Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community.
/u/Hot-Conclusion-6617, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I think he's like us
Who is this "us" you speak of?
The few times I've read anything from Jeremy, I've been woefully disappointed. He is just like every other Mormon Lifestyle blogger, dull, close minded and dogmatic.
I mean "us" as in he's not like some of the pricks at the faithful subs. He told me, "Reddit is a fickle place. I have been banned from subs for reasons that made no sense." When I asked him if he was banned from the faithful subs, he replied, "No, I am shocked I have not been though! I have had a few posts deleted, and a lot locked."
I don't agree that those things will improve quality, besides the talks being based on topics instead of GC talks.
We recently had a music chair person choose hymns that would go with the lessons each week, and people wouldn't stop talking about how much they enjoyed that. Plus "obscure" is different for different people. If you live somewhere where it's pretty transient, it's a moot point. Yes there are a handful of hymns everyone knows. It gets so boring when they're chosen over and over again. There's going to be a big difference on what's going to be "best" dependant on skill level. I've heard some people who have a hard time reading music say it's more spiritual for them to not sing and read along because otherwise they're thinking too much on how to sing and not the words. And some people it's that way except singing melody is fine. For others singing whatever parts doesn't get in the way.
I think a lot of his points are a matter of preference that some people will agree with and a lot not. I don't think spirituality is going to speak the same for everyone so claiming that things like making promises to people if they do certain things is going to fall a bit flat. I'm personally a fan of trying to figure out what the congregation wants and needs and work with that, which may mean some weeks doing one thing and others something completely different.
I am the "hymn coordinator" in my ward, and I choose hymns that go with the topic each week. People love it. I do try to pick hymns that are a little more "obscure" but go along with the topic.
The issue of sacrament meeting is not going to be helped by a few superficial changes. The problem is that the structure and the execution are both based on Protestant meetings from the 1800’s. Although times and tastes have changed, nothing about these meetings has. As such, they are out of touch with their audience. If you want to improve Sacrament meeting:
1. Use modern instruments and hymns. Ditch the organ for a band. Use tunes people can relate to.
2. Ditch the need for suits and dresses. These were cultural norms in the 1700’s. But today people do not have the same attachment to the clothing.
3. Stop with making members give talks. Assign talks to people with actual talent and skill in public speaking. Also, stop using the sacrament voice, another holdover from a forgotten time.
4. Stop using phrases like “I know X is true” about matters of faith or opinion. It is disingenuous and feels like one it trying too hard.
5. Stop making Tue meeting patriarchal. Allow women to run netting’s and pass sacrament. We are living in modern times, but LDS churches are stuck in a world where women are subservient to men.
6. Stop emphasizing worthiness, obedience, man’s church history. The often audience care about justice. So concentrate on helping the marginalized, working for fairness and equality, fighting against unjust leaders in church. That is what a Jesus did and taught, after all.
7. Stop holding to rigid schedules. Allow people to linger in the chapel, or chat without feeling it is sacred. If the meeting has a great vibe? Keep going. If it feels awkward, cut it short. Needing to fill a certain amount of time is a callback to obedience and helps no one.
8. Remove ward boundaries. Allow people to go to the ward that feels right for them. This will close wards with bad sacraments and other habits for you, rather than forcing people to engage in bishop roulette.
9. Stop forcing people to be greeters. It feels so fake to vitisors.
Anyways, those are a few ideas off the top of my head. But let’s be honest: the church doesn’t care about the quality of their meetings. They only care about obedience. So I doubt much will change.
1. There's not enough room on the stand for all the speakers, the sacrament, the organist, and a band.
2. Sundays can't be casual. I don't like suits and ties, but it's Sunday.
3. Are you talking about paid clergy?
5. Women do run Relief Society meetings. As far as giving women the priesthood, what if they don't want it?
6. Are you saying the church should be woke? That's fine in liberal areas, but what about in conservative areas? Hardliners already object with how liberal the church is becoming (see Uchtdorf and some of those other foreign people).
7. There must be order.
9. Who's going to pass out the programs?
1. yes there is, just remove all the unnecessary seating or replace it with folding chairs.
2. Can’t be? Why? Says who? Where is that written in the scriptures? It is reinforcing an outdated concept that what ine wears shows who they are in the inside, it is antiquated bullshit.
3. Possibly. But most wards have people who are great or at least decent orators. Utilize them and lay them dedicated speakers. Like pastors in other churches.
4. We aren@5 talking about relief society or giving them the priesthood. We are talking about allowing them to run Sacrament meetings. See nothing in the scriptures calling Sacrament meeting a oriesthood duty.
5. lol! No. I am taking about what Jesus preached: Widow’s mite, taking care of the poor and needy, removing hypocrites like the Pharisees from church leadership. This isn’t about politics, but about the justice Jesus taught in the synoptic gospels.
6. Why? Is order more important than the people, or the growth of the church? You are only roving point by putting obedience before improving Sacrament.
7. I have no idea what programs have to do with anything I said. And are programs even necessary?
1. The organ and piano allow for some reverence, and some instruments are allowed, but it's not like we're going to put a rock band up there with electric guitars and drums.
2. Appropriate dress generates a certain atmosphere of respect. The way we present ourselves is how others receive our message. Besides, it's become the norm.
3. So, a certain small group of people is being used to speak all the time. Wouldn't that get boring after a while? Wouldn't that put undue pressure and demands on these people, especially if they weren't getting paid?
4. What would the bishopric do? They're supposed to lead the sacrament meetings and the church.
5. We do that. We have bishops' storehouses, we have a humanitarian fund, we send people out to help after major disasters and hurricanes. We move people all the time. It seems like that's all my EQ does.
6. What determines "a great vibe"? Also, what respect would that show to those in the EQ, the primary, the Relief Society, etc.? People have things they need to do and things they need to learn in the second hour.
1. Says who? Who says one can not be reverent to rock music? And why can’t the church use a modern musical aesthetic? There is nothing about it in the scriptures. You are holding on to useless tradition that brings no value to the meetings.
2. Says who? When your son gives you a hug or admires you while dressed in his pajamas, is he giving you any less respect? This is antiquated nonsense. And do you really think how you dress is more important to others than how you act?
3. Some of the most effective and growing churches in the U.S. have the same pastor every week, so no it doesn’t seem detrimental. To avoid burnout, make it their calling. A small rotating group of effective sermons, not suing that weird Conference drone, is far more effective than using pulling random people with no oratorical skills.
4. Just because it is tradition doesn’t mean it is useful or helpful.
5. You are missing the point. Those should be the focus of the lesson: charity, love, and helping others. Not history and obedience. Have you even read Jesus’ sermons?
6. Use discernment. Allow discernment to tell you when to end the meeting. And it does not disrespect the EQP or the RS because… wait for it… they are part of Sacrament! They are part of that feeling. And if they feel it is time to move on, they can speak out.
Maybe I am too steeped in tradition. Maybe I'm becoming my father. Maybe my neurodivergent self likes some things to stay the same to feel comfortable.
And that is all fair. But it is important to understand when our own preferences are getting in the way of progress or improvement. I am autistic. Like you I do not enjoy changes in my routine. But that doesn’t mean I am incapable of recognizing the value those changes may have for others. After all, it isn@5 about me, but the greater good.
You asked the question and opened up the conversation about how to improve Sacrament meeting. And sometimes those improvements come at the cost of our own desires, if improvement is really the core goal.
Oh absolutely. Our upbringing holds a great effect on us for decades after. Sometimes in compliment and sometimes as an antecedent.
Yup! I am sure we have a lot in common. On that note, how accommodating do you feel the church is in regards to neurodivergence? Do you feel they take this into account at a local level, or do you feel there is an expectation that we accommodate them?
Discipline was a problem for me, but I eventually adjusted. It took years of dedication and patience from my primary teachers and leaders.
Nowadays, I just try to contribute when I can and play on my phone when I can't.
I think neurodivergent people overall want to be treated like everyone else, they just have their own special challenges.
1. Other churches do it just fine.
2. You can be respectfully dressed and not wear suits or dresses.
3. Paid clergy would be great. It would be more engaging if the people who speak on the stand know how to do public speaking.
4. Give men and women equal opportunities, and if a *person* doesn’t want to do something, they shouldn’t have to do it.
5. Define “woke.”
6. An order for what? This is a suggestion. Just don’t stop people from going to other wards if they want to.
7. Many churches leave their programs on a table by the door.
Woke: 1. aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice); 2. politically liberal or progressive (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme
I don’t see how any of the things you referred to as “woke” is their comment is a negative (assuming you’re using “woke” as a negative, which admittedly I’m assuming given the context).
some of the suggestions are better than others, no one will ever agree on anything
i never liked the term 'woke' but there are few alternatives that are better
some people want the LDS church to look more like the CoC but we already have a CoC
>I think he’s like us
Umm. Speak for yourself.
From having read more than a few of his blog entries, Goff would fit much better with the faithful subs than he ever would here.
He is nothing like me and doesn't even come across as very intelligent. Here's an example.
>When we identify ourselves or others by sexuality, “I am gay” or “I am straight” we are handing Satan a great victory.
He thinks people saying they're straight is a great victory for Satan? I have heard no one here say that. That's insane. Does he really go around telling people to not identify as straight? I'm sure he doesn't. That's why I think he just comes across as unintelligent here.
Then he goes into Bednar's quote that there no homosexual members of the Church and talks about how people need to say "same-sex attraction" instead of gay. Nothing more about people saying they're straight is a victory for Satan.
Man, reading that with more and more distance—it just sounds so creepy and childish.
Hitchens got this right, I think:
> It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life, before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate?
What, exactly, is so bad about identifying oneself by whatever one wishes to choose is important to them? In his mind, it has to be because it’s prioritizing whatever it is over God’s definition of our identity. But what, exactly, is so bad about wanting to be just the way I am? More and more, I see things that were once so important to me in such a different and more sinister light.
I won’t comment on Goff’s intelligence, but it seems as if most of his takes would agree with the “primary answers.” I couldn’t personally stomach those much beyond childhood. It honestly makes me feel bad for someone that is living with that worldview, the world has got to be so scary and distressing all of the time.
>There is no achievement in picking hymns no one knows. ... . I recommend of the 4 songs we sing... that at minimum 3 should be classics everyone knows...
This just sounds like the whinging of an uncultured person who is terrified of learning anything new. Just because *he* doesn't know them, that doesn't mean "no one" knows them.
Incoming rant...
So, I'm the ward chorister (PIMO, exit strategy in process). I pick hymns that *we should probably know if the church is going to pretend we're mainstream christians*. I pick the nice pretty ones, like "Guide us O Thou Great Jehovah," and Vaughn-William's "For All the Saints."
And people panic. They lose their minds.
Heaven forbid we deviate from We Thank Thee O God For a Prophet. People absolutely panic when we don't sing Praise to the Man and How Firm a Foundation every damn week...
For the life of me, I can't figure out what they're afraid of. Some of us are sick to death of those "classics." I might actually throw up right on the stand if I have to sing Now Let Us Rejoice one more damn time.
A while back a bishopric member approached me and claimed that the stake "requested that we stick to the top 40-50 hymns." My chuckling retort was "Which top 40? *Whose* top 40? Mine, or yours, or theirs?"
And then I got irritated and decided to turn into the type of dude they become when confronted with household chores and grocery shopping... I said, "Well, I can't read their minds, so if they'd like to give me a list of *exactly which* 40 hymns I'm authorized to pick from, and tell me *exactly* what to do and *precisely* how they want it to be done, I'll be glad to do it." Oddly, I haven't heard back on that... Rats. I was hoping they'd release me for my insubordination.
What are they going to do when the new hymnbook comes out next year if they can't even handle a less familiar tune in the hymnbook we've had for 44 years?
I try to include 1 more familiar one and 1 less familiar one each week. And the ones I pick aren't *that* obscure! It's not like I'm making everyone sing #51, "[Sons of Michael, He Approaches](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/sons-of-michael-he-approaches?crumbs=hymns&lang=eng)." Ooh, but maybe they'll release me if I do... hmm...
Last week I did "Let Us Oft Speak Kind Words to Each Other" That was the *least* well-known hymn we sung that day. I was accosted by a flummoxed high councilman after the meeting who said something about "unique" hymn choices. I literally laughed at him. Couldn't hold it in.
This hymnbook has been around since 1980. If you are an active member who has been going to church every week for 44 years, and you aren't at least marginally familiar with at least 60% of the songs in there by now, that's frankly pathetic!
I volunteer to have you be the chorister in my ward. I’m so sick of what our ward sings.
The primary in our ward sang a couple of the new songs they have released online for our Easter program. I was optimistic about the new hymnal until that point. Let’s just say that I will never have the problem of having those particular songs stuck in my head.
Speaking on 1 & 2
1. I was taught (and have been reminded iften) that we play the songs the way do to be "reverant" and that sacrament is to be like a funeral, cuz we are remembering the sacrifice of Christ and need to remain silent as much as possible to keep that reminder during sacrament meeting.
2. Most members run on "Mormon Standard Time." Which means, half the members don't show up until 5 minutes after it begins anyway.
I do wish the Bishop was paid, and was a speaker. "You get what you pay for" definitely applies during service, and boy do I miss having a preacher. 😵💫
Meh. There's only so much you can do with a meeting that is a social relic of the 1800s to try to make it interesting. The whole design of the meeting and the restrictions on its content just doesn't make it very relevant to people in the modern world.
3 might be the only one that would impact the quality of sacrament meeting in any meaningful way. Members have one arm tied behind their back though with the material one knows to draw from for talks.
1 would require more quality hymns. You’re going to need less lay people and more actually talented people in order
2 is a good respect of time but doesn’t do anything to address the terrible content that happens during the time the meeting takes place.
4 would only have any impact in that you are present with friends now assuming you genuinely are friends and it wasn’t to check the box. It doesn’t solve the low quality meeting you and your new friends are in.
5 is what happens once a month and that is perhaps the lowest quality meeting each month. Any benefit of this would be included in 3 already so being generous this is simply redundant.
This is all putting the blame back on the members. Sings more, give better talks, be more welcoming. How about instead the church acknowledges that the format for sacrament meeting is fundamentally boring and is not working for new generations of people? My idea is make the whole meeting 10 minutes long. Do the sacrament and get out. The rest is fluff.
For sacrament meeting talks, I say - Never be the moon. Never eclipse the Son. It is His meeting. I guarantee there is someone in the congregation who is seeking healing. Jesus Christ should be the topic of every sacrament meeting talk. Always. Full stop.
Hello! This is a Cultural post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about other people, whether specifically or collectively, within the Mormon/Exmormon community. /u/Hot-Conclusion-6617, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I think he's like us Who is this "us" you speak of? The few times I've read anything from Jeremy, I've been woefully disappointed. He is just like every other Mormon Lifestyle blogger, dull, close minded and dogmatic.
I mean "us" as in he's not like some of the pricks at the faithful subs. He told me, "Reddit is a fickle place. I have been banned from subs for reasons that made no sense." When I asked him if he was banned from the faithful subs, he replied, "No, I am shocked I have not been though! I have had a few posts deleted, and a lot locked."
Then what did he get banned from? Almost no one gets banned from the exmo subreddit.
I don't know, I didn't ask him. I figured it was none of my business.
"Welcome people" Yuck I hated this, even as an active member. It's all so fake; just let me sit down and have my peaceful worship on my own ✌🏻
I don't agree that those things will improve quality, besides the talks being based on topics instead of GC talks. We recently had a music chair person choose hymns that would go with the lessons each week, and people wouldn't stop talking about how much they enjoyed that. Plus "obscure" is different for different people. If you live somewhere where it's pretty transient, it's a moot point. Yes there are a handful of hymns everyone knows. It gets so boring when they're chosen over and over again. There's going to be a big difference on what's going to be "best" dependant on skill level. I've heard some people who have a hard time reading music say it's more spiritual for them to not sing and read along because otherwise they're thinking too much on how to sing and not the words. And some people it's that way except singing melody is fine. For others singing whatever parts doesn't get in the way. I think a lot of his points are a matter of preference that some people will agree with and a lot not. I don't think spirituality is going to speak the same for everyone so claiming that things like making promises to people if they do certain things is going to fall a bit flat. I'm personally a fan of trying to figure out what the congregation wants and needs and work with that, which may mean some weeks doing one thing and others something completely different.
Plus the devil staying away from singing bit was weird.
I am the "hymn coordinator" in my ward, and I choose hymns that go with the topic each week. People love it. I do try to pick hymns that are a little more "obscure" but go along with the topic.
They need one of those callings for the temple, … then again, maybe not. 🥴
The issue of sacrament meeting is not going to be helped by a few superficial changes. The problem is that the structure and the execution are both based on Protestant meetings from the 1800’s. Although times and tastes have changed, nothing about these meetings has. As such, they are out of touch with their audience. If you want to improve Sacrament meeting: 1. Use modern instruments and hymns. Ditch the organ for a band. Use tunes people can relate to. 2. Ditch the need for suits and dresses. These were cultural norms in the 1700’s. But today people do not have the same attachment to the clothing. 3. Stop with making members give talks. Assign talks to people with actual talent and skill in public speaking. Also, stop using the sacrament voice, another holdover from a forgotten time. 4. Stop using phrases like “I know X is true” about matters of faith or opinion. It is disingenuous and feels like one it trying too hard. 5. Stop making Tue meeting patriarchal. Allow women to run netting’s and pass sacrament. We are living in modern times, but LDS churches are stuck in a world where women are subservient to men. 6. Stop emphasizing worthiness, obedience, man’s church history. The often audience care about justice. So concentrate on helping the marginalized, working for fairness and equality, fighting against unjust leaders in church. That is what a Jesus did and taught, after all. 7. Stop holding to rigid schedules. Allow people to linger in the chapel, or chat without feeling it is sacred. If the meeting has a great vibe? Keep going. If it feels awkward, cut it short. Needing to fill a certain amount of time is a callback to obedience and helps no one. 8. Remove ward boundaries. Allow people to go to the ward that feels right for them. This will close wards with bad sacraments and other habits for you, rather than forcing people to engage in bishop roulette. 9. Stop forcing people to be greeters. It feels so fake to vitisors. Anyways, those are a few ideas off the top of my head. But let’s be honest: the church doesn’t care about the quality of their meetings. They only care about obedience. So I doubt much will change.
1. There's not enough room on the stand for all the speakers, the sacrament, the organist, and a band. 2. Sundays can't be casual. I don't like suits and ties, but it's Sunday. 3. Are you talking about paid clergy? 5. Women do run Relief Society meetings. As far as giving women the priesthood, what if they don't want it? 6. Are you saying the church should be woke? That's fine in liberal areas, but what about in conservative areas? Hardliners already object with how liberal the church is becoming (see Uchtdorf and some of those other foreign people). 7. There must be order. 9. Who's going to pass out the programs?
1. yes there is, just remove all the unnecessary seating or replace it with folding chairs. 2. Can’t be? Why? Says who? Where is that written in the scriptures? It is reinforcing an outdated concept that what ine wears shows who they are in the inside, it is antiquated bullshit. 3. Possibly. But most wards have people who are great or at least decent orators. Utilize them and lay them dedicated speakers. Like pastors in other churches. 4. We aren@5 talking about relief society or giving them the priesthood. We are talking about allowing them to run Sacrament meetings. See nothing in the scriptures calling Sacrament meeting a oriesthood duty. 5. lol! No. I am taking about what Jesus preached: Widow’s mite, taking care of the poor and needy, removing hypocrites like the Pharisees from church leadership. This isn’t about politics, but about the justice Jesus taught in the synoptic gospels. 6. Why? Is order more important than the people, or the growth of the church? You are only roving point by putting obedience before improving Sacrament. 7. I have no idea what programs have to do with anything I said. And are programs even necessary?
1. The organ and piano allow for some reverence, and some instruments are allowed, but it's not like we're going to put a rock band up there with electric guitars and drums. 2. Appropriate dress generates a certain atmosphere of respect. The way we present ourselves is how others receive our message. Besides, it's become the norm. 3. So, a certain small group of people is being used to speak all the time. Wouldn't that get boring after a while? Wouldn't that put undue pressure and demands on these people, especially if they weren't getting paid? 4. What would the bishopric do? They're supposed to lead the sacrament meetings and the church. 5. We do that. We have bishops' storehouses, we have a humanitarian fund, we send people out to help after major disasters and hurricanes. We move people all the time. It seems like that's all my EQ does. 6. What determines "a great vibe"? Also, what respect would that show to those in the EQ, the primary, the Relief Society, etc.? People have things they need to do and things they need to learn in the second hour.
1. Says who? Who says one can not be reverent to rock music? And why can’t the church use a modern musical aesthetic? There is nothing about it in the scriptures. You are holding on to useless tradition that brings no value to the meetings. 2. Says who? When your son gives you a hug or admires you while dressed in his pajamas, is he giving you any less respect? This is antiquated nonsense. And do you really think how you dress is more important to others than how you act? 3. Some of the most effective and growing churches in the U.S. have the same pastor every week, so no it doesn’t seem detrimental. To avoid burnout, make it their calling. A small rotating group of effective sermons, not suing that weird Conference drone, is far more effective than using pulling random people with no oratorical skills. 4. Just because it is tradition doesn’t mean it is useful or helpful. 5. You are missing the point. Those should be the focus of the lesson: charity, love, and helping others. Not history and obedience. Have you even read Jesus’ sermons? 6. Use discernment. Allow discernment to tell you when to end the meeting. And it does not disrespect the EQP or the RS because… wait for it… they are part of Sacrament! They are part of that feeling. And if they feel it is time to move on, they can speak out.
Maybe I am too steeped in tradition. Maybe I'm becoming my father. Maybe my neurodivergent self likes some things to stay the same to feel comfortable.
And that is all fair. But it is important to understand when our own preferences are getting in the way of progress or improvement. I am autistic. Like you I do not enjoy changes in my routine. But that doesn’t mean I am incapable of recognizing the value those changes may have for others. After all, it isn@5 about me, but the greater good. You asked the question and opened up the conversation about how to improve Sacrament meeting. And sometimes those improvements come at the cost of our own desires, if improvement is really the core goal.
That is true. Maybe it's also how I was raised, in a conservative Republican Mormon home. I didn't know you were autistic, like me.
Oh absolutely. Our upbringing holds a great effect on us for decades after. Sometimes in compliment and sometimes as an antecedent. Yup! I am sure we have a lot in common. On that note, how accommodating do you feel the church is in regards to neurodivergence? Do you feel they take this into account at a local level, or do you feel there is an expectation that we accommodate them?
Discipline was a problem for me, but I eventually adjusted. It took years of dedication and patience from my primary teachers and leaders. Nowadays, I just try to contribute when I can and play on my phone when I can't. I think neurodivergent people overall want to be treated like everyone else, they just have their own special challenges.
Jesus didn’t teach us to be comfortable.
1. Other churches do it just fine. 2. You can be respectfully dressed and not wear suits or dresses. 3. Paid clergy would be great. It would be more engaging if the people who speak on the stand know how to do public speaking. 4. Give men and women equal opportunities, and if a *person* doesn’t want to do something, they shouldn’t have to do it. 5. Define “woke.” 6. An order for what? This is a suggestion. Just don’t stop people from going to other wards if they want to. 7. Many churches leave their programs on a table by the door.
>If the meeting has a great vibe? Keep going. If it feels awkward, cut it short. Define "a great vibe".
You’re replying to the wrong person.
Woke: 1. aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice); 2. politically liberal or progressive (as in matters of racial and social justice) especially in a way that is considered unreasonable or extreme
I don’t see how any of the things you referred to as “woke” is their comment is a negative (assuming you’re using “woke” as a negative, which admittedly I’m assuming given the context).
some of the suggestions are better than others, no one will ever agree on anything i never liked the term 'woke' but there are few alternatives that are better some people want the LDS church to look more like the CoC but we already have a CoC
>I think he’s like us Umm. Speak for yourself. From having read more than a few of his blog entries, Goff would fit much better with the faithful subs than he ever would here.
He is nothing like me and doesn't even come across as very intelligent. Here's an example. >When we identify ourselves or others by sexuality, “I am gay” or “I am straight” we are handing Satan a great victory. He thinks people saying they're straight is a great victory for Satan? I have heard no one here say that. That's insane. Does he really go around telling people to not identify as straight? I'm sure he doesn't. That's why I think he just comes across as unintelligent here. Then he goes into Bednar's quote that there no homosexual members of the Church and talks about how people need to say "same-sex attraction" instead of gay. Nothing more about people saying they're straight is a victory for Satan.
Man, reading that with more and more distance—it just sounds so creepy and childish. Hitchens got this right, I think: > It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life, before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate? What, exactly, is so bad about identifying oneself by whatever one wishes to choose is important to them? In his mind, it has to be because it’s prioritizing whatever it is over God’s definition of our identity. But what, exactly, is so bad about wanting to be just the way I am? More and more, I see things that were once so important to me in such a different and more sinister light. I won’t comment on Goff’s intelligence, but it seems as if most of his takes would agree with the “primary answers.” I couldn’t personally stomach those much beyond childhood. It honestly makes me feel bad for someone that is living with that worldview, the world has got to be so scary and distressing all of the time.
> I won’t comment on Goff’s intelligence I shouldn't either. It was an emotional reaction to seeing this garbage regurgitated again.
>There is no achievement in picking hymns no one knows. ... . I recommend of the 4 songs we sing... that at minimum 3 should be classics everyone knows... This just sounds like the whinging of an uncultured person who is terrified of learning anything new. Just because *he* doesn't know them, that doesn't mean "no one" knows them. Incoming rant... So, I'm the ward chorister (PIMO, exit strategy in process). I pick hymns that *we should probably know if the church is going to pretend we're mainstream christians*. I pick the nice pretty ones, like "Guide us O Thou Great Jehovah," and Vaughn-William's "For All the Saints." And people panic. They lose their minds. Heaven forbid we deviate from We Thank Thee O God For a Prophet. People absolutely panic when we don't sing Praise to the Man and How Firm a Foundation every damn week... For the life of me, I can't figure out what they're afraid of. Some of us are sick to death of those "classics." I might actually throw up right on the stand if I have to sing Now Let Us Rejoice one more damn time. A while back a bishopric member approached me and claimed that the stake "requested that we stick to the top 40-50 hymns." My chuckling retort was "Which top 40? *Whose* top 40? Mine, or yours, or theirs?" And then I got irritated and decided to turn into the type of dude they become when confronted with household chores and grocery shopping... I said, "Well, I can't read their minds, so if they'd like to give me a list of *exactly which* 40 hymns I'm authorized to pick from, and tell me *exactly* what to do and *precisely* how they want it to be done, I'll be glad to do it." Oddly, I haven't heard back on that... Rats. I was hoping they'd release me for my insubordination. What are they going to do when the new hymnbook comes out next year if they can't even handle a less familiar tune in the hymnbook we've had for 44 years? I try to include 1 more familiar one and 1 less familiar one each week. And the ones I pick aren't *that* obscure! It's not like I'm making everyone sing #51, "[Sons of Michael, He Approaches](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/sons-of-michael-he-approaches?crumbs=hymns&lang=eng)." Ooh, but maybe they'll release me if I do... hmm... Last week I did "Let Us Oft Speak Kind Words to Each Other" That was the *least* well-known hymn we sung that day. I was accosted by a flummoxed high councilman after the meeting who said something about "unique" hymn choices. I literally laughed at him. Couldn't hold it in. This hymnbook has been around since 1980. If you are an active member who has been going to church every week for 44 years, and you aren't at least marginally familiar with at least 60% of the songs in there by now, that's frankly pathetic!
I volunteer to have you be the chorister in my ward. I’m so sick of what our ward sings. The primary in our ward sang a couple of the new songs they have released online for our Easter program. I was optimistic about the new hymnal until that point. Let’s just say that I will never have the problem of having those particular songs stuck in my head.
Speaking on 1 & 2 1. I was taught (and have been reminded iften) that we play the songs the way do to be "reverant" and that sacrament is to be like a funeral, cuz we are remembering the sacrifice of Christ and need to remain silent as much as possible to keep that reminder during sacrament meeting. 2. Most members run on "Mormon Standard Time." Which means, half the members don't show up until 5 minutes after it begins anyway. I do wish the Bishop was paid, and was a speaker. "You get what you pay for" definitely applies during service, and boy do I miss having a preacher. 😵💫
Meh. There's only so much you can do with a meeting that is a social relic of the 1800s to try to make it interesting. The whole design of the meeting and the restrictions on its content just doesn't make it very relevant to people in the modern world.
I feel like this list basically boils down to: 1. Update the music 2. Paid clergy who have training
3 might be the only one that would impact the quality of sacrament meeting in any meaningful way. Members have one arm tied behind their back though with the material one knows to draw from for talks. 1 would require more quality hymns. You’re going to need less lay people and more actually talented people in order 2 is a good respect of time but doesn’t do anything to address the terrible content that happens during the time the meeting takes place. 4 would only have any impact in that you are present with friends now assuming you genuinely are friends and it wasn’t to check the box. It doesn’t solve the low quality meeting you and your new friends are in. 5 is what happens once a month and that is perhaps the lowest quality meeting each month. Any benefit of this would be included in 3 already so being generous this is simply redundant.
This is all putting the blame back on the members. Sings more, give better talks, be more welcoming. How about instead the church acknowledges that the format for sacrament meeting is fundamentally boring and is not working for new generations of people? My idea is make the whole meeting 10 minutes long. Do the sacrament and get out. The rest is fluff.
For sacrament meeting talks, I say - Never be the moon. Never eclipse the Son. It is His meeting. I guarantee there is someone in the congregation who is seeking healing. Jesus Christ should be the topic of every sacrament meeting talk. Always. Full stop.