What You Should Talk About in the Foyer (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 7/12

Originally, the meaning of the French word ‘foyer’ was the center or focus of the home, its heart and hearth. While today we define it as the entry of the building, in practice the less-formal and more intimate conversations in the foyer of our buildings feel a bit more like what you would say at home—less filtered than in our classrooms or in the chapel itself.

Of course, I realize that our conversations there aren’t always about what happened in Church. But occasionally, at least, we comment on something that was taught in a lesson, or react to something that was said in a talk. Often members of a ward will talk to a speaker or to a teacher and say something positive about their contribution at church — we’re unfailingly polite, so it’s almost never a negative reaction. I think many members are very good about finding something positive to say about a talk or a lesson—it’s either that or we say nothing at all.

If we can creatively find polite things to say, how much more difficult is it to find interesting ways to react that explore our understanding of the gospel? Why mentally focus on what we didn’t like in a lesson, or how boring or poorly prepared or whatever, when we can mentally focus on some way of thinking about these things that actually improves our understanding of the gospel or builds our faith? Why focus on things we can’t change when we can change our ways of thinking to something better?

So, how do you participate in Church? Are you engaged in what happens?

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

2 responses to “What You Should Talk About in the Foyer (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 7/12”

  1. Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday (7/12):

    • One of the speakers re-told the story of Esther from the bible, reading a previously-written text. While I’m familiar with the story, it was different from the biblical text, and the speaker chose to focus on Esther’s courage. Even though very little was different from the biblical text, it still made me think about what we can get out of re-telling scripture stories (or General Conference talks, for that matter). Even when simply reading the text of the scripture aloud, the emphasis and cadence of what we read can provide a different reading from what someone else would do. Isn’t there value in re-telling the scriptures?
    • For Elders Quorum meeting the chairs in the gym were arranged (as usual) in a circle, allowing everyone to see each other. But today it occurred to me that this arrangement actually makes the room seem smaller — almost like the proper size for the number of people we have. I like this arrangement because I think it feels more welcoming and encourages better participation from everyone there, instead of rows of chairs where no-one sits on the front row, and those in the back tend to shy away from participating.
    • In contrast to this, after a talk that mentioned Elder L. Tom Perry, I was in conversation with a local leader who once attended a leadership meeting with Elder Perry. He was impressed that Elder Perry had chosen to speak from the front of the room, instead of up on the podium. That simple move makes the experience more intimate and less formal, again encouraging participation. I wish there were more times when it seemed appropriate to do that.
    • We discussed the idea of “Enduring to the End”, and the teacher suggested that we shouldn’t think that we will end up exhausted at the end, like we had spent every last bit of effort to endure. This made me wonder where the ‘exhausted’ idea comes from—I suspect it’s related to the hero fantasy we often see in films, where the protagonist wins an epic battle to save everyone. Sometimes these tropes worm their way into our perception of the gospel with deceptive results.
  2. We talked about the “testing” that we undergo in this life. This was about a conference talk. The discussion was about how testing proves how good we are. Some people talked about automobile proving grounds, testing how good the engineering was.

    I proposed that testing is necessary for learning. You test the auto on the proving ground. If there is a failure, you learn and re-engineer the produce. Likewise, if we are tested in life, it is so we can learn, not to measure our worth.

    I pointed out that life can deliver horrid “tests.” A few years ago we visited the mass graves in St. Petersburg, Russia, caused by the Germans starving the population. Think of being a father watching you children starving to death and praying to God for help. What a test.

    Afterward a friend asked it God tests us so harshly, should we not be testing our physical children as well with harsh tests? This is what God does.

    I suggested to him that much of what God subjects us to is for contrast. So that we can really appreciate the celestial realms without death and suffering. We are here to learn what evil really is. This is not a test, but an education.

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.