediction of sorts, and a challenge that the rise of Zion is no farther away than the willingness of all of us – all the “beloved children of the Restoration” – to overcome our insecurities and embrace a Christ-like life.

“The mission of Jesus Christ is what matters most to the journet ahead.”

I’ve been kicking this post around in my mind for a while now so it came as no surprise when I found a Gallop Poll article entitled “Mormons Most Conservative Major Religious Group in U.S.” A whopping 59% of active Mormons consider themselves conservative; another 31% moderate, and only 8% liberal. In addition, 16% of active Mormons consider themselves “very” conservative, compared with only 1% as “very” liberal.

What surprised and saddened me even more than this disproportionate political bias was not that a majority of Mormons (inside and outside Utah) are conservative, but that 61% percent of “lapsed Mormons” (those who self-identify with Mormonism but seldom attend church meetings) consider themselves liberal or moderate; liberal “lapsed Mormons” are 20% alone. So that means, that 6 out of every ten people who do not regularly attend church, yet maintain ties, do not identify with the Republican Party or the conservative movement. These statistics do not count the thousands of people who have left the church permanently or no longer identify themselves with Mormonism due to feeling isolated, alienated or estranged by the politically conservative majority.

Following are a few personal experiences and ideas about how liberal and radical Mormons can begin to turn the tide on this state of affairs and make the church a safe space for those of us who do not self-identify as conservative or Republican.

First and foremost, those of us with radical or liberal worldviews (I myself most closely identify with libertarian socialism), must not be afraid to speak up, put forth and defend radical and liberal interpretation of the Gospel in our meetings, and actively challenge interpretations that we disagree with. Could it be that the growth of the Mormon “Bloggernacle” in recent years has been a result of those of us too afraid or timid to speak up in Sunday School, Relief Society or Priesthood? Now, for some of us speaking up in church may sound like a daunting task, and indeed depending on who is teaching it can be; there is very seldom much time, and sometimes the topics come with a lot of cultural and historical baggage. Perhaps many of us have not spoken up during church because we fear that it will create contention or that we will be looked down upon. Although I am not exempt from biting my tongue in church, or letting a Republican talking point pass for a Gospel principle, I am almost always pleasantly surprised when I do choose to speak my mind during church meetings.

For example, during the Proposition 8 debate in California I was visiting my hometown in Southern California. I attended church. It happened to be testimony meeting and member after member was getting up to praise the wisdom of the proposition and expound the threats that its failure would present to the Church and the family. As I sat taking this in, my pulse quickened, my heart raced, and before I knew it I was in front of my childhood ward (including the area authority) denouncing the Proposition. I spoke from the heart, and as my voice shook, I declared that as a Christian my primary responsibility was to the Sermon on the Mount and that I believed it to be bad politics to get involved in a civil rights issue which would inevitably put us on the wrong side of justice (again). When the meeting was over, I was mobbed by old friends, scout leaders, Priests’ Quorum advisors, and new members. Many agreed with me, some thought I was crazy, some strongly disagreed with me; but they all expressed loved for me and wanted to thank me for expressing my heartfelt convictions. One woman, who stayed at a distance until all the others were gone, came and with tears in her eyes thanked me. She was a new member, and her son is gay. She had been feeling so alone and conflicted about the church’s involvement in this issue. We talked, hugged, and she left with a smile. On that day I had spoken my mind on a very controversial topic and although many members did not agree with my interpretation of the Gospel, I left the meeting feeling fulfilled and part of a community that loved me.

This is the climate that I know can exist in wards all over the world, but that many of us are afraid to bring about. I tell this story because I strongly believe that there is a place both in the Gospel and the Church for radicals and liberals. We can still be of one heart and one mind while disagreeing on the particulars of interpretation and application of Gospel principles.

Another personal experience: During Sunday School here in New Haven, Connecticut where I currently attend church, we were on the topic of helping the poor. This was a few weeks before President Monson decided to include helping the poor and needy in the now four-fold Church mission. A woman visiting the ward said that she and her husband had worked with homeless people and believed that it was wrong to give them anything because this deprived them of the opportunity to pull themselves up by their boot straps and take personal responsibility for their own bad choices; and besides, any money given to homeless people would inevitably be spent on booze anyway, so why support their immoral habits? Now, I personally have tremendous respect for the appeal to personal responsibility that many of my Republican and conservative friends make when discussing issues of social justice and poverty. However, this sister did not understand what the scriptures plainly teach concerning those who would seek our aid. So, in a calm fashion I raised my hand, and began reading the words of King Benjamin in Mosiah 4.

“17 Perhaps thou shalt say; The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God. 19 For behold, are we not all beggars?…”

King Benjamin here is uttering a strong condemnation of those of us who would refuse to give of our substance to the poor. However, the sister articulated a very common view in our society that poor people are poor because of bad choices. However, the radical Christ calls us to repentance. If someone asks of us, we must give; even if we can smell the alcohol on their breath. But this is not all. As Joseph Smith makes clear, we are to be actively engaged in a good cause (D & C 58:27), and working toward a society where there are no poor among us (Moses 7:18). Meaning, we are not just to give a regular fast offering, or a couple bucks to the guy outside the supermarket, but actively working toward a society where the structural and root causes of poverty are eliminated. We disagree on the appropriate institutional scale of implementing such a task in society, but nevertheless we are incontrovertible called to the task. The Sermon on the Mount, 3 Nephi, King Benjamin, the D & C, indeed the entire Book of Mormon all contain radical critiques of social inequality, seeking wealth for wealth’s sake and contain numerous admonitions to radical Christ-like love and economic cooperation. Sorry, Brother Beck, but social justice is the essence of the Gospel, and the fact that someone like Glenn Beck can read the same scriptures as me and not see that is appalling.

One might ask if I would simply flip the Gallop Poll statistic for a 60% liberal slant. My simple answer is no; what I really want is to see a healthy proportion of all political and social viewpoints; one that doesn’t automatically exclude social justice, preemptive war, the environment, or helping the poor as Gospel topics because they are too “political” while piously rallying the troops around “moral” issues such as prayer in school, abortion or gay marriage. That is a double standard that is only possible because of a overwhelming politically conservative bias by Church members and hence church programs. I am calling for this because it is in the tension between ideas that truth is found; as Lehi says to Jacob: “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things, for if it were not so…righteousness could not be brought to pass” (2 Nephi 2:11). A diverse and healthy representation of political and social interpretations of the Gospel will lead us closer to true principles than close-minded political or religious dogmatism.

Brothers and sisters, do not allow conservative politics to pass as neutral theology, it is dishonest at best, and destructive at worst. It is driving good people out of the church and becomes a positive feedback loop: the more conservative the church culture becomes, the less tolerable it is for liberals and radicals. So, to all of you Beck-ites out there, this is our church too and we are not leaving.

Here are a few ideas for shifting Mormon culture:

• Participate in Mormon May Day on May 1-2. See www.mormonmayday.org for more details in the coming days

• If you haven’t already, read Approaching Zion by Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley

• Then, give Approaching Zion as a gift to at least one person this year

• Begin to compile a list of your favorite scriptures on social, environmental, and political topics

• Start a discussion group

• Set a personal goal to make at least one comment in your church classes

• Invite a less active radical or liberal member to your house for dinner to see if you share similar views

• Visit www.themormonworker.org for a radical approach to Mormon theology and consider subscribing

In a series of previous posts, David Stout has suggested that there is an underlying rationalism that drives our worship services.  I suspect that this true to an extent but he misses, or perhaps neglects to mention another key factor.  Terryl Givens explores a paradox in Mormon thought between certainty and searching [1].  He explains that the discourse of our religious history is rooted in certainty and that conversion occurs when we know the truth, rather than in a conversion to Christ through forgiveness.  Therefore, perhaps, it is not strange to conclude that the highest form of worship is when such certainty is conveyed or shared between searching individuals.

Yet, this is not the only type of worship discussed in the LDS tradition.  In fact there are two other strains that I think are prominent: emulation and adoration.  Emulation as a form of worship continues the pragmatic theme which seems fixed in education as a form of worship (another of the paradoxes Givens discusses: The Sacred and the Banal).  Adoration is part of the Church but it seems diminished compared to other religious cultures like the Church of England, for example.  I can understand this, however, because Emulation and Adoration suggest different conceptions of sacred distance.  Emulation seeks to narrow that distance whereas Adoration wants to emphasise the differences between God and Human beings.

It occurs to me that the view of God that is generally held among Mormons (the Anthropomorphic God who becomes divine through a progressive process) results in a sense of dissatisfaction with the traditional forms of Adoration-type Worship held in other Churches, but neither Education nor Emulation have adequately replaced them, in my view.   So where is worship in LDS services?

One suggestion I have is that we should include both types of worship in our services.  I sense that including forms of worship which both accentuates and also diminishes the sacred distance between ourselves and God would be a spiritually productive paradox.  Accentuating this distance would emphasise our dependence upon God while seeking to receive his divine nature would ensure we do not stop striving to open ourselves to God’s love and the possibility of loving others and being loved by them.  Moreover, I am one of those people who sees that these (unresolvable) tensions prove fertile ground for our communion with God.

Questions:

How do you feel about Mormon Worship services?

What do you consider Worship and is it present in your wards and stakes?

What types of Worship could be included in our meetings?

I must say that I am one of these people who believe that private communications don’t work very well.  However, I have tried hard to improve my communications (though I’m not always successful.)  A few months ago, I decided to give Andrew’s option #3 a test to see if it would do any good.  I was quite surprised at the positive result.

I wrote my stake president (SP) a letter expressing concern for how large our ward is.  I live in a growing community, and the last time the ward split, we reached about 950 people.  I thought it was outrageous–parking was terrible, and even finding a seat in the gym was hard if you were late.  So, our ward was over 700 again, and I decided to write the SP a letter expressing concern at the size of the ward, the parking problems, and difficulty finding a seat in the gym for sacrament meeting.  I have a baby, and one particular Sunday, he had a blow out just as we were leaving for church.  So we had to change his clothes completely and were late, having difficulty parking and finding a seat.

I tried to take extra care to emphasize that I wasn’t trying to “counsel the brethren”, and I hoped my email would be considered in the same way that Jethro counseled Moses.  My email was met with silence.  I told my bishop I wrote an email to the SP, and asked if he had heard anything.  He hadn’t heard anything (and was concerned that my email might be taken the wrong way) so he asked the SP if my email had offended him.  The SP said it was no big deal, and made a comment that when I was stake president I could split the wards as I chose.  (I wasn’t overly impressed with the SP response.)  I never heard a word from the SP, but in the coming months, he or his counselors would visit the ward and tell us they were aware of the overcrowding problem, and exhorted us to be patient.  I kept wondering if my email was the reason they were saying this.  Within about 3 months, they decided to realign the ward boundaries, and during the meeting, the SP used a phrase from my email that only he and I knew about.

As I discussed the ward split with my bishop, he said, “You’re the one that started this whole thing!”  I said, “Wow, I have a lot more power than I thought.”  I’m sure there were other influences here (my bishop had served 5 years and was due to be released anyway, and I am aware a counselor to the SP also had similar reservations about the size of our ward), but I do think that my email did play a role in influencing the SP in this decision when I talked about concerns about parking and overcrowding in sacrament meeting.  One Sunday I counted 60 people in the foyer because they couldn’t find a seat for sacrament meeting.  I think the split did happen sooner than it would have if I had stayed silent.

Now I know my issue isn’t very large in the scheme of things, but I was positively surprised at the results of my email.  Have any of you had any similar experiences, or are they all bad experiences?

I have never even seen this done.  Therefore I thought I would include a short poll to see if you good folks have:

 [poll id="60"]

I hope John won’t mind me including the video here for you all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubZQ5TgFRac

If you were a Bishop, what would it take for you to ask someone to sit down or change what they were saying?  Is there anything that would cause you to do that?

• Doctrinal Disagreement (if so what kind?)
• Attack of a Church Leader
• Personal Criticism of a Member
• Swearing
• Drunk or on Drugs

For my part I disagree with someone after they had spoken if I felt that it might upset people.  For example, if someone declared Jesus to be a liar I might express my feelings to the contrary afterward.  I think personal criticism or swearing might be something which I might stop.  If they were drunk I could accept it as long as they did not do any of the other two.

What do you think?

Activity in the Church is loosely defined as attending Sacrament meeting once every three months. After that you are considered “less active,” which was changed a number of years again from “inactive.”  I guess “less” is better sounding than “in” which means not.  Which is technically what those members who never attend are: “not active”  It also takes into account those members who are partially active rather than fully active.

Anyway, a number of years ago, I lead a committee of Stake Council members to determine how we in the Stake could help Strengthen Families.  We were seeing a trend of dropping Church attendance, temple going, and tithe paying among the members.

One of the conclusions we arrived at is there is a façade of activity among some  members of the Church. That is, they appear to be active in the Church but are not fully committed.  This manifests itself by:

• Lack of a current temple recommend
• Not full tithe payers
• No Family Home Evenings
• No Family Scripture Study or prayer
• Not doing home or visiting teaching
• No bearing of testimony
• Turning down callings
• Not attending all Sunday Meetings (sitting in the halls)
• No participation in classes
• No participation in service projects
• Little to no food storage

Now, before you start to complain about my list, I am not suggesting that any of these items individually constitute this façade, but a combination of items might be an indication of the level of real activity.  On the other hand, I’ve learned from the Bloggernacle there are many partial or non-believers who still attend church for one reason or another, but mostly because of family.  But perhaps they hold no temple recommend or do not attend, do not pay tithing and have no calling to speak of.  This information was not available to us at that time we were studying this issue.

I’ve heard and read statistics that as little as 25% of all church members pay tithing and less than 15% have any food storage.  I can’t prove these stats, but that is what I’ve heard.  That would tend to back up my thesis.

We have a saying in my current word that is abbreviated by the initials “STP.”  It stands for Same Ten People.  I probably don’t have to explain that to most church members.

Since the overarching objective of the Church is to help people:

“Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.  And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. “( Moroni 10:32 – 33)

It seems that everything else is secondary to that.

So am I off base here or is it true?  Is there a façade of activity among some Church members?  And what, if anything, do we do about it?

I’d like all the whining about the LDS Sacrament Meeting to stop.  I’d like to focus on how to make it a better and more meaningful weekly experience.

Among the chief complaints one hears about Sacrament meetings are the following:

• Sacrament meeting is boring
• The music is boring, not diverse enough
• The speakers are boring
• It is always the same
• It is too quiet, not enough emotion
• It is too loud, kids make too much noise
• The Speakers are unprepared.
• They just read conference talks
• There is too little focus on Christ, not enough discussion of Him
• We don’t start on time
• We don’t end on time
• Aaronic Priesthood members must wear white shirts and ties

What I have seen as a member of the congregation and from up on the stand:

• Members arrive late, some are chronic
• Loud conversations before start of meeting
• Not singing hymns
• Playing with cell phone, texting or whatever
• Preparing lessons
• Talking, especially during the Sacrament Service
• Reading other materials
• Eating and drinking
• Sleeping, no matter what time church starts
• Lack of attention, just not listening
• Distracted by caring for children, some avoidable, some not.
• Refusal to remove children from Chapel, no matter how loud and disruptive.

What I have also seen:

• Members arriving early, taking their seats, listening to prelude music
• Singing hymns with enthusiasm
• Actively participating in prayers, saying Amen
• Listening, paying attention
• Singing the Sacrament Hymn
• Appearing contemplative during the Sacrament Service
• Heads bowed, but not sleeping
• Reading Scriptures
• Not talking to others
• Listening to talks
• Taking notes

The Lord gave a revelation to Joseph Smith specifically regarding Sacrament meeting when he said,

Thou shalt offer a ^asacrifice unto the Lord thy God in ^brighteousness, even that of a broken heart and a ^ccontrite spirit. And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself ^aunspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of ^bprayer and offer up thy ^csacraments upon my ^dholy day; For verily this is a ^aday appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; (Doctrine and Covenants 59:8 – 10)

The responsibility for a meaningful Sacrament Meeting experience rests with us as individual members. As we come prepared to partake of the Sacrament in remembrance of Our Savior Jesus Christ, offer up a broken heart and contrite spirit and seek to receive forgiveness and repentance for our sins, we can’t help but improve our own experience. In spite of the shortcomings of those who speak to us, in spite of the fact that topics may not be presented to us well, we need to remember that most everyone who gets an assignment to speak in Sacrament meeting WANTS to do a good job and uplift the members of the congregation.  We need to be chartable toward them.  If we are in the right frame of mind, we can surely receive at least a single bit of instruction or inspiration that we can make useful to us!

The Bishop and his counselors are responsible for assigning the topics to be spoken during Sacrament meeting and insuring the members are prepared to give a talk, which is Gospel and Christ-centered, no matter what the topic.  By its very nature, all Gospel topics should be tied back to the Savior at some point.

I think this quote from President Kimball says it all,

“We do not go to Sabbath meetings to be entertained or even solely to be instructed. We go to worship the Lord. It is an individual responsibility, and regardless of what is said from the pulpit, if one wishes to worship the Lord in spirit and truth, he may do so by attending his meetings, partaking of the sacrament, and contemplating the beauties of the gospel. If the service is a failure to you, you have failed. No one can worship for you” (“The Sabbath-A Delight,” Ensign, Jan. 1978, 4-5).

There is a story in the Church is may be Church lore or maybe not, but it goes somewhat like this,

A General Authority attended a Ward during a Sacrament Service. During the Sacrament Service he was offered the Sacrament, we refused it and it was passed to the next person.

A sister, observing this, approached the General Authority after the meeting,

“You, a General Authority,  not worthy to take the Sacrament?

“Dear Sister, I am sorry, but during the singing of the hymn, my mind wandered ever so slightly away from the Savior and as a result, I did not feel worthy to partake of the Sacrament.”

I hope that we can try to have a more meaningful Sacrament meeting rather than focus on the shortcomings of the meeting itself.  After all, the shortcomings are really ours.

And for heaven sake’s, stopping whining about it!

This trend is probably to some extent backlash against the histo-centric year we are having with D&C as focus of GD class and JS manual in RS.  There may also be some desire to reaffirm our status as Christians when other religions often stigmatize us as not being Christian.  So, what would it look like if Christ were the center of our worship?  Here are some possibilities of how lessons & talks might be more Christ-centric:

1. the atonement of Christ; his role and divinity
2. how to apply Christ’s teachings:  how to be followers of Christ
3. stories from the life of Christ, events that happened to him in his lifetime
4. the parables of Jesus – sharing and elaborating on these messages
5. how to develop a personal relationship with Jesus; understanding Jesus’ nature as a personal friend

Have I missed any major angle above?  It occurs to me that these topics might get stale if covered for 3 hours every week.  Also, if speakers only focused on 1 or 2 of the 5, it would get very repetitive.  I also notice that as I look over the list, I don’t find them equally appealing.  Personally, I would prefer them in this order:  2, 4, 3, 5, 1.  What order would you prefer?  I think the order in which they are usually focused at church is the order I listed them above:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Do you agree?

Do you feel that Church should be more Christ-centered or that it is sufficiently Christ-centered?  Which of the above focuses would be of the most interest to you?  Are there some ways of focusing on Christ that you don’t find appealing?  How do you think our focus (especially by topic) compares to other Christian churches?  Discuss.

Now again I want to underscore the fact that I write as a non-Mormon, and I recognize the fact that there must be something about the sacrament meeting that does work and that the current missionary strategy has proven quite effective. Consequently, it could be very well argued that there is no point messing with success – and I would not object in the least if you, the reader, took that position.

But I would humbly suggest that maybe the broader vision of David McKay, the insights and success of Gladys Knight and her gospel choir, and the early roots of the LDS Church itself might raise some heretofore unconsidered possibilities for reaching more people from different backgrounds. I would also suggest that these same possibilities for more effective mission might also bring the sacrament meeting and the principle of ongoing revelation into greater practical coherence.

Lastly, incorporating some of these possibilities might help establish the local ward or branch as being every bit as responsible for spreading the good news as the missionaries. I think that, particularly in the U.S., congregational based evangelism could well be the way to greater success in finding converts. Participation in a church service at the invitation of a friend is a far more appealing introduction to any religion than two strangers knocking at one’s door.

From both reading and conversation, I think this fact is more and more recognized by the LDS. The missionaries do great work, but they have a far better chance of success with people who are already well disposed toward their message than with “cold” calls. Experiencing the presence of God in worship instead of just hearing about it could go a long way towards establishing that favorable disposition.

Allow me to close with a personal testimony of sorts that might illustrate what I have been talking about:

I like rationality. I am far more a head person than a heart person. The Unitarian Universalists and I get along very well. Yet even I found the service at the local branch that Sunday a bit too cerebral. If I were someone looking for a spiritual connection that morning, I would’ve appreciated the friendliness of the people and the earnestness of their beliefs. I would’ve been impressed by the fact that lay people preached and that the branch president earned his living elsewhere, but I think I would have decided to search elsewhere for that connection with the Spirit. And given the emphasis on personal testimony in the LDS, there is, I think, a sad irony here. Simply put, I would expect people who are convinced that God still speaks to them to offer a little less talk and a little more encounter in their Sunday morning worship.

And once again I hasten to add that this is the perception of someone who is sympathetic to the LDS but not a member. I therefore thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you. I pray that they will stimulate not only thought but prayer on what it means to worship and to witness and the connection between the two. In turn I hope that such thought and prayer will result in seeing the power of the Holy Spirit change even more lives. I am also eager to hear how the current sacrament meeting works in the lives of those who already find it meaningful. By listening to the voices of both those who “get it” and those who don’t (at least not yet) perhaps greater spiritual growth will be possible for all.

The second reason (I am interested in the possibility of returning a bit of the former fire of earlier Mormonism to the current church) lifts the service I attended from the background of Mormon history and sets it against the backdrop of the LDS future. As I mentioned parenthetically in my previous post, one of the talks used in the Sacrament Meeting I attended was one given originally by David McKay. As I understand it, President McKay was the prophet who set the LDS on its modern missionary explosion. Prior to his time Mormonism was largely confined to the mountain west. McKay, however, had a vision of a broader reach and that was the impetus for the current status of the LDS as a nascent worldwide religious community.

This in turn raises the issue of missionary activity. The talk which McKay had given perceptively realized that sending out missionaries would not, by itself, achieve the desired ends. Every Saint needed to see him or herself as a missionary, bearing witness and providing contacts for the “tie guys” to follow up on. Keep this thought on the back burner for a minute.

Just long enough ago for me to forget the source, I read an article which addressed some of the difficulties LDS missionaries abroad were facing. One was the explosive growth of Pentecostalism, another was the lack of well formed LDS communities, a third was the disadvantage of missionary “roll over” especially when contrasted with the long term work of Protestant and Catholic missionaries, and the last was the lack of indigenous expression in Mormon worship. One former African Mormon convert said that the reason he gave up on the LDS was that it just wasn’t African.

Now add in the words of Gladys Knight to Gordon Hinkley, “I like everything about the Mormon Church except the music.” Knight has since developed a Latter Day Saint gospel choir which, significantly, has been very effective at getting contacts for missionaries. Let that sink in a minute: a black gospel style choir is proving very effective in getting a hearing for the gospel message as understood by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Bring McKay’s vision back into the mix. I would suggest (and here my outsider standing might be of particular import since it is non Mormons that you wish to attract) that if the LDS is going to successfully jump to the next level of its growth then two related things might need to happen. One is a greater sensitivity and openness to the process of inculturation. The other is a greater emphasis  (or rediscovery) of the power of spiritual encounter and ongoing revelation. The two are obviously related. It isn’t likely that many people are going to have a spiritual encounter if they find the delivery and expression of the gospel excessively foreign. Going the other way, spiritual encounter is most easily encouraged, nurtured, and spread when it incorporates as much as possible of the individual’s culture.

These two principles are at the heart of the modern missionary movement which has seen the dramatic growth of Christianity throughout the non western world. Once missionaries started concentrating on making disciples of Christ instead of exporting English or American or Italian culture they started doing very well. Indeed, the core of Christianity now lies south of the equator in Asia, Africa, and South America rather than in its old bastions of Europe and the United States.

From talking with a local ward leader, I know that maintaining sound doctrine is of paramount importance in the LDS. This makes the prospect of inculturation and greater freedom of expression in worship and witness a bit threatening. One does not wish to lose control of what is said and done in the name of the LDS and/or watering down the restored gospel. Having both evangelical and Roman Catholic roots, I understand the concern and (especially as a guest in this venue) I do not want to make light of it.

Nevertheless, I would point out that the Roman Catholic Church with 1.2 billion very diverse people has still managed to maintain its historic teaching and practice while allowing for considerable local color and expression. The Mass has proven flexible enough to keep its basic structure very much intact and yet still accommodate a plethora of indigenous customs and music. The music of Bach or Brubeck are both entirely capable of conveying the ancient mystery of Christ’s body and blood. So are the genres of soul, black gospel, and bluegrass.

Evangelicals have likewise managed to keep to a pretty rigid orthodoxy while allowing for all sorts of worship expression. Curiously, I have personally found that the more creative the worship, the more traditional the teaching. What makes this particularly interesting is the fact that evangelicalism is a broad based movement with no central authority.

I should think that if a church the size of the Roman Catholic communion and a movement as decentralized as Evangelicalism can keep their doctrinal commitments while allowing freedom for local expression, then surely the LDS with its off the charts organizational genius could do the same.

I would also suggest that by reclaiming some of its early heritage, the LDS could speak more powerfully to the post modern world where heart tends to trump head and where music often speaks most powerfully than sermon. (As a preacher I mourn this development, but I do not dispute its veracity.)

To put it another way, I found the service that morning to be very similar to a Unitarian Universalist service. Given that the UU is over the top rationalistic with a very strong secularist element, this is really saying something. I would think that the LDS, a movement rooted in prophecy and revelation, would offer a very different kind of service from the UU, a movement rooted in rationalism.

Now again I want to underscore the fact that I write as a non Mormon and I recognize the fact that there must be something about the sacrament meeting that does work and that the current missionary strategy has proven quite effective. Consequently it could be very well argued that there is no point messing with success and I would not object in the least if you, the reader, took that position.

But I would humbly suggest that maybe the broader vision of David McKay, the insights and success of Gladys Knight and her gospel choir, and the early roots of the LDS Church itself might raise some heretofore unconsidered possibilities for reaching more people from different backgrounds. I would also suggest that these same possibilities for more effective mission might also bring the sacrament meeting and the principle of ongoing revelation into greater practical coherence.

Last summer I had the opportunity to attend Sunday services with my girlfriend at her branch. I very much enjoyed myself and found the experience quite reminiscent of my days in evangelical congregations before the mega church phenomenon. The people were very welcoming, they clearly enjoyed being together, and the service and classes were easy to follow. Several individuals went out of their way to make me feel welcome, taking the time to talk with me, offer me a book so I could follow along in the priesthood meeting, and include me in their conversations.

I also found that there were a number of stereotypical individuals that can be found in almost any small evangelical church: the kindly grandmother that everyone loves, the young mother trying to corral her wandering son, and the somewhat socially inept fellow who knows more than anyone cares to hear. Somewhat to at least one person’s dismay, he was one of the speakers that morning at the sacrament meeting. (Actually I thought his was by far and away the best speech of the morning, though it didn’t take me too long to realize that instead of simply quoting a line or two from President David McKay, he was giving McKay’s entire talk.)

What struck me as a bit odd, however, was the nature of the sacrament meeting seen against the background of Mormonism’s past and desired future. This is what I would like to focus on. Obviously, this is not a prescriptive article nor is it even primarily  descriptive. It is instead an impressionistic work from the point of view of someone who is sympathetic towards the LDS and is also reasonably knowledgeable about how worship has been and is conceived in the greater Christian Tradition. Perhaps by combining my outsider’s insight with your own much broader and deeper knowledge of sacrament meetings, some discussion might be generated on what worship means in the LDS and how it expresses the Saints’ basic theological convictions.

From my readings of LDS history and a couple of visits to the Kirtland Temple, the Church of Christ (as the LDS was originally named) put considerable weight on the possibility, reality, and necessity of modern day revelation. One of the Book of Mormon’s chief roles was to validate the prophetic ministry of Joseph Smith, thereby making possible the development of the Doctrine and Covenants and other revelations. Without this emphasis on the restoration of prophetic ministry and authority I don’t see much point in the whole Mormon movement.

This emphasis was certainly present at the Kirtland Temple. Visions, enthusiasm, and even speaking in tongues were all reported and celebrated. Clearly God was doing a marvelous work and there was considerable cause for rejoicing. As a matter of fact, the description of Temple worship strikes me as being very similar to early (and some current) Pentecostalism, albeit 70 years earlier.

There was, however, a counter-weight to this enthusiasm. While the worship service could be pretty “wild” by today’s standards, there was also a very heavy emphasis on education. Classes were held in theology, classics, and even Hebrew. While I know Fawn Brodie’s biography of Joseph Smith is regarded as Mormon Kryptonite, I think her treatment of the Kirtland Temple shows Joseph Smith to be very bright man who was very much interested in education and who, like others of his time period and since, wanted to find a way to integrate faith with the rising field of science. The doctrine of eternal progression can certainly be seen as one way to see the development of energy on a cosmic level. (As an aside, I find looking at it this way makes the doctrine worthy of consideration from even a non-Mormon viewpoint.)

By studying and engaging the issues of the day himself, and by providing classes for his followers to do the same, Joseph Smith gave the early Saints a strong model for education and self improvement. I saw at least some vestiges of this in the Sunday school and priesthood meetings. Perhaps a better modern day example lies in the powerful drive to self improvement within the LDS and the high quality of its educational institutions.

The question that arises here is, “What happened to the ‘fire’ of early Saints’ worship?”

Clearly at some point the worship became less demonstrative and more orderly. This in itself is a very natural development within religious movements. The informal worship (and in some cases, border line chaos) that is described in Acts and I Corinthians eventually became the highly structured Mass. The Montanists (an early revival group) went through the same transition and the same dynamic can be seen in contemporary Pentecostalism. Worship at your average First Assembly of God is not even close to what took place at the Azusa Street revival in 1906.

There are a variety of possible times and reasons for the switch in the LDS. Maybe it was the less than felicitous demise of the Kirtland experiment, or the ongoing persecutions, or the desire to establish greater order and uniformity. Maybe it was something that happened over the years in Utah. Then again, maybe it was the rise of temple ceremonies which offered a different kind of revelatory experience, making the need for such things in corporate worship superfluous. I simply don’t know. I’m sure a good Mormon historian could provide the answer, (If not, there’s a Ph.D topic looking for a scholar.) but whatever the answer, I’m confident there were some good reasons.

Still, from my perspective as a visitor, I found it a trifle strange that morning to discover that a movement which began with such enthusiasm, with such a strong emphasis on current revelation, and that still teaches the truth of personal revelation to each member of the church should have such a “head oriented” order of worship for its sacrament meeting. Two short prayers, three talks, four hymns, and the sacrament itself in a never varying order just doesn’t seem to express a strong belief in ongoing revelation. To put it another way, I think one could learn a lot in a sacrament meeting but I doubt one would be likely to “dream dreams” or “see visions” as Acts 2 describes. Depending on when things changed it’s also possible that Joseph Smith would be a little lost in the meeting, wondering if perhaps he’d wandered into a class of some sort instead of a worship service.

Now this is where the Saint needs to use her or his deeper and broader experience of sacrament meetings to properly interact with my perspective. Doubtless, there is something about the sacrament meeting that I as an outsider just don’t get. Perhaps there is a great revelatory and deeply spiritual current being generated that isn’t visible or perceptible to visitors. Then again, maybe something has been lost. Maybe the eminently understandable desire to maintain order and preserve good teaching has overshadowed the need for spiritual encounter and experience. I think this is a question worth asking, for surely the teaching that God is active and revelation ongoing should be expressed when those who believe such things gather for worship.

Lest I be misunderstood as advocating Pentecostal style worship for Mormons, let me make it clear that I suggest no such thing. What I do suggest is finding ways to allow the Holy Spirit more room to work in the context of a sacrament meeting. Personally, I find silence or meditative music very effective in this regard. There is no need to “whomp up the Spirit” or get overly emotional. One just needs to allow some space and time for God to move in the human heart. Something as simple as quiet prayer or meditation after one of the talks might bring the message home in a considerably more powerful way than just singing a hymn and moving on to the next talk.

That said, I do think the heavy LDS emphasis on education and doctrine could easily serve as a keel (the heavy downward facing blade on the bottom of a sailboat that keeps it from tipping over) for a good deal of emotional/spiritual sail. Such demonstrative worship is probably unnecessary and unwanted in most white LDS congregations. But it might prove quite helpful in other cultural contexts.

What think ye?

What advice would you have me give our Bishops? 

As a quick explanation, we have our monthly bishops training meeting next week, and after we finished the standard summary of the current investigators and their individual needs our Stake President turned the discussion to the upcoming meeting with the bishops.  We discussed a number of things relative to missionary work, and then, right before he left to do other Stake President stuff, he left the Missionary Committee with a charge.  He said:

I want you to give me some concrete suggestions for what to ask of our Bishops to improve missionary work in our stake.

The following is an explanation of the three things we are suggesting to him, with a brief explanation of why we are making those suggestions:

1) Instruct the Bishops to focus our Sacrament Meetings on Christ.

We had mentioned this when the Stake President still was with us, but we were unanimous that the best thing we can do to share the Gospel with others at the ward level is to have deeply spiritual Sacrament Meetings – and we all felt like too many talks were focused on topics that, while important as practical matters, were better suited for Relief Society and Priesthood meeting.  We talked of how we too often lose sight of the unique purpose of a meeting that is supposed to focus on WORSHIP – by introducing topics that are not “worshipful”.  We mentioned specifically that the following topics are not appropriate for Sacrament Meeting:

a) Food Storage (unanimous groans about that as a topic)

b) “Missionary Work” (one very dedicated, ultra-conservative High Councilor said he “withdraws” emotionally whenever “missionary work” is the topic of a talk – and, remember, this was the Missionary Committee)

c) Tithing (a spiritual law, but not focused on Christ)

d) anything else that is “programmatic” and not focused on becoming Christ-like

We talked of making sure each and every topic includes, at the very least, the qualifier, “and how understanding and living this principle (or developing this characteristic) will help me become more like Christ”.  We also talked of working to eliminate travelogues, thank-amonies and quasi-talks from Fast and Testimony Meeting.

2) Instruct the Bishops to personally set an example for the members of love and fellowship of ALL who walk through the doors at church.

Do this in part by ending all administrative meetings no later than 15 minutes before the start of Sacrament Meeting, spending at least 10 minutes mingling with those who are attending Sacrament Meeting each week, seeking out and just being friendly with EVERYONE not known personally, and being seated on the stand at least 5 minutes before the meeting starts – reverently listening to the prelude music and asking the congregation to do the same.

3) Ask the Bishops to instruct their Ward Councils and Activities Committees to coordinate regular activities around service opportunities in their communities.

Don’t add “extra” activities, but replace most of the activities they generally do currently.  Rather than have a ward dinner and talent show held in the cultural hall, for example, provide a dinner and talent show at a retirement community, nursing home or homeless shelter.  Don’t create more activities; rather, be less exclusive and insular – focusing the activities on helping and serving others.

Most of our conversation focused on helping members let go of referring to “doing missionary work” and begin to see it instead as “sharing the Gospel”.

So, for this post, I ask the same question:

With regard to “missionary work”, what advice would you give our Bishops?

“My 3rd favorite thing about the LN Ward is Brother P. He’s a tall, slender old man whom I’ve never heard say two words, but he plays the harmonica beautifully. He’s at church every week – just him and his harmonica. He teaches the 8-10 year olds in primary, and they allow him to play his harmonica along with the songs each week during singing time. Sometimes when I don’t feel like going to sunday school, I stand right outside the Primary room and listen to him play along with the singing. One of the kids in his primary class, a smiley, roundish 10 year old brings his own little harmonica to church as well, and the two of them play together.

It warms my soul to watch this unlikely duo play the harmonica together. Both strike me as being a little on the lonely side, and I thank the Lord for providing them with the opportunity for friendship. About a month ago, we had our annual Primary program in Sacrament Meeting, and I cried when I saw the two of them together playing their instruments. I continue to thank the Lord for a bishop who allows reverent harmonica during sacrament meeting.

One of my slowest healing wounds is a memory of my childhood bishop telling an old man he wasn’t allowed to play his violin during sacrament meeting. John was my non-LDS violin teacher with whom my mother had arranged to play a special musical number along with me during sacrament meeting. He and I were seated behind the organ player on the stand in the chapel. As we began to sing the sacrament hymn, John stood up and began to play along, reading the music over the organist’s shoulder. The bishop stood up, walked over to the old man, and asked him to stop. I still remember the look on John’s face, as my bishop told him that his violin playing – his gift to God and the LDS church that day – was inappropriate. I have never forgiven my bishop for hurting John’s feelings.

And that is why it warms my heart to hear old Brother P. and the smiley 10 year-old playing their harmonicas in sacrament meeting.”

Both of these situations occurred in Sacrament Meeting, and both involved a decision made by a Bishop in the administration of his calling.  What to you think of each decision?  Was the Bishop correct or incorrect in each case?  Regardless of your answer to the first question, was he justified or unjustified in each case?  Is there anything about each situation that makes it different than the other – that would make the validity of either choice different than the other?

What guidelines do you think should govern the music that is shared in Sacrament Meeting, and why?  Are there any situations where basic guidelines should be set aside and ignored – either to allow music that otherwise would be disallowed or to disallow music that otherwise would be allowed?

The season of the ward Christmas program.

The annual ward Christmas sacrament meeting is a one and ten, sometimes at the same time. Some inspire with the stirring carols of Christmas or a new take on the Christmas story. Some are painful, like the third year in a row the bishop’s 11-year-old daughter squeaks out Silent Night on her violin. Sometimes the programs make us feel more a part of Christendom, with a poignant message about Christ. Other times we hear a mind-numbing talk on tithing, and the only mention of Christmas is when the congregation sings O Little Town of Bethlehem in a tempo that would put a four-year-old to sleep on Christmas Eve.

I’ve had experiences with all those kinds of Christmas programs. I’ve felt the joy of sitting in a warm chapel filled with bright red poinsettias, watching the snow fall outside while we sing O Come All Ye Faithful. And I’ve felt the misery of listening to dismal music and boring talks and wondering why our celebration is so humdrum.

The Christmas program that stands out most for me is when I was a teen-ager. A young woman was singing O Holy Night. She was about 20 and her life had not been easy. A couple in our ward – both social workers – had taken her in and made her one of their own. The young woman, a beautiful soprano, started to cry while she was performing. At first, she tried to sing through her tears, but after a few phrases, she just stood on the stand and wept, while the pianist valiantly continued to play. Her foster mother sat on the front row, white-knuckled and nervous as the drama unfolded. After a few uncomfortable moments, she started to sing. Her lusty soprano rang out, “Truly he taught us to love one another …” She stayed in her seat and sang. By the end of the song the two sang together. The memory stays with me to this day … and helps blunt the tithing talks and scratchy violin solos and struggling ward choirs.

How do you feel about the annual ward Christmas program? Love it or hate it? Or, do you skip it altogether and go to midnight mass on Christmas Eve? Tell your stories and thoughts, highlights and low lights. Then go join your ward choir. I guarantee they need you for the Christmas program.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/12/12/that-time-of-year/feed/ 11 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/10/25/the-mormon-trinity/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/10/25/the-mormon-trinity/#comments Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:00:25 +0000 KC Kern http://mormonmatters.org/?p=2623 A few months ago, Bruce hosted a discussion about the word and concept of the Trinity.  It seems that most Mormons associate the idea of Trinity with false doctrine, and substitute any reference to it with the term “Godhead.” I have been in many Sunday school and quorum lessons in which the nature of God is discussed, and usually the teacher says something along the lines of “In other churches, they believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all the same person.”  Then, they turn to the scriptures of Jesus’ baptism, point out the distinctness of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and consider it case-closed.  Or, they will turn to a scripture of Jesus praying, and, in a semi-mocking tone, say “So, is Jesus praying to himself here?”  trying to show how ridiculous the idea is that they could all be the same.

I fear that this straw-man description of the trinity does it great injustice.  The traditional concept of the Trinity, as understood by mainstream Christianity, can be expressed in this diagram:

On first sight, someone might scoff, noting both the “is” and “is not” jutting from and between each member of the Godhead, and see that as an irreconcilable contradiction.  What I find interesting about this diagram, however, is the fact that essentially, a fourth unit is created: the central “God,” which represents all three.

We usually use the term “God” to refer to “God the Father”/Elohim, but do we as Mormons have any terms that irrespectively refer to all/any three?  It turns out we do.  Consider the four following statements that could plausibly be heard at the pulpit on any given Sunday:

1. “I prayed, and asked the Lord to help me.”
2. “I’m so grateful for the Lord’s sacrifice for all of us.”
3. “The Lord comforted me in my time of need.”
4. “I know that the Lord loves each and every one of us.”

Each of these fairly generic LDS-friendly sentences uses the term “Lord,” but in each instance refers to someone different: #1 refers to Heavenly Father, #2 refers to Jesus Christ, #3 refers to the Holy Ghost, and #4 refers to their collective whole.

Now let’s look back at our Trinity diagram.  Replace the central “God,” with “the Lord,” and as far as I can tell, it is congruent with the LDS usage of the word, as I just demonstrated.  So what does this mean?

First, I think it’s important to note the unique elements of LDS beliefs.  The corporal and physically separate nature of the Father and Son, and the unembodied spiritual, yet also distinct nature of the Holy Ghost are fundamental tenants of LDS theology, and these beliefs are by-and-large not shared with our mainstream Christian neighbors.

But let’s not forget that even their Trinity diagram includes “is not”s separating each figure.  As Mormons, this essentially fits within our doctrine that they are separate and distinct.

In considering the “is”s, we enter a realm where mainstream Christians feel as ease, and Mormons begin to feel squeamish.  But should we?  Besides the fact that, to us, they are all “the Lord,” do we have any other basis to embrace their oneness?  The scriptures, yes, even the scriptures of the Restoration, would confirm this with a resounding “YES!”

When Jesus visited the Nephites, he told them:

“And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.” (3 Nephi 11: 27)

And to Joseph Smith, the Lord was even more emphatic:

“…the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son; Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:27-28)

Suppose two people, Tim and Tom, engage in a business venture, and decide to create a corporation to do so.  They call their corporation “T&T Widgets Inc.”  The corporation becomes an independent legal entity.  Tim was one entity, Tom was an another, and a third, virtual entity was created to represent them both: the corporation.  When “T&T Widgets” sends a message to a customer, its a “letter.”  When Tim sends a message to Tom, its a “memo.” The corporation has rights, has a name, can engage in business transactions, can participate in legal affairs, all as a single entity.  In terms of practical reality, Tim, Tom, or both, are engaging in the actual check writing, paper signing, and legal testifying, but whether it is Tim or Tom, it makes no difference, so long as they are acting in the name of the corporation, not themselves.

It’s true that the scriptures and prophets don’t always use the clearest of language when describing one member of the Godhead as opposed to another.  Abinadi told his listeners:

“Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.”

“Eternal Father” is not usually the term we use to refer to Jesus Christ.  But how off-base is that?  Abinadi seemed comfortable enough using it.

Some powerful insight about this comes from the Gospel of John, chapter 14.

Jesus tells Philip that “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. ” (v6-7)

Philip, anxious to finally come to know and see this “Father” of which Jesus spoke, said:

“Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” (v8)

Jesus responds by poignantly describing his relationship and role as a revelator of the Father:

“Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” (v9-11)

In his own words, it is impossible to see Jesus, and not see the Father.  I believe this is to be understood not in context of seeing their physical beings, but in knowing them.  It is impossible to know, believe and love Jesus without knowing, believing, and loving God—because they are one.  Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father, and exhibits his attributes in every imaginable way.  Their oneness goes far beyond simply having the same mission statement.

Even in reference to the physical nature of their resurrected bodies, Joseph Smith said that he “saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness,” (1840 account, emphasis added.)  While the physical distinctness of the two is a clear message from the first vision, even Joseph Smith felt it appropriate to, in a different account, report his vision of the two by simply saying: “I saw the Lord.” (1832 account)

I have found that the scriptures and words of the prophets, particularly those which have direct references to God, find increased beauty and simplicity when both the concepts of distinct beings as well as a unified single virtual entity are taken into account.  Quandaries over “who’s speaking” in the scriptures are quickly resolved; there’s no need to loose sleep over why Jesus is sometimes called “God himself,” no need to provide apologetics for scriptures teaching that they are one, and we might grasp a more reasonable understanding of how God is understood (or maybe misunderstood) in other religious circles.

Most importantly, I think the greatest take-home lesson is that we can deepen our relationship with deity by realizing that any interaction with one member of the Godhead (praying, feeling the Spirit, reading the words of Christ) spans through the awareness and care of the other two as well.

Optional reading assignment: “The Grandeur of God,” by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

Some speakers overtly state something like, “I was assigned to speak on this talk entitled _______ by Elder ________ in the April General Conference.” Others go about speaking on the subject and then in the process make multiple references to a single recent General Conference talk.

The last talk I gave was in 2007 and I was given a topic, but not a General Conference talk. In all the speaking assignments I have had, most have come with a topic (although a couple times I was given a blank canvas), but never anything as specific as a talk given by someone else. In this ward it is completely consistent now, though.

Is this happening where you live? What are the pros and cons of this kind of practice?

1. Service Missions
   I’m talking about Peace Corps style service work, full time. I honestly believe that if 75% of our full time missionaries were doing strictly community service, the church would see higher teaching and conversion rates… and perhaps even retention rates, too. The physical aspect of “raising the bar” would not have to be so severe as the less physically capable missionaries could do the teaching and the stronger missionaries could do the service work. Think about the impact that could have on the world.
2. Women in Priesthood
   This one might be controversial, and its definitely the least likely to happen anytime soon, but I think it would be cool. The talent pool for leadership and administered spirituality is more shallow than we realize since we can only draw from the men in the church, and we constantly hear how men are spiritually weak compared to women. I’ve seen women operate within priesthood in other churches and its very impressive.
3. Consolidated Sunday School – Relief Society – Priesthood
   For about a year, my stake had too many members for the amount of chapels available so they had to fit five wards in one building. In order to make that work, the block of meetings was reduced from 3 hours to a little over 2 hours. In this scenario, Sacrament meeting was still the same but Sunday School and the Relief Society/Priesthood meetings were each reduced to 30 minutes. The short block was fantastic, although with young children the length of Sacrament meeting is still a real issue. However, keeping separate Sunday School and RS/PH meetings ended up limiting the effectiveness of teachers in either meeting. I’d like to see a shorter block, with Sacrament meeting reduced to maybe 45-50 minutes, and then a consolidated Sunday School/RS/PH, with men and women together. The idea of men and women in separate meetings is a theory that doesn’t really bear out anymore since both are giving the same correlated lesson anyway.
4. More Musical Performance
   Without question, my favorite LDS Sacrament meetings have been the ones dominated by musical performances. A few years ago I visited a relative’s ward for Christmas and the Sacrament meeting had NO talks at all. After the Sacrament was administered, the remainder of the time was given to several musical numbers and it was my favorite church experience in a long time. I’d love to see at least 50% of Sacrament meeting time given to musical performance (aside from the usual congregational hymns), although I’d like to see a wider range of musical styles allowed (as opposed to mostly MoTab-style choir numbers and Janice Kapp Perry solos).
5. Less Administrative Meetings
   There are probably not many active LDS folks who need an elaboration here. In recent years there have been General Conference talks, letters to bishops, and programs developed to try to reduce the amount of meetings taking time away from families, but it seems to make little difference. We still have tons of meetings and many of them are way too long.

• the new hymnal was significantly changed to reflect demographic changes in the church. For instance, they took out “Utah, we love thee.”
• In choosing which hymns would make it into the 1985 hymnal, the Hymnbook Committee reviewed over 6,000 submissions. Author and composer names were withheld so the selection process could focus on the musical or doctrinal merits of the submissions rather than the identity of the composers/authors.
• The doctrinal message was considered by the committee to be more important than the musical and/or literary merit (unless a hymn was considered to be “widely-loved”). I’m familiar with the Spanish hymnal and know that there used to be a song in the old one about brushing your teeth. That one didn’t make the cut in the newer version of the Spanish hymnal. J But what happened to hymns like “Come, thou fount of every blessing?” Does anyone have the inside scoop on that one?
• I feel good knowing that something as important as the official church hymnal out of which we sing every Sunday was changed to reflect increasing diversity within the church. This gives me hope that some of the things I struggle with about the church may be changed or at least diminished. So before I die, the songs in the primary book that talk about fathers’ wisdom, faith, and strength in one verse and mothers’ “happy, smiling faces” might get removed. Wishful thinking?? The Utah song lasted a long time, but was finally cut.

I’ll close with a thought-provoking quote from the Latter-day Hymns book: “From the texts of the hymns that have been preserved, we can discern the values, the collective wisdom, the beliefs, hopes, fears, and even something of the history of the people who wrote them. A hymnbook is a testament to the unique qualities of a people.”

So what can we learn about our beliefs from our hymnal? What do our hymns say about us as a people? I think the hymnal testifies of our belief and hope in Christ, of our unique history and traditions, and of the emphasis we place on serving others and strengthening our families. I feel good about these most basic of beliefs. And when I sing the hymns that talk about Christ, service, and families, I feel good inside. The first presidency message in the intro. of the new hymnal says that hymns “can lift our spirits, give us courage, and move us to righteous action.” Good goals.

After the baby blessings and the administration of the sacrament, the bishop stood up and bore his testimony. As he closed his testimony, I was quite surprised to hear him say, “We turn over the next 10 or 12 minutes to the primary children who wish to bear their testimonies. After that, the remainder of our time will go to the young adults and adults for the bearing of their testimonies.”

As soon as he had closed his testimony, about 20 primary age children filled the choir seats, waiting for their turn to bear their testimony. About 10 more found their way up to the dais as their peers were sharing their testimony. The majority of the children standing up seemed to be no older than eight.

We then heard these children repeat stock phrases in that sing-songy way that seems to be as universal as the Church: “I’d like to bear my testimony; I know the Church is true. I love my family, and I know President Monson is a prophet.” There were a few children, of course, who had a little bit more or less to say than this (and some who couldn’t really be understood at all).

At first, it was kind of cute. It takes a lot of courage to stand before several hundred people and say what you believe. But after about the, oh, fifteenth testimony expressed in very nearly the same words as those preceeding it, the egan to strike me as a very strange and even disturbing. I began to wonder what my relatives’ non-member family members were thinking, because I knew what I’d be thinking in their situation – because I was thinking it already – that this whole scene was getting a little too Jesus Camp-y for comfort.

After about 12 or 15 minutes of hearing the same phrase over and over, adults and teenagers finally began making their way to the pulpit. I admit it: I was relieved.

Following the meeting, I spoke briefly with my relative about his ward’s approach to the testimony problem. He said that limiting the time for children to bear their testimonies had been the best solution so far; before that, there were several testimony meeting in which primary children had taken up the entire meeting.

My wife and I discussed ways to deal with this problem. The bishopric could state that the remaining time was for the sharing of testimonies by those over age 12 and that the primary children would have their own special primary testimony meeting. Or the bishopric could say, “All children who know the Church is true, please stand. All children who love their families, please stand. We turn the remainder of the meeting over to adults and young adults for the bearing of testimony.”

OK, The second suggestion is probably a little too flip for sacrament meeting.

But how does a bishopric and ward deal with this problem? On the one hand, it would be terrible to quench the enthusiasm of so many young children. On the other hand, it’s unsettling to watch 30 children under the age of about 8 share their testimonies in the exact same way – even down to the inflection – one after the other, to say nothing of leaving inadequate time for the adults to share their testimonies.

How do you balance these competing needs? What would you do if you were the bishop in this situation?

Bonus questions: where does the phrase “I’d like to bear my testimony; I know the church is true” even come from? Is there something in the Primary Presidency’s Handbook of Instructions that says to teach the children to bear their testimony thus? And why is it children bear their testimony with the exact same voice inflection all over North America?

Take this assessment and find out:

(Taken from D. Jeff Burton’s For Those Who Wonder : forthosewhowonder.com. Similar to a Correlation Department survey on Religion and Life conducted among LDS Church members in the mid-1980s)

So share if you dare, or simply sit back and contemplate the combinations and their consequences for our church!

Amos 5:21-24

For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times;but remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord. And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.

Doctrine and Covenants 59:9-13

Discuss,

my friends:

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/11/evidences-and-reconciliations-81108/feed/ 10 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/09/segregated-sundays/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/09/segregated-sundays/#comments Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:30:25 +0000 guest http://mormonmatters.org/?p=956 Today’s post is by Rachel Maw.  I was scanning through the news stories over at cnn.com when I came across this article, “Why many Americans prefer their Sundays segregated”. It started me thinking about my own ward.  I live in a state where about 30% of the population is Hispanic, but you wouldn’t know it by going to a Sacrament Meeting Sunday morning.  We have a mostly white congregation with a minority member here and there.  For a while we had an Asian contingent in our ward.  It was so nice to have some diversity.  They added a different view point in lessons and helped us to learn more about different cultures.

In many ways our church is different from other churches because we attend Sunday services based on geography.  But, does that make it harder for members who may be the only minority members in their wards?

In the article it says that many blacks said they wanted a racial timeout on Sunday.   “They would say, ’I need a place of refuge,…I need to come to a place on Sunday morning where I don’t experience racism.”
This could probably be said of other races as well.

Interracial church advocates  state “churches should be interracial whenever possible because their success could ultimately reduce racial friction in America.”

Advocates also say “the church was never meant to be segregated.  They point to the New Testament description of the first Christian church as an ethnic stew – it deliberately broke social divisions by uniting groups that were traditionally hostile to one another.”

Curtiss Paul DeYoung, co-author of “United by Faith” says “the first-century Christian church grew so rapidly precisely because it was so inclusive.  He says the church inspired wonder because its leaders were able to form a community that cut across the rigid class and ethnic divisions that characterized the ancient Roman world.”

“People said that if Jews, Greeks, Africans, slaves, men and women – the huge divides of that time period – could come together successfully, there must be something to this religion”.

Thomas Brelsford, co-author of “We are the Church Together” said “Only when ethnic groups no longer feel compelled to abandon their entire culture on Sunday morning can a church claim to be interracial……..An interracial church isn’t one in which all the black members act, dress and worship like the church’s majority white members to make them feel comfortable…….Interracial churches resist ‘taking one dominant identity and forcing everyone to fit into it.’”

As I read this article here are some of the questions that came to mind…

Are we doing enough to make minorities feel welcome in our congregations?  What can we do better?

How do racial issues affect missionary work?

Have we done enough to address the issues of things like Blacks and the Priesthood?  (for more on this, read what  Marvin Perkins has to say about it.)

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

This is a uniquely Mormon issue, from what I’ve seen. I have sung in lots of other churches, been a choir director for another congregation for several years, and attended meetings at many churches of many denominations. At all of these churches, the members come to the meeting and quietly sit in the sanctuary. They do not talk with their friends. They do not high-five each other (yes, I’ve seen this in our ward). They do not run around the chapel doing last-minute preparation for lessons. They don’t slap each other on the backs or call to someone across the room. They don’t laugh loudly or walk up and down the aisle shaking hands. They just sit and listen to the prelude music. Though I can’t know what’s in their minds, I assume they’re feeling the spirit of the Sabbath, meditating or getting in the mood for worship.

Why don’t we do the same? Are we naturally a more gregarious and social bunch? Do we love each other so much we’re overjoyed to see our friends? Are we starved for socialization that we use the ten minutes before the meeting? Are we simply rude? Do we have lousy organists whose music isn’t worth listening to? Is it because we’re irreverent and disrespectful? What’s up with this awful habit?

Whatever the reason, it seems a losing battle. I’ve been in meetings where the stake president or bishop has stood up and asked people to be quiet. There’s a hush … for about 45 seconds. My son attended a fireside where Elder Bednar finally stood and asked the congregation to be quiet – after two admonitions by the other general authority in attendance. I’ve been in meetings where the organist has made the organ quieter, or louder, or stopped altogether, to demand the audience’s attention. No deal.

I feel bad for organists who practice every week, only to provide religious elevator music. Our behavior seems particularly rude towards them. One time my husband, who’s an organist, played the theme song of Mickey Mouse, just to see if anybody would notice. Nobody did.

I also feel sorry for anybody who’s trying to prepare themselves for meaningful worship. The hand-shakers, back-slappers, and greeters will come welcome them, often loudly. Neighbors will sit down and chat with them, often loudly. A Sunday School or priesthood teacher may come and ask them to prepare a scripture or story for the lesson an hour or two later. And all of these episodes will be accompanied by the ever-present din of laughter, chitchat … and the occasional high-five.

This is our most significant gathering of the week, the time for our holiest ordinance. Is it too much to ask to enjoy a few moments of peace at the beginning of the meeting?