How did you react to Church yesterday? What did you notice? Did you end up thinking differently?
Do you think your reactions were what they should be? Were they ethical?
This is the latest invitation for reactions to local meetings, continuing the spirit of my post on September 25th about how we can take 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.
The point here is that no matter how poorly prepared the speaker or teacher is, 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
2 responses to “Your Reactions to Church Yesterday, 11/16”
Here are my reactions to yesterday’s Church meetings (11/16):
My reactions are solely about our Sunday School lesson. It was pretty clear that the instructor had spent a lot of time on the lesson and he tried to root our discussion in the text of Section 132 which I thought was a good way to go given that we only had about 40 minutes for our class (we got out late from sacrament meeting), and trying to discuss 60 years of plural marriage would have been a tough task. To pick up on one of Kent’s points, I thought that this was a lesson that needed a lot of trust along the class members in order to have a good discussion. Unfortunately, we had an elderly visitor to the class who, in my opinion, detracted somewhat from the discussion (jokes about being sealed to two different women and having to know two new names is not a good joke to tell, most especially when we are talking about plural marriage).
This time around we didn’t really have anyone give a rousing defense of plural marriage using ideas like taking care of widows or it being a practice limited to like 2% of the membership like I’ve seen in the past. Perhaps that’s symptomatic of the Church’s increased efforts at being more transparent about the history of it. If so, I think that’s a good outcome.
All in all, I can’t say it was the best Sunday School lesson I’ve ever experienced but we go through it with hearts and friendships intact.