If You Want to Be a Force for Good at Church: First, Don't Blame Those Who Struggle

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.

Of course, 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. 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:

If you want to be a force for good 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, if you aren't getting it directly at church as much and as often as you'd like).

A Very Short Thought about the Language of Prayer

Public prayers are for the public, so it is reasonable to use what the listening public considers to be "formal" language if that's what the group is expecting. Otherwise, they are thinking about the pronouns used in the prayer, rather than its content - and that never should be the focus of attention during a prayer.

However, behind closed doors, so long as the prayer is honest and the attempt to connect to God is sincere, I don't believe the pronouns matter much.

Frankly, I use both the "you" and the "thee" pronouns fluently, so I say whatever comes out when I pray privately.  Sometimes, I don't even bother addressing Heavenly Father, since I believe he knows I'm praying to him. 

Sacrament Meeting Can Be a Revelatory Worship Service - or Just Another Meeting

NOTE: A friend of mine who was preparing to serve a mission wrote the following to me some time ago.  I honestly had not considered Sacrament Meeting in quite the way she explained, and I was moved by it.  I am publishing it here, with her permission, in order to emphasize the need to focus on the unique purposes of our varying Sunday meetings - to treat Sacrament Meeting as a WORSHIP service centered on Jesus Christ and not dilute the nature of worship by assigning and giving talks that would be best suited for Sunday School or the Relief Society / Priesthood meeting.  Our Sacrament Meetings, especially, should be what Elder Bednar called "revelatory experiences" - not "just" time to talk about things that could be discussed in detail elsewhere.
-----------------------------
After attending church today, I feel the need to vent a little to someone who will actually listen to what I have to say.

Here's what it all boils down to: for the past few months of attending sacrament meeting, I am simply appalled with the general Mormon attitude towards Sacrament meeting I have seen. It frustrates me, and makes it difficult for me to have the motivation to go.

A few months ago while attending an Institute class that was specifically structured to discuss the Atonement, we had a lesson on the symbolism and sacred nature of the Sacrament and sacrament meeting. I know that you are aware of the symbolism, but allow me to quickly paraphrase what I learned. My teacher spoke about how the entire meeting should be focused on the Atonement of the Savior. He pointed out how the ideal meeting should be much like a funeral for a loved one. We come dressed in our best clothing (typically conservative and simple) and should reverently enter the chapel. The chapel itself is to represent the sacred tomb where our Savior was laid to rest after his sacrifice for us. In a very real sense, we are entering his tomb, where his body symbolically lays covered in white at the sacrament table. Ideally our thoughts and hearts should be turned to Him the moment we enter the room.

After entering, we then begin the meeting with prayer and song. An important purpose of these two things is to unite all in attendance to the same special spirit. The reason why we all come dressed similarly, and bow our heads and fold our arms in a uniform way, is to help us become united. The very essence of the English word Atonement is "at one ment", meaning together, united, connected, etc. That is the purpose of the Atonement-- to help us become one with God. Christ is the perfect example because he is literally the perfect union of man and God. This is the same reason why we are encouraged to sing together. All of these processes are intended to help us to unify our hearts together and become one with each other and God through the Spirit.

Another interesting thing my teacher taught my class is that as the priest kneels down and bows his head, he is acting at a proxy for Jesus Christ. It is as though Christ is blessing the sacrament for each of us, as he did for his apostles at the Last Supper.

The last piece of Sacrament meeting that I'd like to touch on is the talks given from the pulpit. As the sacrament is, in effect a funeral service, these talks should be on the person the funeral is for... Jesus Christ. This is where sacrament has really been getting to me lately. I come to hear others reflect on the Savior, and instead I get trip logs about girls camp and high adventures. Day one we did this... day two we did this... day three... and on and on. This just doesn't sit well with me! There's a time and place for everything, but reporting about your trip during sacrament is not the right place! Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the speakers synthesized their experience and turned it into a lesson of spiritual thought, but this usually is not the case. There are times when Christ isn't even mentioned at all in the talks! Now I'm not saying that all the talks have to be on the same thing, but they should all tie back to Christ and His Atonement.

At a real funeral, these talks would come before the body is removed, and my teacher pointed out occasions where he had attended meetings that did just that. It would be interesting to attend such a meeting where the Sacrament ordinance was the focal point of the entire meeting (the climax if you will). I feel like placing the sacrament at the end like this would greatly change the flow of the meeting.

Pondering the deeper meaning of these things really can change your whole perspective of the Sacrament. I feel guilty throwing stones at others when I know I too am imperfect. We are all in this together and I realize that. I just feel strongly that Sacrament service today hardly accomplishes what it was designed to do. I hope what I'm saying makes sense and I apologize for jumping around a bit. Perhaps I am wrong in my argument, and if I am please let me know. These are just me feelings, and I hope that since you are in position of leadership that perhaps you could consider ways that you could help Sacrament be a little more sacred. Even those like me who are not in leadership can do our part.

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.

Feeling and Not Feeling the Spirit at Church

I feel good most Sundays at church, but that's largely because I have tried hard to develop a true love for other people. I "feel the spirit" regularly, but I'm not sure exactly what that means, really. Perhaps I just feel the "warm fuzzies" more naturally than some.

As far as where someone can feel the spirit, I believe that different people feel God's love for them (solely or more intensively) in different situations and different places. For Joseph as a youth, it was a grove of trees; for Enos, it was while hunting, surrounded by God's creation; for some people, it is at church among their believing peers. 

I go to church to be and worship with others I have CHOSEN to love, no matter our differences - so I tend to feel good while I'm there regardless of what's being said in talks and lessons. When I am edified by a talk or lesson, which happens quite regularly given my attitude toward them, great! When I'm not (and even when I cringe or disagree), great! I'm still with people I've chosen to love in a setting I've chosen for myself.

It's all good, even when it's not all good - and that is important to me.

Oh, and the sacrament hasn't been accompanied with an outpouring of the spirit for me in a long, long time - if ever. It's something important I do as a token of my remembrance of him and commitment to live a Christ-centered life - not as a vehicle to feel the spirit. It just doesn't work that way for ME.

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).

What Place Should Religious Activity Play In Your Life?

I'm a Church geek - a Church junkie, if you will.

I simply LOVE organized religion, generally, and the LDS Church, specifically - for the community of believers and the chance to serve an extended family. I can work out my own intellectual understanding of the doctrines outside the meetinghouse, but I can't walk away from the service I provide to and within the community. Therefore, at certain points in the past, I have attended 6-9 hours of meetings most Sundays - and my wife and I were fine with that. I was there to help and serve, not primarily to learn - so I was pleased and gratified when I did learn something. It wasn't expected or required, so it was wonderful when it happened.

Having said that, the ONLY "required" meeting each week is Sacrament Meeting - for the sacrament, primarily. Attend that meeting, and "The Church" officially considers you to be "active". (Your local ward or branch won't consider you fully active, but you will be considered active from the global church's statistical reporting perspective.) In fact, if you have a job that requires you work most Sundays, but you attend Sacrament Meeting as often as you can (and are known to be "faithful and/or believing"), you still probably will be considered "active" by your Bishop or Branch President.

What I'm saying is that there are many, many "levels of activity" possible within the LDS Church for someone who wants to be "active" but can't or doesn't want to attend every possible meeting. Two simple examples:

1) I have a family friend who was raised with the idea that to be active he had to be involved in EVERY SINGLE SCHEDULED ACTIVITY, and it's taken him years to see that it's ok to miss this and that when there's something else on his calendar that is more important (including when he wants to go out on a date with his wife).

2) My wife and I once considered Home Study Seminary for my second son, who is diabetic and tired easily, but we didn't pulled the trigger on that because he wanted to have that time with his church friends each day. It worked out in the end, but if his health had started to be compromised by Seminary, we would have found an alternative for him.

What place should religion and religious activity play in your life? I can't answer that for others, but for me it is vitally important but secondary to my individual pursuit of righteousness and the development of a godly character. It acts for me as a strong motivation in that pursuit, and it should be whatever works for others in their current situations. After all, there is a time and a season for all things under the sun - and that includes "level" of church activity.

Charity in How We Approach Invitations to Attend Church with Us

As I was thinking about charity envying not this week, my mind took a sudden turn. I was considering more deeply the implication of not hoping for bad to happen to others, and it led me to consider again something about which I feel passionately - how we view those who are not of our faith and the way we too often approach inviting them to worship with us.

I know that this is a departure from my normal resolution posts on Saturday, but I hope the impression to re-post something I wrote a little over a year ago (with a little editing this morning) is inspired and will help someone gain a new perspective on our worship service each week:

I would feel like I had died and gone to heaven if every member in my ward and stake openly and sincerely invited everyone they knew to sit with us as we worship in Sacrament Meeting simply because they love them and want to share our worship with them - no other strings attached.

I would love to see our chapels packed to overflowing during Sacrament Meeting, even if many of the attendees left the building and didn't stay for the other two hours - because they weren't interested in the instruction that occurs in those meetings.

I would love to sit with a gay friend and his partner and their daughter, to smell cigarette smoke residue in the pew behind me, to wave to the girl in the tank top in the back, to see what tattoo or earring the man in front of me had added the previous week, to be surrounded by every shade of skin imaginable, etc - even if I had to wish them a blessed week after Sacrament Meeting ended, and even if I had no realistic hope in them ever being baptized and joining the Church.

In all seriousness, I believe that if we lived the true heart of the Gospel better, these friends would be among us - especially if our efforts to share the spirit of our worship were not tied to "conversion" but were focused more on simple friendship and fellowship - on the joy and spirit and peace of our worship. I think many would accept the occasional talk about the Law of Chastity or the Word of Wisdom or Modesty in Dress, if it wasn't directed in a judgmental way at them and their lifestyle - if they knew our standards didn't change our love for them. (I realize many would not accept it, but I believe many would.) I have no problem telling the missionaries to stay away from a friend who comes to church with me, if that is what that friend wants. What matters to me is that my friend is there with me.

We have the temple for those who are committed to the LDS Church in a particular way - to be with a more "exclusive" or "self-selected" group of believers. We have meetinghouses for everyone who will share our simple, Christian fellowship - to apply the truly inclusive vision of the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. Often we confuse the two and, in so doing, unnecessarily limit who worships with us each Sunday.

Of course, I want my friends to accept the Restored Gospel, be baptized into the LDS Church and receive the blessings that enrich my life - but that's not a condition of my invitation to worship with me. I wish with all my heart that we could open our arms and embrace anyone who walked through our chapel doors, sincerely and lovingly and unconditionally - and that we brought more diverse people with us through those doors. I don't think we have to compromise our doctrinal standards to do so, but we certainly have to experience a collective mighty change of heart.

Mormonism: Communal Unity & Individual Diversity

Mormonism has been called "non-creedal" by a lot of people, and I like that overall label - as much as I dislike most labels. There is an important application of this terminology that goes a long way toward addressing one of the largest misconceptions about Mormons - the idea that we are brainwashed robots who all think alike.

One of the things that drives people crazy about Mormons is that you can ask 20 Mormons a question and get at least 5 different responses - with variations in some points that really can give you 20 different answers. This is not because Mormons will say anything to convince people they are Christian, as I have heard some people claim. It is not "lying" in any sense of the word. The reason is that the VAST majority of "answers" aren't provided by "The Church" in an official statement. The general principle is, in Joseph Smith's words, "Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." Of course, there are texts and talks/sermons and statements by leaders, but there is relatively little that requires unanimity of understanding to maintain one's place as a "faithful" member. Even most of the standards to enter the temple (which are the most restrictive in the Church) deal almost completely with what one does - NOT what one professes to believe. There also is NO belief in prophetic infallibility – which means there is no requirement to hold onto what previous leaders believed, and there is an openness to change (even major change) that baffles many other Christians.

Further complicating the picture is the emphasis on the Gift of the Holy Ghost (the baptism of fire bestowed symbolically by the laying on of hands after baptism by water for all members) and its attendant personal revelation - which puts the responsibility on the individual to develop his or her own understanding of and relationship to God. This means, in a very real and powerful way, that Mormonism is an interesting mixture of centralized, full-time, hierarchical, vertical organization and correlation at the church-wide level and individualized, volunteer, amateur, horizontal organization and thought at the local and individual level. We believe in prophets and apostles who convey to us **at the meta level** what God wants His children to hear **collectively** in their specific day, but we believe it is up to us each as individuals to take that counsel and command, figure out which it is (counsel or command), pray for guidance as to how it applies to our own circumstances, seek the will of the Lord for those circumstances, and accept accountability on our own for the result of our choices throughout that process.

In the end, while we believe the prophets will never lead us to do or accept something that will deprive us of our eternal reward, we believe that ultimately it is up to us to figure out what we believe. Of course, there are areas of broadly defined unanimous consent (Jesus is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world; we are saved by the grace of God; we are commanded to obey the commandments He has given - produce the fruits of a life truly connected to the Vine; what is recorded in the Articles of Faith; etc.), but they really are few and far between when viewed in the big picture. Mormons disagree with each other on a LOT of issues - even purely theological ones that other Christians often think of as obvious, specifically because very few things are presented as absolutes.

In all my years in "The Church" there have been only a handful of things that I would consider to have been "official church teachings" with which I disagreed - and I am moderate by most standards and definitions. (some conservative views, some liberal views and many in the middle somewhere) I disagreed with the Priesthood ban, as is obvious from my previous comments on that subject. I think I understand why God allowed it to be in place for so long, and that understanding helped me accept the practice even while I did not accept its rationalization. My view on homosexuality is now fairly close to the Church's official statement in "God Loveth His Children", but that agreement only happened recently. Prior to the most recent statement, I disagreed with the standard explanation - but it wasn't presented as immutable doctrine, so I accepted the difference. Joseph Smith was as deeply flawed as I and you and every Biblical prophet, but I believe he was a prophet - as I also would say of Brigham Young and the prophets since him.

In short, in all my years as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have never been told, "You MUST believe "this" **in exactly this way** to be a faithful member," and disagreed with "this". In fact, while my own views on some things are not the "mainstream" views of perhaps the majority of members (quite heterodox in some cases), I still have served and do serve in highly visible positions in my local congregations. Usually my views are accepted by my fellow worshipers; sometimes they are not. I'm fine with that, given what I said in the opening paragraphs of this post.

Summary:

I believe in the ability to craft communal unity while celebrating and encouraging individual diversity, even in terms of ideological outlook.

Are Liberal Mormons Real Mormons?

I believe that the practice of our religion doesn't have to vary as much as our perceptions can and do. I really don't care in the end if the person sitting next to me in church is a "liberal Mormon" or a "conservative Mormon", as long as they are practicing Mormon - even if they are unbaptized but practicing - even if they are hanging on by the skin of their teeth and not fully active but striving to reconcile their own dissonance. (For example, I would rather worship in our pews and learn in our other meetings and associations with an excommunicated gay man who lives the Gospel to the absolute best of his ability than with a baptized member who is a hypocrite and doesn't even try to live the Gospel.)

I am one of those who drives many skeptical intellectuals nuts, since I am so adamant in my ability to say, "I know." On the other hand, I also drive some conservative members nuts, since I am so adamant in my inability to say, "I know" about some things - and my inability to expect others to be able to say "I know" about anything. Frankly, however, I admire those who can't be comfortable saying they "know" the Church is true but live the precepts and attend faithfully every bit as much as those who can make that claim based on powerful, miraculous experience - since, in the end, it is by our faith and our fruits (not our stated beliefs) that we shall be known. ("Not everyone that sayeth unto me, "Lord, Lord . . .") Also, I have a deep admiration for anyone who can live the life they want to believe but struggles to do so, since I believe that is the ultimate example of true faith ("the substance of things hoped for").

"Are liberal Mormons real Mormons?" Certainly, as long as they are trying their hardest - to the best of their ability - to "Come unto me," "Keep my commandments," "Take my yoke upon you," etc. I'm just saying it's not my place, since I currently am not a bishop, to make that judgment about anyone else - even by slapping a label on them, since it's true of ALL Mormons regardless of label.

Rediscovering Passion in Our Worship

While I loath the tendency with some movements to equate the spirit only with emotionalism, I also am concerned that we have swung to the opposite extreme in our repudiation of the fiery nature of our baptism. Having been raised in rural Utah, this concern did not arise with me until I lived in Boston, Alabama and Ohio - where I saw first-hand people whose "emotionalism" actually was influenced by the Spirit.

Currently, in our ward, there is a man whose testimony is usually expressed in terms of "I just want to give thanks and praise to Jesus and my Heavenly Father" - and it is so cool to hear. I don't want the revivalistic stirring of emotions instead of the Spirit, but when we deny the emotional aspects of our interaction with the Spirit, I believe we risk killing the passion that should accompany our convictions.

I heard a talk recently in Sacrament Meeting that inspired a member of the ward to tell the speaker, "Thank you. I feel like I heard a sermon today." The only difference apparent to me was the obvious passion of the presenter and the pleas within the talk to change the way the members viewed and acted toward each other. Iow, there was real passion invested and expressed in the talk, not merely a dry and peaceful recitation of doctrine. That experience has made me think deeply about the way we teach each other as we express the Spirit we feel.

There is a real danger in playing with fire (allowing emotional manifestations of the Spirit), but there is just as real a danger of freezing from the lack of fire (not allowing them).

More Meals in the Cafeteria

I try to live absolutely everything I understand - and even those things I don’t understand yet. However, HOW I live those things differs considerably in many ways from how another deeply believing member sitting next to me in Sunday School or HP Group or Ward or Stake PEC or Sacrament Meeting lives those same things. Both of us believe the same basic things, but each of us lives them in a slightly different way because we understand them in a slightly different way.

I'm grateful to be part of a church that teaches basic principles - but in which I can govern myself.

My 300th Post: Acceptable Graven Images

Moroni 7:14 says:

Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

When one desires so strongly to connect to God that he uses an image or object that appears to represent a prophet or God, and when she is unable to admire or worship without it (that it infringes on the connection that exists without the image or object) then it truly has become a graven image, no matter how harmless or even uplifting the image or object is otherwise.

On the other hand, if it does not interfere with direct worship, I have a hard time labeling it as a graven image. In that case, it simply becomes a religious symbol - and religious symbols are both important and powerful reminders of deeply held faith and commitment. If a friend were to give me a cross, for example, as an expression of their realization of how important Jesus is to my faith, I would have no problem wearing it as a token of that faith - and I would be grateful for the feeling and recognition behind the gift. It certainly would not constitute a graven image in how I would use it.

(Thank you, MH, for prompting me to count my published posts and realize this is #300.)

Praise to the Man: Not Praying to Jesus through Dave

It is understandable for Protestants to mistakenly think we worship Joseph Smith when they hear the words "Praise to the Man" in the context of their use of the word “praise” - but I think it is ludicrous to interpret it that way when our actual beliefs are known. Individuals (even Mormons) carry their respect for other people too far all the time - but it happens for athletes and politicians and writers and artists and actors and popes and reformers and televangelists ad infinitum - and, often, that borders on true idolatry much more than 99% of the Mormons do with Joseph.

A quick, though tangential, example: I attended a Fellowship of Christian Students school year kick-off rally when I was a teacher in Alabama. I and a Baptist coach co-sponsored the group. At one point in the rally, the spokesman, a young evangelical youth minister named Dave, asked everyone to bow their heads, close their eyes and join him in prayer. In the middle of the pep talk/prayer, I heard these words, "Now, everyone here who wants to commit themselves to Jesus, raise your hands and say, 'DAVE, I commit myself to Jesus.'" He asked those kids to address him (Dave) in the middle of a "prayer" and make their promise to him (Dave) in prayer. That might not be idolatry in the classic sense, but it is much closer in actual format than singing a hymn of praise (not worship) to a martyred prophet.

Furthermore, I immediately opened my eyes and refused to participate further. I looked around the room, and there were other youth ministers standing along the perimeter - during the "prayer" - with pen and paper in hand, writing the names of anyone who did not raise their hand and commit themselves to Jesus.

I prefer to pay tribute in song to a fallen prophet.

Blogging as a Supplemental Activity

I connect with people here (and on other personal and group blogs) in different ways than I connect with people at church. I connect intellectually on blogs more often than at church, but I usually connect at a deeper emotional level at church than I do on blogs. On blogs, when someone says something that I consider to be ridiculous, it is too easy to dismiss the person, while at church I have a much easier time “suffering the fool(ish statement)” - since I generally have had other interactions of a positive nature with that person. Each connection is real, but the connections at Church probably are the ones that have the most chance of becoming broader and deeper connections on multiple levels, if for no reason other than there is little chance of me ever putting a face and voice and broad personality to most of you with whom I converse here and on other blogs.

As much as I enjoy the interaction, I simply can't connect on as many levels on blogs as I do at church. For that reason, I hope those who frequent the Bloggernacle don't use it as a substitute for church - that they recognize the fellowship that is more tangible among the saints in person and not feel justified in the relative isolation of the Bloggernacle. I hope they supplement their church experience with these blogs, not vice versa.

My Dream: A Collective Mighty Change of Heart

I would feel like I had died and gone to heaven if every member in my ward and stake openly and sincerely invited everyone they knew to sit with us as we worship in Sacrament Meeting simply because they love them and want to share our worship with them - no other strings attached.

I would love to see our chapels packed to overflowing during Sacrament Meeting, even if many of the attendees left the building and didn't stay for the other two hours - because they weren't interested in the instruction that occurs in those meetings.

I would love to sit with a gay friend and his partner and their daughter, to smell cigarette smoke residue in the pew behind me, to wave to the girl in the tank top in the back, to see what tattoo or earring the man in front of me had added the previous week, to be surrounded by every shade of skin imaginable, etc - even if I had to wish them a blessed week after Sacrament Meeting ended, and even if I had no realistic hope in them ever being baptized and joining the Church.

In all seriousness, I believe that if we lived the true heart of the Gospel better, these friends would be among us - especially if our efforts to share the spirit of our worship were not tied to "conversion" but were focused more on simple friendship and fellowship - on the joy and spirit and peace of our worship. I think many would accept the occasional talk about the Law of Chastity or the Word of Wisdom or Modesty in Dress, if it wasn't directed in a judgmental way at them and their lifestyle - if they knew our standards didn't change our love for them. (I realize many would not accept it, but I believe many would.)

I have no problem telling the missionaries to stay away from a friend who comes to church with me, if that is what that friend wants. What matters to me is that my friend is there with me.

Of course, I want that friend to accept the Gospel, be baptized and receive the blessings of the Gospel that enrich my life - but that's not a condition of my invitation to worship with me. I wish with all my heart that we could open our arms and embrace anyone who walked through our chapel doors, sincerely and lovingly and unconditionally - and that we brought more diverse people with us through those doors. I don't think we have to compromise our doctrinal standards to do so, but we certainly have to experience a collective mighty change of heart.

I Smile Whenever They Look My Way

My father told me as a teenager that, one way or another, it was my responsibility to learn something in each and every sacrament meeting. I have taken that admonition very seriously over the years, but with a slight twist to help make it happen.

I listen carefully and intently to the first couple of minutes of every single adult talk. If I am not getting fed by the speaker, I let my mind wander and pray that the Holy Ghost will feed me instead. This approach rarely has failed me.

I approach youth talks differently. I pay attention to the youth speakers for their entire talks. I smile whenever they look my way. No matter what is being said, I do my best to do whatever I can to help inexperienced, scared young men and young women feel like what they are saying is important - and that, by extension, they are important. I have worked too long with teenagers to give them anything less than that.

Fellowship vs. Membership

I think we place too much emphasis on membership to the unfortunate exclusion of simple fellowship. Too many of us seem to think that only those who are members or "progressing investigators" should be with us as we worship. In my view, although we could create dozens of more narrow categories, we have four general options for attendance in our meetings:

1) "Fully committed members" - holding temple recommends and striving to live every aspect of the Gospel to the best of their ability.

2) "Partially committed members" - sporadic or regular attendees (often not holding temple recommends) struggling or unable to live some basic standards expected of fully committed members

3) "Progressing investigators" - people who are serious about their efforts to decide on future membership and exhibit that commitment by attending church regularly and meeting basic expectations of membership

4) "Committed non-members" - those who want to worship with us but have no intention of becoming "members in good standing and future temple recommend holders".

I see this final category as the ultimate test of our acceptance of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. I wish we were willing to love and worship with anyone who is willing to be with us and let them work out their own issues as we strive to work out ours. In a nutshell, I wish we could separate fellowship from membership - and fellowship everyone.

How willing are we to accept a habitual drunk as our pew mate? How willing are we to embrace a homosexual couple in our meetings - understanding that they will hear the Law of Chastity preached in our meetings and might never be baptized and join our membership ranks? How willing are we to tolerate the smell of tobacco from the pew in front of us? How willing are we to have a Baptist or a Methodist or a Catholic or a Jew or a Muslim worship at our side if they are open about their unwillingness to be baptized? How willing are we, sinners in our own way, to worship alongside sinners in a different way - understanding that they might never enter category #1, but willing to love and serve them even as they remain in category #4?