Mormonism and the Boring Sacrament Meeting, Revisited
Catholics “celebrate” mass, Protestants worship . . . and Mormons attend a meeting in a meetinghouse.
A couple of weeks ago I attended one of the most memorable and spiritual sacrament meetings I’ve experienced in my twenty years as a Mormon.
After the usual ward business and passing of the sacrament, we learned we were going to do something different than the usual standard. (Which, if you’re not Mormon, goes like this: have a youth speaker for 3-5 minutes; have another speaker, often female, for about 10 minutes; then have the final speaker, often but not always a man, for 15-20 minutes. Choose a general theme that will be the topic for all of the speakers, insert a relevant hymn in the middle, and gently stir. Do not season with spice.)
I’ve written before about how dull many Mormons (and, perhaps more to the point, most visitors) find sacrament meetings. “Peaceful” is an optimistic way of describing them. “Funereal” is another.
Instead, the bishop’s counselor said, we were going to mix it up. I sat up a little straighter.
The format was to have half a dozen members of the congregation speak from the heart about a favorite hymn, sharing a story about why that beloved hymn had lifted their spirits or provided them with revelatory guidance in a particular situation. After each speaker, the entire congregation would sing that hymn, knowing the context for a fellow brother or sister’s regard for it.
A simple format. A very basic switch. Yet to me, the whole sacrament meeting felt new and marvelously unexpected. I felt closer to Christ, and to the people in the pews with me. I also did not open even once the book I always bring to sacrament meeting to fortify myself if things get impossibly dull. Things never did get dull. The congregation was active and engaged.
Why don’t we do this kind of thing more often?
I have heard precisely two stories about sacrament meetings that dared to deviate from their stultifying script. In one story, church ended early because a family was in need. Inspired by a famous General Conference in which Brigham Young canceled sessions to help the stranded handcart pioneers who were perishing in the wilderness, this bishop felt that the entire ward community needed to drop everything to save those who were in trouble in their midst. It made a lasting impression.
In another anecdote, a friend of mine said that when he was a kid, the bishop actually ended church immediately after members had taken the bread and water, saying, “That was the most important reason we get together on Sunday. We’re done now. Go home and think about what Christ did for you.”
That made a lasting impression too.
But these exceptions are just that—exceptions. In general, the structure and language of our sacrament meetings are not intended to ignite the kind of engaged participation I experienced two Sundays ago. And by “language” I mean not only the formulaic things we say during the meetings, but how we refer to those gatherings in the first place.
I am a person who feels that language is important. The language Christians use to describe what we do when we gather on Sundays both reveals and shapes what we expect to get out of the experience.
- Catholics go to “mass,” which refers to both the centrality of the Eucharist in the Catholic experience and the universality of that sacrament across the world.
- Protestants experience “worship” followed or preceded by “Sunday School,” a division of inspiration and education that strikes me as fascinating.
- Orthodox Christians daily “celebrate”—note the triumphant terminology—the Divine Liturgy.
And what do Mormons do? We “attend our meetings” or, in particular, we “attend sacrament meeting.” We even do so in a “meetinghouse.”
The corporate language of the meeting is striking here. A meeting is something that you attend, or that you lead, primarily because you have to, not because you desire to. Some meetings may be more or less boring than others, but at its core a meeting is a duty, an obligation. It is an eat-your-brussel-sprouts event.
Note that in both of the stories I recounted above about unusual sacrament meetings, the main feature was getting out of church early, which is the reaction we have when a business meeting is canceled unexpectedly or school is on a 90-minute delay: Hey, it’s a snow day!
Those were not sacrament meetings to remember; what was memorable was the absence of the meetings altogether. What I long for, and what I felt two Sundays ago, was something hopeful and quite different.
That was worship, not merely instruction. It had the feel of celebration. And Mormons could use a good deal more of worship and celebration when we gather as a church on Sundays.
The meeting image is used with permission of Shutterstock.com.
64 Comments
Laurie
I like the format of the hymn service you describe, Jana, and might use that. The bishop who dismissed everyone after the bread and ware were passed was truly inspired and certainly educated his congregation that day!
Can inspiration and education be easily separated, especially in the context of faith? I fin one informs that other in a continuous cycle. My experience in the Episcopal tradition is that the sermon given during the service is both inspiration and education. Whether it’s “boring” or not depends on the preaching skills of the preacher (usually a priest), the theme he or she chooses, and how well it relates to my life. And education classes I attend, whether on Sunday or any other day of the week also blend inspiration and education.
Spencer
I strongly disagree with your characterization of LDS meetings. While we always have room for improvement, I am not sure the situation is as dire as you make it. My ward’s sacrament meetings are often quite good, largely because we have a significant turnover rate (lots of college kids, lots of renters, etc.), And the point of the meeting is, after all, a sacred ordinance. It is my understanding that the meeting is built around, and therefore should reflect reverence for, that event.
Your post describes alternative meeting formats (to what you drably malign as the “usual standard” and “funereal” and as a “stultifying script”), then ask “Why don’t we do this kind of thing more often?” Well, we shouldn’t go to church to be entertained, but I wonder if “spicing up” meetings would end up taking us in that direction. In any event, you are inaccurately characterizing sacrament meetings in Mormonism. You suggest that the formula never varies, and yet you fail to mention Fast & Testimony meetings, which are held once a month, and also high council speakers, who speak once a month. You do not mention ward conferences, or stake conferences, or General Conference, or Easter and Christmas and Mother’s Day programs, or primary programs. By my reckoning, these alternative formats mean that the “usual standard” described in your post is actually a minority event. Take a look at my ward’s Sacrament Meeting calendar for the first half of 2013 (through June 30):
Fast Sunday
Topic: Teaching
High Council
Topic:Faith
Fast Sunday
Ward Conference
High Council
Topic:Priesthood
Fast Sunday
Topic:Adversity
High Council
Commemoration of Easter
Fast Sunday
General Conference
Stake Conference
Topic:Atonement
Topic:Testimony
Fast Sunday
Mother’s Day
High Council
Topic:Discipleship
Fast Sunday
Topic:Temples
High Council
Topic:Conversion
Topic:Commitment
Out of 25 Sundays in the first half of the year, only 10 are based on the “stultifying script” you so insultingly describe. I also think we have scheduled a primary program, which would take us down to 9 “funereal” meetings. In a six month period. So I think you significantly overstate the problem here.
You also state that “I am a person who feels that language is important.” So do I. It is therefore irritating to see Church members use language like “stultifying” and “funereal” to publicly malign their own worship services in such an unfair and inaccurate manner. Such armchair quarterbacking is not helpful.
You also praise other religious groups, such as Catholics and Protestants, because – apparently unlike the Mormons – they use interesting labels for their meetings (“Mass” and “worship”). This apparently makes all the difference. But isn’t Catholic Mass quite formulaic? Yet you treat it respectfully while slurring LDS “Sacrament” meetings (“Sacrament” isn’t sufficiently Latin-ish, I guess). Moreover, lots of other Christians describe themselves as “going to church” or “attending church,” which is just as boring as the Mormon reference of “attending meetings.” You also as describe as “fascinating” the Protestant division between “worship” and “Sunday School.” How this is materially different from the LDS division of “Sacrament Meeting” and “Sunday School” eludes me (except that it somehow garners your respect, whereas LDS practices garner your published-to-the-world contempt).
You conclude with: “Those were not sacrament meetings to remember; what was memorable was the absence of the meetings altogether. What I long for, and what I felt two Sundays ago, was something hopeful and quite different. That was worship, not merely instruction. It had the feel of celebration. And Mormons could use a good deal more of worship and celebration when we gather as a church on Sundays.”
Mormons could also use a lot less public navel gazing exercises like the one you just published. I have participated in many wonderful Sacrament Meetings, with the Spirit present and the participants being uplifted and edified. Your post, however, ignores or denigrates LDS Church meetings wholesale. Readers with no prior experience with LDS services will likely expect the harshly inaccurate caricature presented in your post (all the more so given your notoriety as an LDS writer), and will have less interest in attending. I think that is unfortunate.
Thanks,
Spencer
Gretta
Spencer, you’re coming off as kind of a bully.
I’m glad you’re not bored in sacrament meeting. My opinion is that you’re probably in a minority, but that’s just my opinion. If you are not in the minority and Jana is, she is totally allowed to express her feelings about how boring church is and people are totally allowed to agree with her *and* still be good Mormons.
Spencer
I am criticizing a blog post. I have not insulted Jana, nor attacked her character. So your suggestion of bullying is a bit absurd.
I have also said nothing about Jana’s standing in the Church, nor have I suggested that she is not a “good Mormon.”
Finally, Jana has put her thoughts out for public scrutiny and feedback. Somehow, I think she’s not so dainty that she can’t take a bit of criticism (since she is so free with dishing it out herself).
Thanks,
-Spencer
Gretta
No. You’re being a bully to her and you’re being a bully to me. I didn’t say you said she wasn’t a good Mormon, I just said it was possible to be one and practice differently than you. I didn’t say Jana was dainty, either. I just told you how I interpreted your unbelievably obnoxious comments.
You might be more effective if you try to be less condescending.
“Thanks”
Spencer
Gretta,
> No. You’re being a bully to her and you’re being a bully to me.
==No, I’m not being a bully to either of you.
> I didn’t say you said she wasn’t a good Mormon, I just said it was possible to be one and practice differently than you.
==The only person who brought up being a “good Mormon” was you. Your comment was therefore a non sequitur.
> I didn’t say Jana was dainty, either.
==Then she should be able to take a bit of criticism.
> I just told you how I interpreted your unbelievably obnoxious comments.
==Oh, you bully!
> You might be more effective if you try to be less condescending.
==Oh, you bully times two!
Thanks,
-Spencer
Brian
Spencer’s post is overly blunt, but inferring that he is a bully is an slight to real bullies. 😉
Gretta
Thank you! The only time church wasn’t boring was in my singles and student wards—you never knew how wacky it was going to get.
I wouldn’t complain about church being borin if it wasn’t SO LONG. Three hours is a long time to be bored.
Spencer
Right. The purpose of Sacrament Meeting is to get “wacky.”
We are *not* there to participate in a solemn and sacred ordinance, a renewal of our baptismal covenants.
We are *not* there to worship God.
We are *not* there to testify.
We are there to get “wacky.” To be entertained (as evidenced by your complaint that you are “bored”).
Methinks some of the Saints have a seriously skewed perception of the purpose of Sacrament Meeting.
Here’s a thought: I’ve been teaching undergraduate courses at a local university for about five years now. I review the anonymous student evaluat
sacrament meeting church sunday worship
for its contents. This is a safe-cache copy of the original web site.