At the invitation of friends, I’ve attended LDS Sunday services a few times this month. I grew up going to these services, so I almost expected that attending them now would be a comfortable and familiar experience. I was wrong. Not only did I look like an outsider (with my beard and blue jeans), but I was reminded that—as a liberal, bisexual atheist—I am an outsider.
I’m glad I went, though. I imagined that my visits were a kind of a sociological field study of Utah Mormon culture. But it doesn’t take a sociologist to make the following observation: Mormon services are boring.
I’ve made a similar observation before. And it’s not an observation unique to me or non-Mormons. On Monday, Mormon blogger Jana Riess asked the question, “Why Are Mormon Church Meetings So Dull?” She offered five pretty insightful reasons.
1) We no longer expect any spiritual manifestations. The number one reason why our services bore even our most devout members to tears is that American Mormons don’t expect the Holy Spirit to show up in anything more than a warm, fuzzy, non-threatening way. I say American Mormons because elsewhere around the world, Mormons still have the early saints’ experiences of praying for the manifestations of the Spirit, being slain in the Spirit, speaking in tongues, and other things that scare the knee-length shorts off American Mormons today. For a denomination that invests heavily in the idea of being the direct continuation of the New Testament Church, we have few religious experiences now that would be remotely recognizable to believers in the first century. When we don’t truly expect God to show up, is it any wonder when He doesn’t?
2) We think we’re there primarily to learn about God, not to worship God. It’s no accident that we call our Sunday gatherings “sacrament meetings” rather than worship services. We do lots of good things in those meetings, like taking communion every week (one of the few things we consistently do right). But if you take a straw poll of Mormons and ask them why they’re there, “worship God” is not going to show up in your top five. At best, we relegate worship to the temple (which only helps about one in five Mormons), and at worst, we don’t think about worship at all. Yet the scriptures name worship as our primary reason for gathering each week. Unfortunately, we no longer know how to do it unless an insider-outsider like Gladys Knight shows the way by presenting a wonderful fireside or special event that takes us out of ourselves to worship the one who made us.
3) Our music is confining and often funereal. For a supposedly joyful people, Mormons are missing a crucial element of joy that should accompany our worship services. We sing three hymns per service, sometimes four, and they are often lovely. Beyond that we do not venture. We neglect the vast richness of the world’s musical heritage, especially the gorgeous offerings of sacred music through the ages. Whether this failure is a byproduct of Mormon theological chauvinism or simple ignorance I do not know. I feel a terrible sadness about the disconnect that exists in Mormonism between the exalted beauty of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which touches thousands of hearts with its renditions of music both sacred and secular, and the anemic, impoverished approach to music that typically exists at the ward level, where whole classes of instruments, styles, and composers are simply barred from the door.
4) Our talks suck. I know I’ve been harping on this point for ages …, but the situation never seems to improve. Considering that all Mormons are expected to speak regularly in church—in my ward, about once a year—it’s perfectly ridiculous that we offer no training in how to do it. (Well, no training on how to do it better; every time we sit in sacrament meeting and hear someone doing it badly, we’re being taught that irrelevant mediocrity is the expected norm.) I think it’s terrific that we expect all members to give talks, and of course it’s only natural that there would be a wide variance in quality. But some training in content and delivery would help everyone improve, and would also raise the confidence of those Latter-day Saints who would rather have a root canal than give a talk in public.
5) Nobody seems prepared to envision this differently. This, along with point #1, is our most pressing problem: where there is no vision, the people perish. Our leaders have not made weekly worship a priority. I’ve been a church member for 17 years now, and in that time the only changes I’ve seen in sacrament meeting are that we’ve stopped singing the practice hymn and we no longer have official missionary farewells. Sorry, but that’s not enough. We need men and women who are theologically trained, who understand what a worship service is intended to accomplish, and who can comb the scriptures and our own history for examples of how to make Sundays more fulfilling.
To my Mormon friends: Do you agree that LDS Sunday services are often dull? And if so, do you agree with what Jana Riess identifies as the problems?
I think most Mormons will respond with “no they’re not boring.” This was certainly my attitude when I was Mormon. I pretty much was able to convince myself that most meetings were not boring if I were able to glean some knowledge or insight from them. If you really focus on trying to learn something then I think you can come out of the meeting feeling “nourished.” However many times it was hard to focus on a talk about subject ‘y’ that’s been rehashed 100 times. I never admitted my boredom for fear of appearing out of line. You know… “happy are we, happy are we.”
I think many Mormons are bored in meetings but wouldn’t admit it because if you don’t get something out of a lesson then it’s your fault, not the speaker’s.
When I went back to church, I didn’t think the service was so boring. ON THE OTHER HAND, I think it’s because I was so interested in the social aspects…who’s here…who’s not…who’s not taking sacrament…and plus, I forgot how entertaining people are in the classes. It gets even better in the adult classes!
That being said, at the core, I agree with Jana. As a person who loves to speak, I agree with her on speaking. I agree with her that the dirge-like quality of the singing (even for songs that should be upbeat) is also disappointing. Having gone to a pentecostal church once though, I don’t think the church needs spiritual manifestations and modern guitar music.
Yeah, I wasn’t terribly bored, but I recognize that the service was boring…if that makes sense. And I wasn’t really bored for the same reason you weren’t—we were watching the service with a sociological eye.
There’s good Sundays and bad ones for me. Depends on the subject of study and who’s talking in sacrament. Since I started going to the singles ward Sacrament has been pretty good on a week to week basis and the sunday school classes have been sketchy. But I try my best to find something to interest my mind. I also agree with Andrew’s point on the music and spiritual manifestations. If they happen they happen, but after having served my mission in Brazil and seeing and hearing about plenty of “manifestations” and seeing people going to church only because the entertainment was good I think I’ll stick wih it.
Andrew sets up a false choice, though. It’s not as though there are only two options: drab funereal meetings or pentecostal guitar-playing services. There exists a spectrum of approaches to worship.
I can understand your concern, though, that you don’t want church to be a place were people only come to witness the spectacle of crazy spiritual experiences (and I’m sure there’s some of that in Brazil). But then again, powerful spiritual experiences were on display in early Mormonism (as Jana points out). And in the Book of Mormon, during King Benjamin’s address, the people “had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.” That’s a very pentecostal experience. You never see that kind of spiritual manifestation in American wards or during conference today, though.
I’m curious why you put “manifestations” in quotes, Court. Do you doubt that their experiences came from god?
me? A false dichotomy? Au contraire, mon ami. While I recognize there is an entire spectrum here, I don’t think we should stray too far away from the heritage of hymns. Sure, it’s not a Latin Mass, but I think we should be more expressive with the songs we have first.
(I personally doubt Pentecostal manifestations…)
“Sure, it’s not a Latin Mass, but I think we should be more expressive with the songs we have first.”
First, what’s this “we” business? ;)
Jana might agree with you, here. She praised the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and called many Mormon hymns “lovely,” so her problem doesn’t seem to necessarily be with the songs (though I still think the songs are too funereal). Rather, like you said, she just wishes people were more expressive with those songs. Well, that’s how I understood her criticism of “the anemic, impoverished approach to music that typically exists at the ward level.” I may have misread her argument.
“(I personally doubt Pentecostal manifestations…)”
Well I do too, of course. I just want to know how a theist who does find some spiritual experiences is able to discount others’ spiritual experiences. I want to understand the criteria with which Court differentiates real spiritual experiences with fake ones.
don’t you know, Jon, we always use we in the royal sense. Don’t get a big head, plebeian.
remember that many theists doubt that spiritual manifestations continue today. Now, I don’t know what the criteria is for determining the difference between “spiritual manifestations” or “spiritual gifts” which are claimed to have ceased…and spiritual experiences. Of course, I could just be putting words in Court’s mouth.
I think this and many other ills of the church has roots in the organization. First and foremost is the top-down, centralized approach where everything is dictated from Salt Lake. If a local bishop has a great idea for how to make meetings more interesting, chances are he wouldn’t be allowed to implement it anyway.
Second, the arbitrary way in which callings are assigned and reassigned without warning saps any motivation to make meaningful changes in the program. Even if I were empowered to make improvements, why would I bother when I have no idea how long I’m going to be working in my current capacity? It makes more sense to just follow the existing program.
I agree to some extent on this having its roots in “the organization” but I think that is limited… say, maybe 15% toward the outcome? Some wards really are just better than others, with the EXACT same organization. Some wards just do better with the music, have better organ players (they are underrated – and VERY important. A good organist really helps), better at choosing the hymns, have more musical numbers that VERY good, etc. I’ve been in a lot of “boring” meetings, and a lot of outstanding meetings. The speakers also obviously have a lot to do with how interesting/spiritual/helpful/relevant the meetings are.
Here’s a proposed mini-theory, based on a model for counseling outcomes… because that’s what I do, haha:
What contributes to positive outcomes for Sacrament meetings?
The individuals (both listeners and speakers), and what they bring to the table: 40%
The relationships between the people at the meeting: 30%
The “techniques” or organization that is set up (i.e. how many talks, what types of music, what topics, musical instruments yes/no, length, etc.): 15%
Placebo (fill in here what you wish: spiritual experiences, expectations, etc. etc.): 15%
What think ye?
I would add a reason to the list: we frown on the others’ extremes but no middle ground exists. The Mormons see the Evangelical style as being “irreverent” and “loud,” while the Evangelicals would refer to the Mormon style as being a “Dead church.” I was always taught growing up that the Spirit only feels welcome in a peaceful, reverent setting. I think that somewhere along the way, peaceful translated to “silent” and reverent became “monotone.”
And to answer the question of boredom, I probably have a bias, but I found that services in the South were much more entertaining than in Utah. Southerners tend to tell a lot more jokes and funny (though relevant) stories. I would definitely agree that some wards are better than others (I’m treading in dangerous water now), but I’d have to say the Southern culture of behaviors like making friends in the wal-mart check-out line is more conducive to a somewhat entertaining church service. Pardon the poor explanation, I’m struggling to say it in a way that doesn’t insult Utahns. Nothing personal, guys.
I always hated church, mostly because it was mind-numbingly boring. I had figured everything out/been programmed with all the right answers by the time I was 10. And dear lord, that music. Yeah, MoTab can spice it up a bit, but congregational singing was more often than not, terribly dirge-like. During my last couple years in the church, I yearned for the kind of music that one sees in historically Black protestant churches – i.e. something fun, lively, exciting, colourful, and IN TUNE. I always thought it was ridiculously ethnocentric of Mormons to be so certain that the Spirit would be so offended by loud, exciting music (or horror of horrors, guitars and brass instruments).
Of course, I no longer care that Mormon meetings are generally boring and intellectually void.
I think we can all agree that LDS Sunday services should never devolve into this kind of worship: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oOHZvAYmxk
I’m not sure I agree. But then, I’m not sure I care either way.
ehhh, I suppose this is better than a lot of things that furries do.
Better how? What’s wrong with furries?
Hyperinflation vore.
Pingback: Finding the Meaning in our Mormon Meetings « Irresistible (Dis)Grace
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Variations on the Theme of Difference! | Main Street Plaza