What are we building in Church, and why?
This past week, in one of the Maxwell Institute’s new podcast series “Faith in Every Footnote”, an idea jumped out at me. Observing that in the humanities, students are often given the tools to be critical—to look carefully at a text or an event, and take it apart, examining elements and motivations, and finding what is wrong. The podcast episode then suggested that we all need to be reminded about WHY we are being critical. The purpose of these tools and approaches are to make things better! We’re supposed to be creating something, not simply tearing it down. The point isn’t to find out what’s wrong, but to find out what can be done instead.
Of course, this is part of the world we are in today. It’s very easy to notice what’s wrong. It seems like we have all sorts of news sources, blogs, posts, forums and so on, all pointing out what is wrong. But only a portion of these resources actually tell us what to do better — how to fix things, or how to make the world better. And even then, many of them are simply not right [have you run across any conspiracy theories or crackpot ideas?]
Do we do this in Church? Are we quick to see problems, and reticent to think about ways that we can contribute to making things better? Are we blaming others? Or finding out how to build better experiences for ourselves and for others?
In these posts I am trying to suggest that each of us can have better experiences at Church if we are more constructive. We need to take responsibility for our experience in Church, thinking about what happens and why, and then choose to contribute something better.
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, and a world that we can contribute to making better.
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, 2025 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
13 responses to “Constructing in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 9/6”
Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday:
It depends on the area. For a lot of things, there are good precedents in the history of Christianity. For a few things, we really are unique.
I’m filling in for Gospel Doctrine next week, and seeing the new schedule in action, I’m planning a lesson that makes just one major point, and making sure I’ve got people ready for the benediction and invocation well in advance.
I really appreciated how everyone in our Sunday School class collectively realized that the change to a 25-minute class is a mistake. A counselor in the Sunday School presidency did as directed and showed us the 15-minute video and then began a discussion on the video that was over almost as soon as it began. The counselor called on the bishop who had his hand raised only for the bishop to reply that we were out of time. The entire class was rather stunned by how short it was. I fear for our collective scriptural literacy because the vast majority of Saints simply are not going to read, let alone study, the scriptures.
In the prescribed video, Elder Kearon expressed a hope for sacrament meetings, saying “Let the singing be transformed. Let us choose hymns that people can sing…”
This suggested to me that Elder Kearon thinks our singing needs to be transformed, and that we are not choosing hymns that people can sing. That thought resonated with me. Last Sunday in my ward, all our hymns were four-digit, and yesterday two of them were. My ward seems to purposefully choose obscure or unfamiliar hymns to force the congregation to learn them, as if forcing errant children to take their medicine. But instead of treating hymns like medicine for children who must be forced to change, maybe we should treat hymns like desserts for adults with more of the appreciated and loved hymns being selected more often. Like a wonderful meal, our sacrament meeting should be a time of conviviality and happiness and comfort.
Since the amount of time we spend per month in Sunday School isn’t changing, our scriptural literacy will be just fine. Spreading out the time more evenly could be more effective, and it means we won’t entirely skip whole lessons. Some teachers will find a shorter lesson easier to teach, and hopefully it helps teachers realize that their job is not to cover everything mentioned in the lesson.
I appreciate that the change in schedule has led to some bad feelings — but I want to emphasize that the point of these posts isn’t to complain, but to find ways of enhancing our worship and study despite whatever structure we’re given. Let’s focus on what we CAN control instead of complaining about what we can’t.
AND, can I suggest that we need to think about the whole idea of studying at home? If our learning is meant to be in the home, supported by what happens in church, how does that change what we expect from our lessons?
We can voice our frustrations by simply leaving after Sacrament Meeting. A lot of seniors in my ward did that with the 3-hr services. If enough members slip out after SM, then perhaps things will improve.
On the subject of tithing, and the Church hoarding money and constructing McTemples, the member can simply choose to give their tithe to legitimate charities. Hopefully, that will open up Church finances and help provide a mechanism for more member input into priorities.
Just 2 ideas.
Kent,
You said it. We literally have zero control over anything that happens at church. Which begs the question: Why think critically about church at all? Why post it on T&S? It’s not like T&S comments are sent to the First Presidency. Maybe we should post on our spiritual and intellectual lives at home? Advice on that would be relevant.
@Old Man: What we control at church is ourselves. The whole point of this series is to highlight how our actions and attitudes as audience members can have a big impact on our experience at church, regardless of the real or imagined failings of our speakers, teachers, and leaders. On the other hand, most of us are speakers and teachers pretty regularly, and sometimes local leaders, so those roles are relevant too. One thing none of us control is the new schedule, and I completely agree that complaining about it is off-topic for this post and generally unproductive.
I occasionally teach “flipped format” workshops. Instead of me presenting the material and the students going home to do exercises, they read the material at home and then we get together to discuss, answer questions, and go through exercises. Of course, if the students haven’t read the material they don’t get much out of the time we spend together. (My workshops are voluntary and ungraded, so there’s a reason I don’t usually teach in flipped format.)
Our study of the scriptures always needed to be flipped format to accomplish its goals; “Home Centered, Church Supported” just recognized that fact. Kent, you now have me thinking about how our lessons should be more like a flipped-format workshop–thanks.
rogerdhansen:
I’m sorry these issues are so hard for you. But have you considered what are the other implications of your solutions? You might send a message, but you also won’t get anything from whatever interactions and discussions happen after SM. And, FWIW, I’m not at all certain that your message will get through in either case.
In addition, I can’t help but observe that your reactions make it seem like what should happen in Church is supposed to be what will benefit you. Is that really what Church is about?
Old Man:
Why think critically about what happens at church? RLD said it — we can control how we react, and what we do to make things better.
Several months ago, I referenced Viktor Frankl’s book “Man’s Search for Meaning” — did you read about that? He experienced the ultimate in having zero control, and that book suggests how to be happy in such circumstances. Don’t you think that approach is relevant?
Kent,
It doesn’t seem right to me to compare Viktor Frankl’s circumstance to a rank-and-file Latter-day Saint today — doesn’t doing a comparison of the “victims” (Frankl and today’s saint) necessarily also involve a comparison of the “authorities” (Nazi goons and church leaders)? I don’t recall that Frankl described himself as “happy” in his circumstances. No, maybe let’s not compare a Nazi concentration camp with a LDS ward.
Kent,
I don’t how my recommendations specifically helps me. The second paragraph suggests a method for having more money going to help the poor. Half the membership lives in developing countries. They and their neighbors need help. I’d rather give to the poor rather hoard money or build McTemples. And what’s with paying tithing before feeding your family?
The first paragraph suggests a way that members can protest the current 2-hr schedule. Since members aren’t supposed to communicate directly with high-level GAs, there are few avenues for making suggestions. I’m suggesting one.
Ji:
Well, I guess I wasn’t too careful in how I worded that. You are correct that there is a vast difference between the Nazi guards and church leaders — and that is NOT at all what I wanted to imply. [And, I could argue that I didn’t, that you’re seeing a 2nd order inference that I didn’t intend. But, it is there…]. As for Frankl, I should have used the word “meaning” instead of the word “happy.”
Regardless, Frankl’s overall point is that we can find meaning in what happens to us if we change our perspective — how we see the events in our lives. Ultimately we DO have control over at least one part of our lives: how we think. What I’m trying to tell “Old Man” is that he does have that control. He doesn’t have to think in a way that is critical of what is wrong at church. And he will probably be happier if he takes that control.
rogerdhansen:
1) This post (and the others like it) is not the venue for criticizing how church is run. There are plenty of other places where you and anyone else can make those criticisms. As I just wrote above, this series of posts is about HOW WE THINK in church and how that can be better — not about how the church is run.
Perhaps I have by accident implied somewhere that I’m looking for suggestions on how the Church should change — if I did so, I apologize. That’s not wanted here, and that’s why the original post has a paragraph near the end that says “ Let me emphasize that this is NOT a place to criticize what is wrong with church or your fellow congregants.“
2) Your recommendations are all about how you want church to be — that’s how they “help” you, they give you what you want. You are assuming that others want that also. Perhaps you are right, and your suggestions have a certain attraction to me. But how do we actually know that they would be better? How do you know? [That’s rhetorical, don’t actually tell me since its outside of the scope of this post.]