What Was Revealed to You In Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 4/26)?

In my post earlier today, with poetry for the Come Follow Me readings, I discussed the tension in our relationships between assenting and agreeing with others and differentiating from others (which sometimes appears as rebellion). This tension is a part of all of our lives—every relationship we have is about how much we agree with and get along with the other person, and how much we are independent of them. This also shows up in Church.

The tension between assent and difference often depends on how passive we are, or how much we participate. While it is certainly a social faux-pas to stand up and say you disagree during a sacrament meeting talk, it is welcome (or should be) in classes. And nothing can prevent you from mentally noting and examining what you think, even if you don’t say it. And, I would argue that you should do so! Thinking through what you understand, believe and know about a topic is important, and not just for your differentiation from others. Its part of the process of figuring out what you think and why.

So, what are you thinking in reaction to what happens in Church?

In these posts I am trying to suggest that each of us can have better experiences at Church if we take responsibility for our experiences, and if we are open to what we can be taught to us in many different ways. We can choose to learn and benefit from what happens regardless of whether it fits our perception of what is “good.” Thinking about our reactions and what we understand allows for revelation and for better understanding.

In this vein, I like the statement that President Hugh B. Brown made in a 1969 BYU devotional, President Hugh B. Brown declared that the Church is “not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts.” We should be carefully considering what we hear at Church, regardless of whether what we heard is right or wrong, orthodox or heterodox. 

A lot of our thought depends on how we look at it. It is not different from what many artists figure out—they understand that how you see the  world before you is more important than what you see. You might call it ‘active listening’ or shifting perspective. It just means that you see differently. And seeing differently reveals a different world.

In my case, I tend to focus narrowly, thinking about groups of words or sentences, sometimes taking them out of context and thinking about what they say, even if the speaker didn’t intend what I heard. It’s not at all like what we’re taught in school, where the focus is on understanding accurately and completely what the speaker or text says. Its about pulling out useful or inspiring thoughts in spite of what was said.

So, if you aren’t thinking this way, maybe try it next Sunday, or the next time you are in a class or meeting. If you have already thoughts inspired by what happened at church, what are they? How did you react to what happened in Church yesterday? What did you notice? Did you end up thinking differently? Do you think your reactions were what they should be? Were they looking for what God had to tell you? Did your reactions make things better?

This is the latest invitation for reactions to local meetings, continuing a series of weekly posts that started with my post on September 25th about how we receive what happens in Church meetings—sermons, lessons and anything else—and enter a conversation with them, magnifying what was said or adding what we think. In these posts I’m asking us all to think about how we listen and receive what happens at Church. If we only listen for mistakes, or things that bother us, what does that say about us? Is it most important to criticize others? Or to try to change ourselves?

The point here is that no matter how poorly prepared the speaker or teacher is, or no matter how what happens triggers us, or is objectively or doctrinally wrong, we can still find elements in what is said and what happens that inspires and edifies us. Even if church meetings aren’t conducted in a way that reaches us, we can take responsibility and find a way to feel the spirit.

So please, write down reactions and thoughts to what happened in Church. You might keep your own ‘spiritual journal’, or, if you like, you can post your reactions below. I’m adding my own reactions and thoughts as a comment to this post — instead of as a part of this post, because my reactions aren’t any better than anyone else’s.

Let me emphasize that this is NOT a place to criticize what is wrong with church or your fellow congregants. The point is to post what you learned because of what happened at Church or how that led you to think. It’s about the good things we can get out of Church, not the negative things that disturbed or upset us. It doesn’t have to be orthodox, traditional or even on topic.

If you like, make your response in the format, “They said or did this, and I said or thought that.” Even the things you dislike the most can be turned into lessons for what the gospel teaches we should do.

My hope is that these reactions serve as an example of a better way to treat what happens at Church instead of the perennial complaints about speaker or teacher preparation or ability, or complaints that the Church should do things differently.


Comments

3 responses to “What Was Revealed to You In Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 4/26)?”

  1. Because we had Stake Conference, I ended up with thoughts from meetings on both Saturday (4/25) and yesterday (4/26):

    • One speaker talked about the idea that we overburden new converts, especially because we assume somehow that they will be just like us. It occurs to me that every convert is undergoing a major cultural change when they join the church. Their Sunday schedule (at least) changes markedly, their finances are affected, their lifestyle changes, etc. IMO, it’s a kind of miracle that anyone is ‘retained’ as a member of the Church. How good do we do in helping them through these changes? Do we give them examples of how it works for us? Do they think we’re perfect?
    • In our ward we have the luxury of only having one language. But in Stake meetings translation is often provided through a headphone system. But the headphones often lead to a kind of murmuring sound that is easily heard by those nearby. Even if you speak the language being translated, it’s not quite loud enough to understand, but not soft enough that you don’t hear it. So it ends up being a kind of pleasant background noise — almost like a white noise generator. I think its kind of nice!
    • Another speaker told a story of a priest telling a person that an infant who died before baptism is not saved—causing a bit of a rift with that person. While I know this was a common statement years ago, I have to wonder how relevant is it today? Is that a common response of clergy today? I would think that by now seminaries had trained clergy on how to avoid the hard feelings from such statements.
    • Another speaker addressed ‘calling burnout’. While a part of me thinks that we tend to “blame the victim” — suggesting that the person with the calling doesn’t delegate when they should or is “running faster than they have strength”, I also think that we have expectations and, well, demands on those with certain callings, which make mitigating the situation outside of the person’s control. On the other hand, at least in many parts of U.S. culture, we do tend to expect a lot of ourselves, believing that we must do things ourselves (when we don’t) or unconsciously buying into empire building or pridefully believing that our service needs to be noticeable or memorable or “make a difference”. I don’t want to blame the victim here — these are attitudes that are thrust on us by society. Its not exactly our fault that we think this way.
    • Another speaker suggested that we should be teaching repentance because repentance is the way to come home. I kind of like that idea, because I think it contains a better idea about what repentance is. Its about the goal of coming home, not the frequent focus on the sin.
  2. It was just my daughter and I who attended, as my wife was visiting family. I missed being with her. It helped me understand more of how singles and part-member families feel at Church.

    A young man spoke for the first time ever. He said it was the worst day of his life (but smiled as he said it)

    A woman from Mexico spoke entirely in Spanish. I used Google Translate and it worked quite well. I am grateful for these sorts of tools. We can all worship together, and generally can all understand each other.

    There was a good discussion in EQ about temperance. I did find the class to feel kind of long. I’m thinking that a shorter class time in September will keep things focused without so much repetition. I’m feeling optimistic about the change.

  3. Kent Larsen, your thoughts about burnout are insightful. Culturally it is interesting that that symbol of Utah is a beehive and not a lotus bloom. It is indeed cultural and at times not helpful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.