notpfs says:
What can the Church do to retain converts? With the banality of correlated lessons, talks and McServices, is it just not enticing anymore?
Since this is an anything goes blog, ‘fess up…do you like church? Why do you go? Why do you stay?
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/07/27/retaining-converts-despite-the-banality/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Come Sunday morning, does anyone ever want to go to church? I don’t think so. But if I do, I feel so much better afterward.
If your meetings seem uninspired, it’s just as much your fault as anyone else’s. We attended a ward once that was just so boring. Every Sunday we’d come home and complain. (It probably wasn’t so bad, but we’d just previously lived in a ward that was pretty incredible.) And every Sunday we’d reach the same conclusion–if it’s boring, it’s just as much our fault as the teacher’s.
Comment by Susan M — July 27, 2005 @ 1:19 pm
I just posted this comment at FMH, but might as well post it here too… I’m definitely in the shorter meetings camp. Three hours is just a long haul - no matter how good the ward, how great the classes, etc.
I’ve always been active - I can’t recall a single period in my life when I didn’t attend at least 90% of the time - until now. Right now, church feels like a total waste of time to me. As the mother of very small, energetic children, sacrament meeting is a huge, frustrating struggle. By the end of it, I am usually so irritated, I just want to go home. After sacrament meeting, we drop off a few in nursery and then I bring the newly crawling (read: is NOT happy to sit on a lap) baby with me to “fulfill” (ha ha ha) my calling. I then take him to RS, where I usually get to sit for about, oh, 5 minutes, before giving up and taking the baby out in the hall. Now that we live within walking distance of the chapel, I’ve started just leaving before RS starts - no point to it at all. It’s gotten to where I just don’t even want to go to sacrament meeting, and for the last few months, it’s been touch and go. Sometimes we just show up to do our callings, and then leave, and honestly, those were much better Sundays - more peaceful and less contentious. Right now I get NOTHING out of church, other than frustration and a little social contact (if I happen to meet another mom out in the hallway).
(And yes, I know baby will eventually be in nursery, but right now, that is not helpful.)
Comment by Sue M — July 27, 2005 @ 1:53 pm
I don’t really believe the old story about the guy who comes to the ward and asks the bishop if it’s a good ward or not - and the bishop basically says something that boils down to - if you thought your last ward was good, you’ll think this one is too, if you thought it was bad, you’ll think this one is too. (I don’t have the energy to type out the story.) I think that’s silly. Some wards are good. Some wards are bad. Some teachers ARE extremely boring and ill informed, and no amount of class participation will change it. Sure, you can, to some extent, get out of it what you get into it, but there is no doubt that some teachers/classes/wards just suck a little.
Comment by Sue M — July 27, 2005 @ 1:57 pm
I find family wards completely boring and by the looks of all the men playing on their PDAs during sacrament, sunday school, and priesthood meetings, I’m not the only one. When I was in the singles ward I looked forward to church, but now I’m just “eh..”
Comment by Brett — July 27, 2005 @ 3:08 pm
I simply don’t agree with Susan. Of course we play some part in what we take from church, but c’mon. Like Sue said: Some wards are bad. Some teachers ARE extremely boring and ill informed, and no amount of class participation will change it. Sure, you can, to some extent, get out of it what you get into it, but there is no doubt that some teachers/classes/wards just suck a little.
I recently moved from a university ward which was, by Mormon standards, some what liberal and free in their thinking. I moved into a family ward ruled by senior citizens who think that anybody who does take the sacrament with their right hand is on the verge of apostasy.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — July 27, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
Isnt it somewhat relative to your expectations as to what “sucks” and what doesnt? If youre a old timer, then you might think Jeffrey’s current ward is the best ever, but if youre “liberal and free in their thinking” then it would suck. On the reverse, a ward that Jeffrey would love would “suck” to an old timer.
Now, aside from that, there are teachers that are simply awful (e.g., arrogant jerks, crazed dogmatists, grossly incompetant, etc., we’ve all seen them) and there are Sacrament Meetings that are awful as well. Thats just the way it goes in a volunteer-driven lay clergy Church. Would you prefer priestcraft? Theres a lot more to complain about in that system than in this one.
Hey, if its that big of an issue for you, go to a different ward thats a better fit. I’ve known plenty of people who did that. Just sitting around whining about how much things suck wont change anything.
Comment by Kurt — July 27, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
I love how making an observation about how some wards might or might not be automatically becomes whining. ;>
Comment by Sue M — July 27, 2005 @ 5:07 pm
When members don’t enjoy going, how are converts who sometimes come in from dynamic, charismatic kinds of churches expected to enjoy meetings and services?
With tiny human vacuum cleaners sucking cheerios off the floor, babies wailing all through the mumbled talks, people chattering and laughing over the organ preludes, weirdos giving travelogues and unsolicited medical advice on Open Mike First Sunday–what’s a poor convert to do?
How have you made the difference in the spiritual life of a new convert? What do you do to ensure them that they are in church and not just a large support group? How do you enhance your Sunday worship when all around you is chaos?
Comment by notpfs — July 27, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
Kurt,
Our own church actually had a version of paid clergy until early in the twentieth century–see the discussion on Spendid Sun, here: http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/index.php/2005/06/22/125#more-125
As someone who’s actually been in a church with a corps of professional pastors and administrators, I have to say I think there’s nothing wrong with it. The problems of priestcraft come not from paying someone to administer church business, but from allowing charlatans to dupe you into practicing a false religion for their own enrichment (see 2 Nephi 26-29). Of course, I take no issue with our system of unpaid lay clergy, though I could wish bishops recieved more pastoral training and doctrinal instruction than is the current practice. (This would be as much to reduce bishops’ stress levels as to improve the functioning and preaching in our wards).
In any case, I don’t think the agonizing boredom of our meetings is a result of our lay clergy system. I think that in our Sunday School and PQ/RS meetings, the problem stems from the unchallenging and often functionally contentless manuals we use. I also think that we as members lack true enthusiasm for our classes, our Sacrament meetings, and our Sunday callings, and so long as we use the three-hour block format, that’s not going to change. As things stand now, we have three hours’ worth of repetitive meetings, and it’s a wonder any of us can even stay awake for them.
I personally would like to see either a two-hour block, or a return to midweek PQ/RS and Primary. Yes, I know it’s a commitment, but our worship and our study would be more productive because we wouldn’t suffer church fatigue.
-Serenity Valley
Comment by Serenity Valley — July 27, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
I agree with Serenity Valley. The quality of the teaching materials is rather poor. A simple way to improve the quality is to take a scripture, for example from the gospels, and explore its relevance to our lifes.
I did not learn squat in four years of seminary. Lutheran religion classes in school were slip shot as well but at least they were reflective and willing to ask the tough questions.
In Mormondom we find it very difficult to talk about the challenges of life. If you are not happy then you must have sinned. If you ask questions then you must be an apostate. That is not how Jesus taught.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 27, 2005 @ 8:01 pm
notpfs,
For me, Church is about the opportunity to serve. Whenever anyone has the chance to genuinely selfless serve someone else, its a positive spirutual experience. You cannot lose that way. If you are worried about recent converts being distracted by someones idiotic travelogue, then give them a meaningful experience to selflessly serve someone. Just keep it on par with what they are capable of succesfully doing, so they dont feel overwhelmed or like a failure if thing dont measure up to their expectations.
Serenity Valley,
Having people compensating for performing administrative duties in the Church goes back to the early church, its in the D&C. But thats not priestcraft, in the Scriptural sense of the term.
With respect to the lackluster lesson material, that is why I run ldsgospeldoctrine.net, so that millions of people across the world dont have to waste an hour of their life sitting through another tediuous or awful lesson. There is enough material on there to give even a complete incompetant the means of using that hour constructively. But, I cannot force people to use it. Even if the Church produced fabulously amazing lesson material, there would still be bad classes, and thats all there is to it. Even if we switched to a system of highly qualified paid professionals, there would still be bad classes. Some of the worst classes I have ever endured were university level taught by people highly qualified in the subject, who simply were awful at teaching. I hate Chemistry today, and its because every Chemistry teacher I ever had was as exciting as cold oatmeal.
Hellmut,
I cannot accept your characterization of Mormondom as “if you ask questions then you must be an apostate”. Mormons keep their theology and their behavior pretty well separated in general, isolated instances of well-publicized heresy notwithstanding. I have irritated the heck out of a lot of people on numerous occasions, and I have never been accused of being an apostate, not once. I have only once had one person insinuate that I was on the road to apostasy for failing to toe the line on some of BYs speculations, and that was motivated more out of his own anger at being shown up than any real belief on his part that I was wandering off the straight and narrow. There are plenty of Mormons around who are soaked to the gills in MoDoc, but there are more who arent.
Now, granted, if someone is a gadfly or are looking for martyrdom, then they are going to get what they deserve. But thats just the way it goes. Nobody, LDS or whatever, is going to put up for long with someone who is a deliberately offensive malcontent.
Comment by Kurt — July 28, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
Good for you, Kurt. But different people have different experiences. Just last month I talked to a friend who felt that the members of the ward regard him with suspicion because they know that he is attending Sunstone seminars. That is particularly paradoxical as his presentation was a triumphalist celebration of the Proclamation to the World. True nobody said to his face that he is an apostate. There are more subtle ways to isolate an individual.
A lot of people feel that they are free to share their insights into the gospel at church. The pressures to conform are tremendous.
I am somewhat troubled by the language in your last paragraph. I don’t think that dissenters deserve to be characterized as gadflys that deserve punishment. We need to remember that Jesus was a nonconformist who provoked the anger of the mainstream and the powerful.
While I agree with you that any organization demands a degree of loyalty and discipline, I do not think that the LDS practices are normal, typical, or desirable. But that is not the subject of this thread. May be, we could have one about dissent and diversity.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 28, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
Hellmut,
I didnt make a dissenter=gadfly equation. I was saying that any gadfly gets what they deserve. If the dissenter is a gadfly, then they get what they deserve. But, there are plenty of perfectly orthodox people around who are gadflies as well.
If you want to start a thread, then post to the Available Discussion Thread thingy.
Comment by Kurt — July 28, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
Hellmut,
I think Kurt was referring to people like Bob over at the “Disciplining Inactives” post. You know I think our church and culture needs to reform on a variety of fronts but, even I couldn’t stomach Bob because he was engaging in deliberate deceit to undermine our faith.
Comment by Steve EM — July 28, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
I have heard some of the same things Bob posited over the publit.
E**** G*** Stake Conference, (Salt Lake) 1998: the stake president told the congregation that HF and Mary had sex to produce Jesus. i have heard everything else on that list except the polygamy thing as being doctrine. For that matter, what counts as doctrine?
Back to the original point of the point, this is part of what pisses converts off–there’s a veneer of unifromity but when it gets down to it, the rules, doctrines and dogma are sometimes so arbitrary and ward-specific as to be maddening, and there is very little up-front disclosure.
Comment by notpfs — July 28, 2005 @ 3:16 pm
notpfs,
I have never heard anything even remotely like that over the pulpit, although I am well aware it is taught in isolated cases. Its an old holdover from stuff that BY and OP believed, and BRM propegated. But, its been officially cast as questionable by the FP review of the 1st ed MoDoc. If anyone ever taught something like that around me, I wouldnt tolerate it. And I would be as rude as they are vehement.
You cannot fault the Church for having members who speculate wildly, even if its the GAs who sometimes did it. Thats like blaming God for people’s stupidity.
Comment by Kurt — July 28, 2005 @ 4:32 pm
But sometimes the people who speculate think what they’re saying is doctrine. For instance–just a small sampling–
in 1994’s spring General Conference, a general authority said that couples who were sealed in the temple who used birth control were breaking their covenants. Opinion or doctrine? Well, for those born in this generation it’s embarrassing opinion, but many prophets and apostles have said it as doctrine.
God was once a man: this is in the GOSPEL PRINCIPLES manual. Yet people foam at the mouth and say it is NOT doctrine, and President Hinckley says it’s not taught and he doesn’t know.
Polygamy? Well, we don’t practice it anymore although technically (as in Elder Oaks’ case) righteous men can be sealed to more than one woman and will have both wives in heaven.
So many converts just want to love and praise God on Sunday and not have to wade through all the philosiphies of men touted as doctrine. But how does one tell? Some people say if something is repeated often enough it’s doctrine, but if no one has said anything publically about it for awhile it’s not doctrinal anymore. How does that make sense? Not sure…
Comment by notpfs — July 28, 2005 @ 4:46 pm
As I replied to Bob, my first MP taught it and the guy was an asshole in other ways too(GA wannabe). So what? Last time I checked SPs and MPs don’t make policy, let alone doctrine. Had Bob been a healthy questioner from the get go, he’d probably still be faithful LDS today. But today Bob is a pathetic deceiver trying to snare the ignorant into his misfortune. As far as older false doctrines on which the church has reformed, we all know BY, BRM, etc have a lot to repent for, as do I on a smaller scale. But in BY’s case, while a major asshole, he saved the church and no one can take that legacy away from him.
Comment by Steve EM — July 28, 2005 @ 4:55 pm
Now if we had candid discussions like this in church, it wouldn’t be so boring would it?
Comment by Steve EM — July 28, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
My point isn’t about who is an asshole and who isn’t. I’m reserving my judgement on that one, and frankly, I don’t care. Everyone has redeeming qualities (or most people) and I don’t disparage people because they have differing values or ways of looking at things or even becaue they’ve left the church.
All I’m asking is, how are people supposed to tell? How many people should needlessly suffer over the mistakes of men who stand up and say solemn things in the name of Christ that are simply not true? Everyone has the right to his or her opinion, but when it’s in a specific forum for the edification of the saints and someone has been called and set apart to declare it and he uses his 15 minutes to opine and pontificate, it’s to EVERYONE’S detriment. And it’s dishonest.
And if someone says something “wrong”–how’s the average LDS person supposed to know? A new convert who never had the chance to go to seminary and trusts the leaders of the Church will believe what he/she is told and repeat those things to others, or live his/her life around them. Before the 1980s, church leaders vehemently decried birth control. In the ’60s and ’70s, many people lived stressful, impecunious lives because they just had way too many children. My aunt has MS and partially blames the church leaders for the belief (back then) that birth control was somehow related to abortion and all those spirits were waiting to come down to earth.
The point is, get 100 Mormons in a room and maybe 2 will tell you thie same thing about doctrines. Most of our teachings are NOT in the scriptures, so to say it’s only doctrine if it’s in the scriptures is something of a cop-out.
Who determines doctrine, and at what point is something no longer doctrinal? When it becomes embarrassing? When enough members leave?
Comment by notpfs — July 28, 2005 @ 5:04 pm
notpfs,
Doctrine isn’t the essence of faith and I’m glad we’re a grace preaching church today (listen to Gen Conf) and have abandoned a doctrinal focus. BTW, I’m a child convert (member since 1970). In the 70’s birth control was left to the individual couple as a matter between them and the Lord taking in account things like the health of the mother, genetic fitness, etc. In the 80’s and 90’s financial considerations were added. The policy (advice really) continues to evolve. I’m going to do a separate post on that.
Comment by Steve EM — July 28, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
Going to church is one of the most mind-numbing, tedious experiences I have ever chosen to endure. It is made semi-tolerable by the social aspect of being around some friends and by the technological advances in hand-held computing.
…Read scripture “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7) …Ask lesson-prompted-question-with-obvious-answer, “Who does god reveal his secrets to?”
…Read scripture “THIS is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Cor 13:1) …Ask lesson-prompted-question-with-obvious-answer, “How many witnesses does it take to establish god’s word?” Follow with the supposedly-insightful-church-structure-confirming-question, “Why does god have three people make up the first presidency?” …It is all I can do to not give a serious but bumbling answer such as, “Because, well, if you remember back when it got to the point where president Benson was at his most incapacitated, and president Hinckley and president Monson were running the day to day affairs with the church. Anyway, it got to the point where it was just kind of the two of them. And, given their love of family, they couldn’t, you know, go to family reunions and stuff if there was just one of them left. So three allows one to be sick and stuff, and the other to have a chance to vacation and relax, while the third handles things until the second one gets back.” And then the teacher would reply, “You know, I never thought of it that way. I guess the lord even takes family and personal needs into consideration. Personally, I was thinking that one of the reasons he set it up this way was…” –Because, no one ever gives a wrong answer in church. Come to think of it, that was one of the funniest articles ever written in the “Sugar Beet”. It was titled something like, “Ward Celebrates 50 Years of 100% Right Answers in Sunday School”. I was rolling.
…Kurt has a valid point with looking at church meetings as a service opportunity. Beyond callings, even serving in little ways, like being a pal to the kid who the other kids don’t really understand because he is home-schooled and dressed in clothes made by his mom. Or thanking the 75 year-old lady who is always the first to ramble on during a F&T meeting for sharing her ‘testimony’. –Overall, I am being totally serious. Just little things to make people feel like someone cares they exist.
Comment by Herbie — July 28, 2005 @ 7:55 pm
Teaching Primary beats SS and PH hands down.
Comment by Steve EM — July 28, 2005 @ 8:58 pm
Oh, and at least we don’t have the annual “don’t cuss, don’t swear” PH lesson anymore. We really need a modern day J. Golden Kimball to stir things up. Coarse speach let’s peopel know how you really feel.
Comment by Steve EM — July 28, 2005 @ 9:01 pm
Yes. And teaching gospel essentials beats teaching gospel doctrine.
May be, I am just getting older. But according to my memory, it is getting worse.
Comment by Hellmut Lotz — July 28, 2005 @ 9:06 pm
I had a really bad job once. Every morning I woke up with a pit in my stomach thinking “I don’t want to go to work today”. But I went, but as soon as I could find something better, I changed jobs immediately.
That is how I felt every Sunday morning until last January when I decided on a one-year “independent study” from attending meetings. The fact is that church is boring boring boring. And I wake up on Sundays feeling much better.
If you get something out of church, more power to you…but that has been my experience, for what it’s worth.
Comment by Phouchg — July 28, 2005 @ 9:12 pm
The last ward I lived in, I actually started taking notes in SM because it was the only way I could get myself to pay attention. And if I felt the spirit during someone’s talk, I’d put a star next to it. I was lucky if I had one star each Sunday.
Sue M, I’ve been where you are. I don’t know if your husband attends church, but mine didn’t when my kids were babies. I was doing it all on my own, and I really felt like it was a waste of time. Until I decided I wasn’t going to church for me, but for the kids. They needed to be there to have that experience. If I’d stopped going, when would I have started back up? And how much harder would it be to get the kids to go when they were older if they weren’t used to it?
I can still remember vividly one day, I was so ready to pack them all up and head home, tired of sitting on the floor with the baby in the foyer (which meant my older kids were there as well, because they wouldn’t stay in the chapel on their own), and another mom in the hall said to me, “You’re such a great mom.”
Here I was feeling like it was a total waste of time being there, when I was actually inspiring another mother to want to be a good mom. You never know what influence you’re having on people.
And I agree with Kurt–church should be about serving others. It’s when you lose yourself that you gain, anyway.
Comment by Susan M — July 30, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
Boring church services are nothing new, remember the guy who fell asleep when Paul rambled on too long? He fell out of the window and was bought back to life - Acts 20
Comment by jman — July 31, 2005 @ 7:11 am
I am really glad that I found this blog. One thing I learned, be careful not to complain too much about a class or you will end up being called to teach that class. Case in point: I used to always complain about the Relief Society Enrichment Nights. I mean, not every woman likes scrapbooking or quilting, and some are terrible cooks! The next thing I know I was called to the Enrichment board. I was nervous at first, but my Enrichment Yoga Night was a huge hit.
As for children, my husband is not a member so I have to take my two babies alone every Sunday. If things are difficult, I hang out in the mother’s room and “fellowship”. Even though I missed most of sacrament and the classes because of my son, I felt more blessed in the end. That was my lesson. It was a greater lesson than I ever received in RS or SS. (Last month my younger son finally entered nursery, so I am FREE!)
As for our amateur clergy, I went to an Evangelical church for a few months before I rejoined the church, and thought it even more boring. . . and they had a professional band. . . with drums!
Comment by Amber — December 31, 2005 @ 6:00 am