, , ,

Coduction (learning together) in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/23

Have you ever had an experience where a conversation with someone else led you to think about things differently, or understand something new? That happens to me a lot. There’s something about talking with others that makes my brain see things differently. This kind of mutual learning, or discovery through conversation is something I’ve found regularly in discussions of how we learn.

A few weeks ago in this series I mentioned Wayne Booth, the well-known rhetorician who grew up in an LDS home in American Fork, Utah. He discusses this kind of learning in his book “The Company We Keep,” where he calls it “Coduction”, in order to include it along side other ways of discovering knowledge, like induction and deduction. He says we can learn in conversation with others, co-ducing truths during our discussions.

We do this in Church. This is one of the things that is supposed to happen in our classes. Not only do we strengthen each other spiritually in our discussions, we also learn things together that none of us know completely.  And, although Booth doesn’t suggest this, in a sense we are often using conduction in our learning, because we are in conversation with the Spirit (although the Spirit may not be learning much in comparison to us.)

Coduction requires that we actively participate in our classes and in church. When we are trying to understand what is said, and find things we can respond to and expand, we will find concepts and ideas and insights that are new to us and that help us improve our understanding of ourselves and over the gospel. This active participation is the key.

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

One response to “Coduction (learning together) in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/23”

  1. Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday (8/23):

    • One speaker, a dental student, talked about how in dentistry they worry about misalignments of as little as 1/4 of a millimeter, and explored how much of a difference blemishes make. They observed that Christ’s “blemishes” — the scars from the crucifixion — aren’t something that He hides or tries to “correct,” but are instead a badge of identity. The discussion reminded me of a self-help book I read as a teenager, “Psycho-cybernetics” which featured a man who had a scar on his face from a sword fight. The scar was a badge of honor, and something that the man didn’t want “fixed” by a plastic surgeon. In contrast, we talk about a resurrection in which all our defects will be fixed. I wonder if there is an exception for identifying “blemishes”. When is a “blemish” something that actually should be fixed?
    • In quorum meeting we discussed the idea of focusing on what is best — instead of what is good or what is better. I’ve actually been thinking quite a lot about the idea of “good” or “best”, because in my field I have frequently been met with claims that something is “best” where the criteria for that hasn’t been decided, let alone disclosed. “Best” is often a social definition, something we accept because others tell us so, often without any criteria mentioned. Its also often a way of saying “I like this a lot, and I want you to like it also.” Unfortunately, when we accept other’s ideas of what is best, we are abandoning responsibility, since someone else made the decision.
    • Another speaker mentioned the idea that “the natural man is an enemy to God,” and defined the ‘natural man’ as someone who isn’t changing. In the past I’ve defined ‘natural man’ as ‘how we are by nature’, and the whole idea bothered me, because it seemed to be suggesting that God created us as by nature evil. The idea of the ‘natural man’ as someone who doesn’t change is a different way of thinking about this. I’m not sure it solves how I think about it, but it gives me a bit more to chew on.
    • Another speaker told of getting a haircut and being told “you look taller.” Huh? Maybe I’ve missed something. Do haircuts make you look taller?

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.