Perhaps the only true freedom that we have is the freedom of thought. We can choose how to react and what to think every day of our lives. I remembered the other day that this idea comes from Victor Frankl’s classic work, Man’s Search for Meaning. During the height of the holocaust, while trying to survive Dachau and Auschwitz, Frankl realized that how the inmates reacted to their situation — how they thought about it, made all the difference in how they survived. He claimed that those that found meaning in their suffering, that is, they suffered and then decided to react in a positive way, they did better.
Of course, we don’t really suffer in Church—not anything like what Frankl experienced. But the principle that Frankl discovered is still useful. We can choose how we react to what happens. We can find meaning in almost anything that is taught, said or that merely happens in Church, regardless of whether that meaning was intended by others. We don’t have to passively take whatever is given us. We are free to choose how we react.
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 learning from what happens by pondering it — by thinking about it 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
6 responses to “Finding Meaning in Sacrament Meeting: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 6/14?”
Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced yesterday (6/14) in Church:
Meaning in LDS Sacrament Meetings? Hmmmmm…..now that there is a paradox; if I’ve ever encountered one. While I LOVE taking the sacrament and singing the hymns; beyond that the rest of the meeting is nothing but pure pablum. “Follow the Covenant Path”…..”Go to the Temple”…..”President Nelson said”……”Isn’t Missionary Work just awesome?”……Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah….
I’m not convinced that we have real (or absolute) freedom of thought. Besides physical traits, we inherent memory and concentration abilities. We may even have genes that affect our relationship with God.
We also have strong environmental influences. Including such things as education. Both affect our thoughts. What we think is influenced by both our genetic and environmental heritage. All this affects our ability to be optimistic. To react to adverse situations.
I’m all for some forms of genetic and environmental determinism. Our thoughts are not totally free.
To try to bring this back to the purpose of the post…
One of our speakers told how in high school he ended up playing in a Christian worship band at his friend’s church just because the friend wasn’t afraid to talk about his faith and make friendly invitations. The suggestion was that we should do the same. My wife was introduced to the Church by someone who is similarly fearless (filterless?) so I have to agree.
The other spoke about having to come home from her mission early due to mental illness and feeling like a failure. She identified with the woman with the issue of blood, but felt like she didn’t have the strength to reach out and touch Jesus’s robe. She’s okay now, but it reminded me that so many of our members need to be told, repeatedly, that Christ’s atonement should make us feel loved and safe. Yes, we’re all inadequate, but he made it okay to be inadequate.
No profound lessons this week, but I was touched by the testimony both speakers bore. One read their talk word for word, but it was well-prepared and heartfelt. A few grammar choices that strongly suggest chatpgt was greatly involved in preparing it, but surprisingly that didn’t seem to impact the spirit of the talk. That gives me a little hope for AI models.
Kent,
Adding to your discussion of ways to ponder and meditate during meetings, I often times find myself thinking through why the speaker brought up a particular story or scripture and how they relate to it, particularly when it does not resonate with me.
LHL: You made me laugh, so I’ll let your comment stay, even though it clearly violates the prescription in the last 3 paragraphs of the original post.
rogerdhansen: I wish you had gone a little further and told us what that means for how you act/react in church. If our thoughts are not totally free, then are we all wasting our time? Should we find some way of pushing back against influences that aren’t helpful/productive/ good?? On a practical level, what does your proposition mean for us?
RLD: I love the message behind your “fearless (filterless?)” reference. Indeed fearless often means filterless, and, in my experience, “filterless” can hurt others as much as they entertain and attract them.
Seth, thank you. Your comment on ChatGPT is wise. I’m one of those who is very skeptical of the utility of these LLMs, but I do think we should recognize that using LLMs is a crutch that some people feel like they need. Like everything, how we use a tool is more important than the mere use of the tool by itself.
And your comment on ways to ponder is exactly what I’m getting at. We should be thinking about more than ourselves when we go to church. We can think about why the speaker is saying what they are saying. We might learn something in the process, or at least gain some empathy for another.