Boredom and Sacrament Meeting

I had a good friend who struggled to feel the Spirit in her ward.  We were talking one day, and she asked the following question:

So, if you're bored in the speaker portion of Sacrament meeting, does this simply mean you're not spiritual enough?

My response to her, knowing her as well as I do, was:

Not necessarily. It often means that the meetings aren't spiritual enough - and that can be for a number of reasons. Maybe the speaker just didn't prepare diligently and seek the guidance of the Spirit.  Maybe the speaker tried but doesn't have any good public speaking skills and the delivery simply was awkward and hard to follow.  Maybe the topic of the talk was not "worshipful" in nature and, therefore, would have been hard even for an experienced speaker to present in an uplifting, spiritual way. 

Having said that, if you are bored on a regular basis, you might need to focus on your own spirituality in some way.  If you are bored during a sincere attempt by a non-professional congregant to share his or her heart in a talk that was prepared with fear and trembling and who simply suffers from anxiety, lack of experience and/or poor public speaking skills - I'd say, maybe, you aren't charitable enough.

In practice, it usually is a two-way street, especially over the long haul.

Having said all of that, I have said that the single biggest detriment to spirituality in the Church often is non-spiritual Sacrament Meetings and non-educational Sunday School lessons - things that could stretch our understanding and enlarge our souls, but that can dull us if they stagnate for long stretches of time.  Making our meetings more spiritual, enlightening and satisfying is the best antidote for boredom - and it is much more constructive than blaming the congregation for feeling bored during meetings that don't live up to their purpose and potential.  

The Purposes of Our Sunday Meetings: Some Things Aren't Appropriate for Sacrament Meeting

I have spoken with quite a few people over the course of my life about why our Sunday meetings sometimes aren't nearly as spiritually delicious as they should be - why, when you look around the chapel, so many people seem disinterested.  There are some reasons I wouldn't change (like hearing from average members in Sacrament Meeting who are not good public speakers or who are not well-prepared), but there is one fundamental change I would make church-wide, if I could.  I would make sure every member understood the specific purposes of our meetings, starting with those who preside and set the tone.

In my opinion, the primary purposes of our Sunday meetings are as follows: 

1) Sacrament Meeting: Worship

2) Sunday School: Doctrinal instruction

3) PH & RS: Community building (including "fellowshipping" activities and temporal matters)

There is room for some overlap, but only within the parameters of the purposes. For example:

1) It's OK to provide doctrinal instruction in Sacrament Meeting, but that instruction should be about worship-focused things. Grace, charity, meekness, forgiveness and any other godly characteristic is fine as a topic for a talk, as long as they are presented as aspects of true emulative worship - but tithing, food storage, HT & VT, etc. are not appropriate Sacrament Meeting topics. Anything can be related tangentially to worship by a good speaker, but it should not be necessary for a speaker to take a non-worship-focused topic and bend it into an appropriate topic. 

2) Sunday School should be a school - and I prefer the group discussion model for ALL classes comprised of members who've been attending long enough to have a fairly solid doctrinal foundation. I want real meat in Gospel Doctrine, for example - with those members occasionally cycling through Gospel Essentials (maybe once every five years or so), just to make sure the foundation milk doesn't get sour.

3) PH & RS should be about people - defining and planning service, discussing HT & VT, discussing how to find and reach and inspire others, lessons on those things that really aren't worship-focused but community-centered (like tithing, food storage, emergency preparedness, fast offerings, even temple attendance, etc.), basic get-to-know-you activities, learning from the life experiences of others, genealogy, etc.

Sacrament Meeting should be "spiritual" in nature; Sunday School should be "educational"; Priesthood and Relief Society Meetings should be "social".  I am most concerned about keeping Sacrament Meeting spiritual and worshipful in nature and focus, since there can be spiritual moments within education and sociality.

Meetings Can Be Bad, Mediocre, Good, Better or Best: Prioritization Is Important

I have a friend who is serving in a Bishopric.  We were talking about how easy it is to let meetings multiply to the extent that they become overwhelming - and about how both of us have heard some people say we ought to eliminate Sunday School and use the extra hour to do service or hold the "extra" meetings we tend to schedule.  He said the following, and I want to comment on it here:

The rule for me is sometimes to do what it takes to maintain sanity and a healthy family, even if it means having to skip meetings. There are other meetings that bishopric members are supposed to attend that don't add much value in my opinion or that are more of nice to do if possible.

I agree totally.

I don't believe in attending every single meeting possible just because the meetings have been scheduled, and I and my family have skipped lots of meetings and gatherings that others consider to be important or even mandatory over the years. I believe in being active in the Church, but I also believe in prioritizing meetings and eliminating, consolidating or shortening so many others. When it comes to meetings, I believe in good, better, best - and we ought to eliminate some meetings that are good (and, in too many cases, not even good) for things that are better and best.

In terms of our meetings, I think Sunday School actually can be a better thing, at least, and even a best thing, in some wards. I know I don't want the teenagers in my ward to miss the Sunday School class I teach, and I don't want our leadership to miss the Gospel Doctrine class being taught by a wonderful teacher. I understand that experiences in different wards and branches vary in quality and impact, so I understand it's much easier for me to say that in a ward in which Sunday School instruction generally is excellent, but that's an issue that needs to be considered before anyone talks of eliminating Sunday School. Seriously, eliminating Sunday School for many members would eliminate the only chance they have to "study the Gospel with the Saints" - and that opportunity to learn from each other is important to me, especially when it comes to new converts and the youth.

I hear some people complain that the Church doesn't do enough to teach everything it could possibly teach about the scriptures and its own history and that it needs to do a better job of teaching these things to the youth, but eliminating Sunday School literally would reduce the available time significantly to do that. For new converts and youth who are the only members in the families and have no support at home, that's a very significant change - and not a good one.

I understand that callings can get in the way of life in negative ways, but eliminating the only meeting in the Church that is designed as a communal study opportunity isn't the way I would approach the issue. I would eliminate so many others things, instead - and, ironically, Elder Packer, of all people, has said the same thing numerous times over the years. (and he's not the only one)

One Way I Handle Hearing Things at Church with Which I Disagree

There are times at church when someone says something that I believe to be truly dangerous - or so wrong that it has to be addressed openly.  That doesn't happen very often; most things I hear with which I disagree can be ignored without any harm whatsoever, especially when other members share slightly different perspectives that make it clear what is said isn't immutable Mormon doctrine. 

I have found over my decades in the Church that there are multiple ways hearing conflicting things can be a good experience. 

I like to take things that others say and see how I would say them to make them make sense and be meaningful to me. If someone says something in a church meeting with which I disagree, I like to pull my mind away and figure out how I would say it if I were speaking to a group. It keeps me from getting upset, and it also has been the genesis of a few talks in my life - as new thoughts came to me and a way to explain them became a little clearer.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Councils - Men and Women with Equal Voices

The lesson last Sunday was about councils, so I cleared it with my Bishop to do a mock Ward Council with the youth, but to make it as real as possible - including discussing real issues and solutions.

First, we talked for a few minutes about what a council is and how it is supposed to be conducted. We defined a council as a group of people who discuss things and try to reach consensus about what they discuss, generally with the idea of understanding things and coming up with solutions to problems.

I mentioned that in the November 2010 World-Wide Training session, Elder Bednar or Elder Holland (I couldn't remember which one) said that Bishops should NOT share their opinion first and then ask the council members what they thought - since the answer generally would be, "I agree with you." He then paused and said, "Duh!" He said that the person who is presiding should solicit input from everyone first and then make a decision.

I started the mock council by asking each student to think of something they believed would help improve the ward in some way, with one of the students taking notes, so I could share the final suggestions from the class with the Bishop. I gave them about two minutes of silence to think about it and then went around the room and asked each of them for one suggestion. The suggestions were:

1) Have more opportunities for the youth to attend the temple, not just the two or three times each year as a substitute for YW/YM activities that week.

2) Fix the heating and A/C in the building, so it isn't so cold in the winter and hot in the summer in the YW room.

3) Increase the "worship" aspect of Sacrament Meeting.

4) Stop flooding people who have problems with service for a few weeks and then moving on to someone else (a feast or famine approach to service).

5) Start YM/YW activities earlier, since the students sometimes aren't getting home until 9:00 or later - especially during the school year. With Seminary the next morning, this is a real problem.

I told them that we wouldn't talk about the heating and A/C issue in this council meeting, since I would have to talk with someone who understands that issue better to know if it is something that can be changed or fixed. Rather, we would focus on the other issues - and, since #3 above (Sacrament Meeting) was my issue, I put it last on my list (and never got to it).

I then asked for input on each issue, one at a time, and we talked about it until we had something to present to the Bishop as a concrete suggestion:

1) For the temple attendance issue, we will find out from the temple what days and times are available during the summer to bring a group of youth, talk with the youth to see how many could attend on those days at those times and, if necessary, talk with another ward in town to see if they would like to combine with us in order to have enough youth and adults to make it work.

2) For the issue of more even, regular fellowship, we will suggest a more active ward activity schedule - so everyone has a chance to get to know each other better. We also will suggest regular service activities - things focused strictly on unconditional outreach, with no activity or baptism strings attached. The students thought this would give everyone a chance to get to know each other better, so any outreach in a time of crisis would be more natural and seem more genuine than lots of simultaneous attention all at once that ends suddenly after a few weeks.

3) For the issue of the YW/YM activities ending so late, we talked about all of the implications of that situation and exactly what the issue(s) were. After talking extensively about it, we decided that there are two main issues:

a) There is a lot of socializing when opening exercises are supposed to be happening - which means opening exercises often are taking over a half-hour - which means the lessons and activities are starting late and then running late - which is followed by more socializing after the lesson ends.

b) Since the start time is set at 7:00, this means that the regular end time can be as late as 9:00 - and many families have multiple children of varying ages at the building, with each class / group ending at different times (the YW generally going the longest).

We will suggest to the Bishop and the YW & YM Presidents that the arrival time be changed to 6:30 - with 30 minutes designated as time to socialize. Any earlier time would be hard for athletes, musicians, actors, etc. who have extra-curricular activities that keep them from getting home before 6:00-6:30. From 6:30-7:00, the youth could talk, eat food they could bring rather than trying to eat at home, etc - so that their normal schedule could start at 7:00 sharp and end at 8:00. Then, anyone who wanted to stay could do so, but anyone who needed to leave could do so without feeling like they had missed a chance to socialize. Also, we will suggest that all meetings and activities have the same start and end times, so families aren't waiting for children in different settings and can know exactly what time their children will be done. As part of this, the bell will be rung just like in Sunday School, as a reminder of the need to honor the scheduled times.

I ended the lesson by stressing three things:

1) Not all things that are proposed in council meetings like this can be done, especially immediately. I told them that I would pass along the results of our council, but that our Bishop (whom they all love) is the person who has to decide how or whether to proceed with any of them.

2) I explained that PEC used to be the primary council at the ward level but that Ward Council has taken its place in that regard. I explained that one of the main reasons this was done back in November 2010 was that the Church leadership recognized that men had been the only voices in the lead council for too long and that we had sucked at listening to the women and ensuring they had an equal voice in the top council in the ward. I told them as they get older and are involved in Ward Councils (and other leadership meetings) to remember that the women's input is supposed to be part of any decision that impacts the ward as a whole - and to insist that their voices be heard.

3) I talked very briefly about how the Church leadership has been stressing lately a new model of presiding - particularly that I have heard multiple references lately to "co-presiding" in the home and that single mothers are being recognized as the presiders in their homes, even if they have sons who hold the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood. In a home with a single parent, she presides - not a son, not the Bishop, not a Home Teacher, not any man. She presides. Period. I also stressed that, at the class level, the youth presidencies preside in the YM/YW organization, not the adult leaders and advisers. When it comes to the final decisions about what should happen in those organizations, they shouldn't give up that right and responsibility - that they need to take ownership and accountability.

I really enjoyed this lesson, and it illustrated how much our youth can contribute if we let them - especially since most of them had not been in attendance last week and had not had time to think about what they would suggest for our discussion.

The Purest and Simplest Way to Make Sacrament Meeting a True Worship Service and a Revelatory Experience

I have read quite a few comments from people decrying a lack of emphasis on Christ in our Sacrament Meetings.  They acknowledge the prayers in his name and the sacrament itself, but they are concerend about how often the talks are not focused on Jesus or Heavenly Father in an obvious (or even implied) way. 

I have been in such Sacrament Meetings, and I understand that concern.  I even agree with it to the extent that it happens, which, I agree, is too often.  My response is pretty straightforward, since I believe the "solution" is quite simple. 

The central issue is not at "The Church" level. It's an issue in individual wards and branches, since the Branch Presidents and Bishops are the ones who are responsible for the topics assigned as Sacrament Meeting talks. Too many of them still don't understand fully what it means to have a meeting set aside as a worship service - and too many of them still assign topics for Sacrament Meeting that will be addressed in Sunday School and/or should be reserved for the third hour in Priesthood and Relief Society meetings, but when they catch that vision and "get it" with regard to Sacrament Meeting, it's wonderful. I've lived in wards where that happened, and I've visited wards and branches where that happens, and there is a marked difference in those congregations that spills over into other areas, as well.

For the last few years, I have had the good fortune of being in a position from which I can mention that to local leaders and be taken seriously, and I have done so and will continue to do so. It sounds simplistic, but I believe making Sacrament Meeting a true worship service (a "revelatory experience" - as Elder Bednar said in the recent CHI training) can do more for a ward than just about anything else - and it certainly is the simplest and purest of the options.

The Difficulties and Benefits of Online Congregations

A friend of mine who participates quite actively online at one particular Mormon-themed blog asked me a couple of years ago how I felt about the possibility of the LDS Church establashing online wards and/or branches.  The following was my response to him (again, a couple of years ago, so the initial information is a bit dated by now):

It is happening now in some areas with Seminary for those who can't attend the traditional early morning classes. Our stake is part of the pilot program, and I have been impressed overall - even though I was skeptical a bit at first, given my background in education and instructional software. In a couple of years, when the Church has gone through the entire four-year cycle of classes and has time to work out system bug issues, I can see it being rolled out broadly for all students who have been doing home-study Seminary. It is not designed as a replacement for traditional Seminary, but it is a wonderful program and effort.

I agree totally with the recent statement in General Conference about the danger of losing tangible, physical contact in the temptation to interact more and more online, but I also believe strongly in the power of online interaction - obviously, given my rather prolific participation in the Bloggernacle. There is great potential for something like that to be a positive force, but there also is great potential for negative influences in a setting like that. Can you imagine a testimony meeting (or any meeting, really) in a setting where concerted hacking is a possibility?

There are issues that would have to be reconciled (like how to handle things like the sacrament), but if the sacrament is not being taken anyway (since the people aren't attending anyway) . . . [Note: My friend suggested mailing congregants a packet of pre-blessed bread and water that could be used at the appropriate time.  There are plenty of factors about that suggestions that concern me, but I don't rule it out automatically.]

Overall, I really like and would support the idea if it could be limited to those who are in locations and situations where they simply can't attend. I wouldn't want it to be a substitute for physical attendance with people who are capable of attending the traditional services. To me, a HUGE part of charity and true Zionist community is learning to interact with, serve and actually love those with whom I disagree, even passionately about some things - and I'm not sure a virtual ward would be able to provide that in quite the same way as a traditional ward can.

Rather than seeing it as virtual ward (with all of the callings associated with the traditional organization), I can see the basic format of the Sunday Meetings being broadcast live - with talks, prayers, classes, etc. provided by a core group of members. Again, however, it probably would need to be "restricted" to members identified by their Branch Presidents, Mission Presidents and Bishops as not being able to attend the traditional services - through a user name and password like is in place to access lds.org's stake and ward directories section.

That was my initial reaction. I certainly am open to other views and suggestions.

Sometimes We Ask Too Many Questions

Sometimes we simply ask WAY too many questions.

What I mean by that is that sometimes we ask questions of leaders - and they feel like they have to provide an answer - and that answer isn't something we like or want to hear - and we could have avoided the whole situation if we simply hadn't asked the question in the first place and just gone ahead and done what we believed was right.

Let me give an example from the world-wide Church Handbook of Instructions training from November 2010.

Pres. Beck talked about a RS President who was standing outside a home, pacing back and forth, concerned that she hadn't heard back yet from the Bishop about what she could do to help the sister and family in the home. She had left a message for him asking him what she could do.

Pres. Beck related that her advice to this sister was, to the best of my recollection: 

You have authority in your position as a President. Do what you feel impressed to do - and then go to the Bishop and tell him what you did.

I know that the culture of the Church in the past hasn't supported that advice in many cases, but it was said more than once in the training that organizational presidencies in the Church need to be empowered to seek and act on their own inspiration for their own stewardships - that they need to "ask less" and "do more". It also was said that the Bishop (and everyone else) needs to realize that the Bishop will not receive all the revelation for the ward - that all who have official responsibilities within the ward may receive revelation for their organizations (and families, in the case of parents) and provide honest, open, candid input in any councils in which they participate. Again, a statement that, in some important ways, we need to ask less and do more.

Again, sometimes we ask too many questions.

It Takes a Fine Meeting to Be Better than No Meeting

The last two wards I have attended have had wonderfully spiritual talks and Sunday School classes, generally - with enough boredom and lack of inspiration to highlight the normally excellent spirit and instruction. I think it's not unrelated that both wards have experienced and are experiencing greater growth than average in their respective stakes and regions - and that retention is very high, as well.

I believe strongly that the single most important thing we can do in the Church is make our meetings a spiritual feast that our members anticipate attending and mourn when they miss. One of my favorite quotes is, "It takes a fine meeting to be better than no meeting" - so I want our meetings to be fine.
 
The alternative for too many is to settle for no meetings.

We Are Responsible, Largely, for the Experiences of Others at Church

[Normally, I would proivde a link to a good post from somewhere else today, but I felt impressed to share this memory, instead.  I hope that decision was inspired - that this post touches someone, somehow today.]

There was a discussion in a leadership meeting I attended once that centered on the question of why members left the Church and what we could do about it. I knew how it probably would go naturally, so I piped up right at the beginning and said that most of the people who have left with whom I have talked personally mention being bored and feeling unfed at church - and that the best thing we can do, in my opinion, is to make our services and classes and meetings at all levels and of all kinds more spiritual and more spiritually filling.

As I expected, there was an initial, immediate reflection of that onto the people who don't come prepared to feel the Spirit (as if it's their own fault for not feeling fed and feeling bored), but the conversation eventually ended up focusing on the "standard" idea that everyone needs a friend, something to do and nourishment with the good word of God. I agreed and simply pointed out that it is up to the leadership of each ward and branch to set the example of nourishing with the good word of God and insist that the membership do that, as well, to the best of their ability.

This is one issue where I agree completely with the "standard Sunday School answer". Everyone needs a friend (someone with whom s/he can talk honestly and openly without being judged or condemned), something to do (to not feel like a nobody and to serve others) and spiritual nourishment (thoughtful, uplifting, enlightening, spirit-directed teaching and sharing). One is social; the next is active personal; the last is spiritual.

If all three of these things were provided to every member, there still would be issues - but they would be much fewer, far between and less serious. So, my advice to everyone is simple:

If you want to deal better with some of the things that cause you to struggle at church, be a real friend to someone at church, find something to do at church that is important and meaningful to you (whether that is an official calling or not) and provide nourishment of the good word of God to those who need it (including yourself outside of church time, if you aren't getting it directly at church from others).

The Words of Normally Quiet Members Often Are the Most Profound

In his wonderful talk, "Concern for the One", Elder Wirthlin said we shouldn't value just the piccolos in our orchestra. Something to consider:

Piccolos are the most easily heard instrument in almost any orchestra, since they are pitched so high. (I view piccolos as mutant flutes - designed specifically to be heard above the other instruments.) So, we shouldn't value only those who are heard the most or the most easily. (e.g., Just because I talk a lot, doesn't mean anything I say is more valuable than something a more quiet, reticent commenter says.)

Many of the most profound things I have heard in church have come from the quiet members whose experiences make what they do share incredibly touching. There are many members from whom I would LOVE to hear more than I do, but when to comment is up to them individually. That's one reason why I enjoy Sacrament Meeting, even with the duds. The format gives me a chance to hear from those who normally don't contribute in an open discussion setting. I generally learn more from them than from an hour long class.

Why Church Activity Sometimes Is a Facade - and the Solution

The following was my initial response to a post on Mormon Matters a couple of years ago entitled, The Facade of Activity, written by Jeff Spector:

It is interesting to me that "the Church" keeps saying, over and over and over, that it can only be a supplement to what happens at the individual level and in the individual home. I think a lot of members just don't get that idea - that they equate "the Church" to the entity that is responsible for their spirituality and righteousness.

Thus, the "facade" (imo) is the gap between what they want "the Church" to be and what it actually is.

I don't think that will change EVER for ANYONE until leaders at the local level and individual members focus on preaching Jesus and His life more than Christ crucified and programs implemented. Christ crucified (and resurrected, of course) saves us, but Jesus of Nazareth showed and taught us how to live and become. That's what truly converts, imo (repenting [changing] and becoming more like Jesus) - and truly converted people use activity in church (and all kinds, really) to bless and love and serve others, not for themselves.

I get tired of people trying to come up with "how to reach people". If it were a matter of creating some program, it would have been created by now. Programs and activities are important for what they do (bring people together for a chance at mutual edification), but that's about all they can do - they can't provide the actual edification.

For example, one of my former Stake Presidents talked once to the Bishops about serving in the community simply to bless and help others - NOT as a "missionary tool". He talked about not seeing people (inside and outside the Church) as potential converts or projects, but instead simply as brothers and sisters in need. He talked about not accepting others for who we want them to be (conditionally), but simply loving them for who they are (unconditionally) - hoping they will grow with us to be "new creatures in Christ" but loving them completely even if we never see any change.

To me, that is the heart of the difference between activity as a "facade" and activity as a sign of conversion.

Should the Church Change Sunday Meetings to Two Hours Instead of Three?

People kill me sometimes.

All around the Bloggernacle, I read complaints that the Church doesn't do enough in the roughly 72 hours/year available (48 classes x 45 minutes each in Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society/Young Women/Young Men) to teach its members every little aspect of church history that possibly might shake someone's faith at some point down the road. Many ex-members and disaffected members blame exactly this for their struggles (that they weren't taught everything possible in church). Then, they turn around and claim that the Church needs to "eliminate Sunday School" or "consolidate Sunday meetings to only 2 hours".

Which is it? A) Teach us more!; or B) Don't teach us as much!

Personally, I wouldn't mind if the 3-hour block became a 2-hour block - with PH/RS/YW/YM and SS alternating each week. I can say that and remain consistent, however, since I don't expect the Church to inoculate me against every possible challenge to my faith. However, I would rather tackle the quality of the instruction in our meetings first, since if we raised the spiritual and intellectual quality of our classroom and sacrament meeting instruction few members would want those meetings eliminated. I love being in church for three hours each Sunday, since the instruction in my current ward generally is exceptional. That's the ideal, in my opinion - not eliminating opportunities by shortening our Sunday meetings even further. (Minimizing other meetings is a whole new topic.)

Too many people want the best of both worlds, and this is one case where you have to pick an option in order to be consistent. Whining about one (too much time in church each Sunday) while pining for the other (more instruction covering more aspects of our religion)? 

Wow. Just, wow.

My Favorite Quotes from the World-Wide Training on the New Church Handbook of Instructions

The following are taken from my notes and are the best recreations I am able to make - since I can't record exact quotes when I take notes:

The women in the council were engaged in the conversation. We haven't always encouraged that as we should. (Elder Holland)

International areas don't have models for how to run the Church. The CHI generally is the only "model" they have. (Elder Gonzales)

My fondest wish is that we could remove the word "meeting" from our vocabulary - as in, "We are going to a meeting." I wish we could view them as "revelatory experiences" - and that won't happen unless we strive to make them such experiences and quit viewing them just as meetings.  (Elder Bednar)

There is great power in group synergy - when WE decide we will act together. Women are just as important as men in everything we do. (Elder Ballard)

We have to decide what counts. The Savior didn't count statistics and numbers. What counted to him was caring, love, service, ministering, blessing, etc. We need to make a new beginning in the Church and count as He counts."  (Pres. Julie Beck)

The following are from Elder Packer's closing remarks - and reminded me of why I sustain him as a prophet, seer, revelator and apostle: 

This CHI is meant to provide "simplification and flexibility". "Let me underline that."

Pres. Clark once said that too much regimentation can remove revelation. We are in danger of that happening in the Church.

ALL meetings should be conducted by the Spirit. It is time for our young men and young women to prophecy and for our old men and women to dream dreams.

There is a danger of establishing the Church and not the Gospel. Planting the Gospel in our hearts MUST accompany having the Church in our lives. Busy-ness can't replace testimony.

Families are not tools to staff the Church; the Church is a tool to serve families. Don't over-burden families!

It Takes an Excellent Meeting to be Better Than No Meeting

Our meetings should be wonderful feasts - far and away the best option for those who are expected to attend. If they become "just meetings", we have failed in our duties to the attendees. Thus, "It takes an excellent meeting to be better than no meeting," puts the onus directly on us to make sure our meetings are excellent.

J. Reuben Clark once said, "There is no church meeting so unimportant that it cannot start on time; there is no church meeting so important that it cannot end on time." I believe this means that it is up to us to value our meetings so much that we make them as effective (in every way) as possible - recognizing that other aspects of our lives are important, as well, and not robbing Peter to pay Paul, per se. Our meeting should start on time, and people should be excited to get there and not miss a minute; they should end on time, and people should wish they could go longer - thus inspiring excitement to get to the next meeting on time and not miss a minute.

"Church Dress" Isn't That Simple

I believe how we dress for the meetings we attend is about respect - and an understanding of the nature of the particular meeting/gathering in question. It's also about recognizing that there is no "one standard" when it comes to attire, specifically because clothing is an expression of culture. I believe we should uphold a worshipful standard for our worship services and a "minimally acceptable respect" level for all of our associations (meaning inappropriately immodest, revealing, suggestive, etc. clothing is prohibited in all instances).

In my own case, I used to wear a full suit with white shirt whenever I was attending the normal block of Sunday church meetings and other instances where I was representing my Priesthood leaders, specifically because I had been asked to do so by my direct Priesthood leader as a result of my calling at the time. I often wore dress pants and a polo shirt to the non-public leadership meetings I attended when they were in the evening and I went there straight from work - because these meetings are administrative, not for worship. (I "dress up" when I can, but I don't drive miles out of my way to do so.) I often wear jeans and a t-shirt to fellowship dinners and ward or stake functions and to teach with the missionaries - because these are gatherings of friends that are not "church-related", per se. If I was involved in missionary correlation meetings Thursday night in our ward, I would show up in jeans or slacks - whatever I was wearing at the time.

Too many times, people equate any meeting arising out of our callings or relationships at church as "church meetings" that require "church dress". Imo, "church dress" is a misnomer, since there are widely varying reasons and purposes for meetings and, therefore, widely varying models of appropriate "church dress". I reserve "Sunday dress" for direct worship and those meetings where I have been asked to dress in the same manner. Everything else is a step below that; therefore, so is the way I often dress.

Hearing Without Doing Is Dead, Being Alone

Regarding activities and time constraints: We are members of two very distinct churches - the global one led by the prophets and apostles (to which we "belong") and the local one led by the bishops and stake presidents (which we “attend” and in which we “live”). That means that there can be and too often is a discrepancy between what is taught at the global level and what is practiced at the local level. Often, we don't recognize that distinction, and we end up frustrated with SLC when the cause of our frustration is local.

Just two quick examples:

A few years ago, I was released from the Bishopric because my wife was being called as the YW President. We had 6 kids still at home, and the youngest wasn't in school yet. Our Bishop was dedicated to the counsel from SLC to not overburden families with small children, so I was released and called into the Primary.

Over the last year, especially, our Stake President has encouraged all the stake leaders to conduct as much business as possible over the phone and via e-mail - specifically to reduce the time parents and spouses are away from each other. He also has directed leaders to keep meetings as short as possible when they need to be held - for the same reason.

Often "The Church" isn't the issue; it's translating what The Church teaches and says to the local level for the church we actually attend. The over-abundance of meetings and over-burdening of families is a great example, as I live in a ward and stake that has taken very seriously the admonitions that have come from SLC regarding this matter. I have a deep appreciation for what The Church is doing in this regard, while I hear complaints often from others whose local leaders are not working as hard to reduce their members' time burden. Often, these members mistakenly blame "The Church" and don't realize that "The Church" is very aware of their difficulties and is trying actively to change and address them.