Dear: Brother Card,

Forgive me for being so opinionated but,
I think I have to disagree with you on nearly every point of this article. I find that this attitude in LDS culture about such things is so stuffy and I PRAY daily that someday the Church will turn us on all on our ears and loosen up just a tad.

I greatly enjoy hearing Gospel music, and seeing the Gospel expressed in with different customs of members globally. I think this is so badly needed in the Church today. I was *Delighted* when I went to Laie Hawaii and attended a temple session and we were greeted with "Aloha", its no big deal, its just a different custom. Why are so many members so hung up with diversity? When I heard talks like this I generally leave the meeting all together.
Unfortunately this keeps many away from the Church, as they think we are all this way.

James

I couldn't agree with you more. Sacrament meetings are as the very name implies sacred gatherings. I once remarked in a Sunday School class that the Sabbath is to time as the temple is to space. This is very sacred time and it should never be used to satisfy our vain and foolish ambitions. We are to use this time to renew our covenants and be enriched and uplifted by the spirit through the Lord's chosen means. It is not up to us to introduce "cool" innovations. We should maintain the quiet and sacred reverence due this very important time set aside in our lives. I love our sacrament meetings as they are complete with the rustling noises of families with little children. The children in the congregation will introduce us to much variety spontaneously without the adults adding their own versions of "coolness".

Orson's article reminds me of some big production churches I've been to. I mean the ones with big choirs, orchestras, fancy lights, theater seating, and grand services. I think it's great to glorify God, but having a big party isn't quite what God wants. At least the mormons keep their meetings modest.

(what I also liked about the mormons was that they didn't pass the plate!)

To James Walker:

I too like to experience other cultures and I enjoy "gospel" or "spiritual" music. However, that is what firesides and other activities are for, not sacrament meetings. Sacrament meetings are primarily for the partaking of the sacrament and then that is followed by reverent worship through appropriate activities. To reduce sacrament meeting to the casualness of a fireside would be demeaning to its purpose.

Bro. Card,

You hit it right on the mark. Innovations do nothing but detract from the spirit of the meeting and draw undo attention to the innovator. While serving as bishop, and while serving in previous bishoprics, I saw a number of these kinds of events occur. Without fail, they always detracted from the central, sacred purpose of the meeting.

Orson,

Your point - that only the leaders of the Church should change sacrament meeting agendas and processes - is mundane. Every faithful LDS knows that.

Do you actually get paid to write this drivel?

It is a challenge as the gospel spreads to every corner and culture of the world to distinguish what is essential to appropriate worship from local habits that may be well intentioned but that nevertheless detract from the spirit of worship.
Those essential elements are common to all children of our Father in Heaven and supersede culture.
Music is especially important because it communicates more directly with the soul than the spoken word and transcends language. Some music is inherently uplifting and promotes the Holy Spirit, other music styles, while eliciting a powerful emotional reaction, do not promote the Holy Spirit. (And tacking sacred words onto inappropriate music does not elevate the music. It does, however, often result in a sacrilegious abuse of the name(s) of deity.)
Clips of Rev Wright recently ran (ad nauseum) on the news. While the words spoken were commented on a great deal I was most struck by the tone and demeanor of the speaker. I was saddened and horrified to consider that this was (evidently) supposed to provide inspiration, upliftment and edification to it’s listeners.
Not all practices carried out in the name of worship will be equally effective in fostering the Spirit.

Mr. Card,

Your thesis in this little article is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who clearly taught,

"The sabbath [Church] was made for man, and not man for the sabbath [Church]." (Mark 2:27)

If the point is to stop man-made traditions from taking root in the Church, then I'm all for it.

Overall, I agree with the article. While sacrament meetings have changed over time, the changes were made for specific reasons. Improving the spirit of the meeting and providing consistency (both within wards and across the Church) are both valid reasons.

Consistency allows members to move across town or around the world and still enjoy comfort and familiarity with the Church services. It allows us to see in practice that we all belong to the same Church.

At the same time, the article points out that there are sometimes exceptions to the normal proceedings that are outside the norm and yet still of spiritual value. This variety is healthy as long as the Spirit is not negatively impacted.

The Bishop is responsible for this and accountable to the Stake President (and so on, up the chain). It is not the place for a member of the congregation to start improvising without approval from the Bishop. In my experience, most Bishops welcome variety that enhances the spirit.

As for shouting "Aloha!" back and forth, I don't care for it. (Too much like greeting an elementary school teacher for me.) However, I undertand and appreciate the custom and don't let it bother me.

To the comment of Former Bishop. You are spot on. Anything that detracts the spirit should not be allowed. Regarding the utilization of "other" cultures traditions would in fact detract the spirit. The Aloha is part of who the Hawaiian people are. Therefore it is natural for them to use it. Just as in some hispanic cultures it is very normal to greet everyone with an abrazo or a brief hug and a kiss on the cheek. I believe the church is very aware of local customs/culture and allows what the spirit tells them is suitable and will not detract from the spirit.

I would be a little more patient with a testimony singer. There are some people (stutterers, for example) who can sing when they can't speak. I would give them some loving latitude while still expecting others not to take up the practice as a fad.

The Sacrament Meeting fad that distresses me is spending the first several minutes of every talk describing how one was "trapped" by the Bishop or Counselor into giving the talk.

Still, being crabby in Sacrament Meeting is not a good thing. I try to be as patient with others as I hope Heavenly Father will be with my foolish weaknesses, and leave the details of running meetings to the Bishopric.

For those of you who have experienced the "Aloha!" greeting (or any number of polynesian greetings - the Hawaiians are not the only people who do this), do you recognize that some of you claim you felt the spirit even more; others claim they did not like it, while others said that it was wrong!

Clearly, it is impossible to say whether or not a practice will negatively affect the spirit. That is NOT because some practices are just incompatible with the spirit; NO, it is because what each person experiences as "the spirit" is unique, personal, idiosynchratic, esoteric, and subjective.

So how can God be the author of such confusion as to "inspire" so many people with so many different opinions and ideas from "the spirit"??

So much for unity of the faith!

Wow - rather harsh on someone for expressing their testimony in the way the spirit moved them. But I guess if Orson didn't like it, the spirit should quit endorsing it too.

I've been to countless Sacrament Meetings in numerous areas, and I'm sorry, but the spirit can rarely be found there. Beforehand people greet each other loudly and slap backs, during the meeting kids are screaming and crying, and people are whispering. I've felt God more while visiting singing congregations in Baptist churches, or sitting in a Catholic church during Mass.

I agree that sacrament meeting should avoid anything that detracts from the spirit.

However, I think sometimes this means that we should make more changes, not less. Most wards have a very mundane routine. After the sacrament, we hear two speakers, followed my music, and then another speaker. This is the general way things go. I think Bishops should feel free to change this routine up whenever they feel directed to by the spirit. As long as we are partaking the sacrament, hearing sacred words, and singing sacred music, there are lots of different things Bishops could do. Changing it up would probably help more people pay attention and feel the spirit more -- rather than just going through the motions.

On a side note, we've all experienced being forced to do the aloha greeting. I don't think it's bad that people do it, but at this point it is pretty cliche for anyone who's even been to Hawaii to have their ward at home do it too.

And that's just what we ought to be avoiding in our meetings in all ways -- the purely cliche.

The biggest problem with Sacrament meetings (and the other block meetings) is not that we vary from what Orson call the "sacrament standards". Instead, it is because we restrict the possible edification and workings of the spirit by sticking TOO CLOSELY to some perceived standard.

This is why our meetings are so unedifying. We suffer through several amateur "talks/lessons," prepared the night before by someone who was passively "called" to speak, and who simply took ideas and quotes from Church leaders off the Church web site - stuff that everyone has already heard!

The speakers are not only passively unwilling (and it shows), but 90% of them are unqualified! They have nothing valuable or edifying to say! As a result, they waste everyone's time. Personally, I get MUCH more edification from listening to professionally-trained preachers who have taken time to prepare a good sermon that is well thought-out and inspiring. We really get none of that in our weekly meetings, and far too little of it even in our semi-annual Conferences.

that's a good one. you're a funny guy !

I agree and support this article. I have felt for a long time the importance of Sunday Sacrament Meeting and the need for it to be a special spiritual experience. A true departure from the cares of the world, even a bit of an oasis. We renew sacred covenants and everything else is secondary in importance. The casualness of the world continues to creep into every facet of our lives. I am pleased that there weekly I can leave the cares of the world outside and be renewed, second only to my Temple experiences.

Bravo, Brother Card!

I think you are spot on in describing the balance between following a standard format and there being room for variety within that format. And of course the goal is always to invite the Spirit.

After nearly 2 decades spent mostly in single adult wards, I have returned to a family ward, and I love Sacrament Metting there. I cannot for the life of me figure out why singles wards think they need to be so different. In the ward I left they had the announcements at the end of the meeting. On the rare occasion where the Spirit was strong, it immediately fled after the closing hymn when the announcements started. Last time I visited I counted no less than 9 different people giving their announcements. Ugh.

That being said, I've also been to church in many different countries and enjoy how parts of the local culture can become part of worship services. I noted as a missionary that members in France sang every verse of every hymn every time, a practice that I loved.

Thanks again for a great article.

I can handle an hour and fifteen minutes of church. That's it. Then I have to go.

The purpose of sacrament meeting can be found in Moroni 6:5-6 "And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls. And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus." From there, local bishops, serving as the presiding high priest in the ward, sets the agenda for sacrament meetings. There is no "perceived standard", there is a real standard set by the bishop, under direction from stake and general leaders.

The difficulty in sacrament meetings in not an organizational problem. It lies with our tendency to be casual in our worship. If we approached every sacrament meeting with personal preparation and with the Spirit, it would not matter if the speaker prepared the night before or not, we would be edified. The Spirit is not constrained due to the organization of the meeting (see D&C 88:119), but it is constrained by our own lack of attention and our casual approach to our worship.

Dear Brother Card

Thank you. I agree with your article. There are tons of stuff that we can do in our ward gatherings and meetings EXCEPT SACRAMENT MEETING. I remember as the ward music chairman, it was my duty to see that the music folowed the guidelines. Not a easy task at times. I recall as a young boy, having a famous music group sing at the pulpit AFTER the closing prayer at sacrament meeting.A member of our ward was related to one of the members of the group.
It was nice to have them sing but our bishop made sure that it was done in the proper way and at the proper time.
Brother Card, you go ahead and set us straight.Thanks.

nice article, thank you.

Sacrament is a sacred moment of each week, much like Temple worship. I love to feel the sweet spirit and quiet words. I love the routine and would prefer not be entertained or shaken to and fro from this quiet refelction and worship. Children's voices have become a sweet background to this worship time for me. Our meeting should truly reflect a humble, simple, and reverent people.
Thank you Bro. Card

Amen, Bro. Card! IMHO, you did leave one thing off your list - the meeting should be started and ended on time (which is part of the 'standard'). There are too many meetings where the speaker thought what they were saying was so interesting/important/unique that they had to pontificate far past the allotted time. Some meetings are also started late even though the Bishopbric is seated and ready to begin beforehand. Please respect the time of all those in attendance at that meeting, as well as the previous/following meeting!

Mr. Card seems to be opposed to anything that might wake him up. Me too. There's no place in sacrament meeting for anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before.

Not that I'm against change. It's just that if anything new should creep in, it should first be said a thousand times before someplace else such as at a fireside or email chain.

Furthermore, I am in complete agreement with the person who despairs to see backslapping and greeting going on not to mention whispering and children crying. All who attend sacrament meeting should greet each other with a blank look and a chilly silence. Lips should be closed and pursed. Children should sit rigidly and never speak unless asked to say "Aloha." (And then only in the proper cultural setting.)

Those who want to learn something or hear something they haven't heard before, or have a challenging thought enter their head, or suffer nonsense that does not flow from the proper channels, clearly do not belong in a Mormon sacrament meeting.

END ON TIME

Sacrament meeting and classes.

My theory is that the spirit doesn't hang around past closing time anyway (only partially kidding)
Bishoprics often have to be firm (but tactful, it can be REALLY awkward) in reigning in longwinded speakers, even if it requires intervention during the talks. (It helps if when assignments are made EXPLICIT instruction on how long the talk should last are given)

It is also extremely rude for teachers to go over when the room is needed for the next hour's meetings etc.

If I'm feeling reverent when somebody bellows "Aloha!" in my California ward, I just sit quietly and don't say anything back. If I'm feeling unusually ornery, I'll shout "Bonnnnnnjour!" or "Guten Tag!" It usually turns a few heads.

Although the "all things in order" aspect of the Church can be overdone, I do think there's something to be said for Bro. Card's basic thesis: that too much innovation in a church service calls attention to the innovation and away from simple worship. It's one of the reasons I've always found the Catholic and Episcopalian Mass so profound: It's the same every week, and has been essentially the same for two thousand years. (OK, so there was that unpleasantness when they tried to sneak "filioque" into the Creed a few centuries back.) There is literally nothing of the transitory world about it -- no cute attempts to be "relevant" (which look as horribly dated as 1970s architecture), no posturing for the political hot buttons of the day. Although Christians are meant to be engaged in the world, we also need to be reminded that God's kingdom is ultimately not *of* this world. Spare me the cheesy "praise" music.

I have to say that I HATE it when a visitor bares their testimony. In most cases, they are from Utah and think they are gracing us out in the "mission field" with their presence at the podium. This is why there is a separate sacrament meeting held each week for visitors and missionaries in Nauvoo now. The locals could never enjoy their meetings during the summer months.

Of course, I have issues with their use of the term "mission field" but that's because I served my mission in Utah. That should be the subject of one of your columns, Orson.

The root of all sacrament meeting problems is that most members of the church have forgotten that the purpose of the meeting is to partake of the emblems of Christ's body, to worship him, to covenant with him. Everything else, whether it be a musical number by a teenager or a talk by a visiting general authority, is just fluff. The problem is, because so much time is devoted to the fluff, people think that's why we're there. It's almost as if, when the first speaker rises after the sacrament, their feeling is, "Alright, now that we got the preliminaries over with, we can get on to why we came here today: the entertainment." Then the person often goes on to give a performance, complete with a few jokes and amusing or amazing anecdotes. If I didn't try so hard to focus on the Savior during the meeting, the talks would ruin the spirit of it for me every time, no matter who gave them, unless it's a simple, heartfelt, unadorned (in the words of Brigham Young) testimony expressing humility and gratitude for the atonement.

I lived in Hawaii for over 10 years growing up. The "aloha" greeting was perfectly normal and acceptable there. But when someone does that outside of that cultural environment it feels completely wrong and inappropriate.

I, too, hate it when someone does that.