Recently, the Church held its bi-annual general conference. (This is a series of meetings held over a Saturday and a Sunday in which various church leaders speak on whatever they want. Its broadcast via satellite and cable so everyone can get in on it.) Among the many topics address was text messaging. Specifically, you can read a talk here: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=9779230bac7f0210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1. This talk basically says that it’s irreverent and inappropriate to text in sacrament meeting (the main LDS worship service).
I feel that this attitude is misguided and betrays an inherently outmoded approach to religion. First, and most superficially, much of what goes on at church is extraordinarily boring. I can definitely see how people would want everyone to pay attention, but realistically, that just doesn’t happen. If anyone wants proof, just look around. There are people whispering to each other, a lot of people are asleep (and not just the elderly), kids are running around, etc. At least text messaging is quiet and relatively non-disruptive, compared to, say, a quiet conversation. While some people are no doubt content with the way things are, others might see texting as the only way to sit quietly for that long.
Second, and more importantly, texting can be a valuable outreach and missionary tool for the Church. I don’t say this facetiously. If someone has an insight, they can send it to friends via text. Better yet, they can post it as a status update on Facebook or a tweet on Twitter. Thus, the whole world can suddenly participate in religious discourse in a way that was not possible even a few years ago. This is already happening in other churches. For example, read this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30970139. I think that if we in the Mormon Church start embracing technology more we can have a greater outreach and raise awareness about who we are.
Ultimately, even if our doctrines don’t change, the media through which we convey our feelings about those doctrines already have. The fact is that texting is here. The nineteenth-century model of meeting and sitting for hours without talking or physically interacting is going, and almost gone. Lets stop condemning technology and see what it can do for us.
I prefer taking pics to texting personally :)
ReplyDeleteI can't disagree with you that many of the meetings are not boring and that technology can be a valuable missionary tool, but there should be a time and a place for everything. Sacrament meeting is not the time or the place. Because speakers are taken from the general congregation it unavoidable that some speakers will be more interesting than others, but many of these less interesting speakers feel uncomfortable speaking. As a member of the congregation paying attention, is showing support for these brothers and sisters. Don't be weak. Be focused and pay attention. Send out your insights via text after sacrament meeting. Go into sacrament meeting prayerfully and it really shouldn't matter who the speaker is.
ReplyDeleteRyan
ryan -
ReplyDeletewhy wait to text spiritual insights until after sacrament meeting? It seems to me that waiting only makes the thought less pertinent and isn't taking advantage of the instantaneity of text messaging. furthermore, I think that most LDS people would agree that jotting down "notes" or spiritual insights in a journal or on the program is an appropriate way to show attention and to engage with the topic of the speaker. Would you argue that those people should also wait until after the meeting to take their notes or write down their insights? It seems to me its best to write down spiritual revelations as soon as you have them, otherwise imperfect human memory distorts the original inspiration. In short, how is text messaging (when used for this purpose) any different than writing in a journal? For the sake of our own spiritual well-being-- why wait?
Jim Jim Jim... you are way off. Okay, in some regards. 1)Do you want kids texting in your class? Would it add to the atmosphere that you want there? Is it respectful to you or the other students? Do you really think they'll be texting about your subject material? 2) Why not text in the temple when you have a spiritual insight? Shouldn't you be able to text it that instant? Isn't your insight for everyone? 3) Spiritual inspirtaion, the kind I want, is very specific to me... like (examples, but not one's I've had) stop yelling at Frank when he is trying to express his opinion... or stop thinking about Susan, she is not your wife - not the kind of stuff I want to be sharing.
ReplyDeleteIn short... I agree with Ryan - there is a time and place. Technology could be better used by the church, and there are areas where it should be more intergrated to better get our message out there - but the whole set up of sacrament meeting is for us to listen and be uplifted.
Do you really think we should be able to text whenever? I think for the texting queen's this would be a good opportunity to learn to bridle one's passions. More is not always better.
Jill
Jill and Ryan, First, I agree with Laura, not you guys :)
ReplyDeleteSecond, as far as respect to the speaker and if I would want people texting in my class: YES. Public speaking, including sacrament talks, are not about respect to a speaker they are about a speaker's responsibility to the audience. If a speaker cannot keep the attention of that audience, it is THEIR problem, not the audience's. Yes, it is more difficult to speak if no one seems to be paying attention. However, the fact that no one is paying attention says more about your speech than the people listening.
Likewise, if I am not a good enough teacher hold the interest of my students, I feel they are justified in directing their attention elsewhere. And indeed they do sometimes. There have been many lessons in which as I was teaching I realized that half the class was looking at their facebook or other such thing. When this happens I can't really get made at the audience/class, because obviously what I was doing wasn't cutting it. These have actually been some of the best learning experiences I've had as a teacher. Suggesting that the audience is responsible for the quality of a speaker's talk liberates any speaker from ever really trying to improve (which I think many people never do, which perpetuates a cycle of boredom and mediocre talks). Let's encourage speakers to improve rather than shelter them from hurt feelings.
Also, as far as the temple, I would be very much in favor of texting there. Like I said, the current model of religious behavior is outmoded. They've already made drastic changes to the temple ceremonies to adapt to the changing times. I don't see why they couldn't incorporate something else. My point here is not that texting in particular is going to be worked into the temple, but that we are in the midst of a huge paradigm shift and religion MUST adapt to it. The idea that the "time and place" for texting is not in church settings simply suggests that the people making the rules have defined texting and its role/potential much more narrowly than others have.
Okay, a few things...
ReplyDeleteYes, totally agree that the teacher holds much of the responsibility of engaging a class/church meeting... but the student needs to be self disciplined enough to get something out of it themselves. You could have the best lecture prepared and if I went to your class not wanting to listen I wouldn't hear a thing. Here you are saying texting is for the bored... which I agree, mainly that is why I text.
I don't think texting was created for lengthy, deep conversation. I totally agree that as a religion we must adapt to our changing world, but I still see texting (even though I do it myself sometimes) when talking to someone, sitting in a meeting or class, as rude.
So true. I hate it when I do plan a lesson I think will be cool, but no one read or half the class doesn't show up.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if I plan a cool lesson on say, grammar, but no one pays attention, the problem may be with the topic itself. Who wants to learn grammar? No one, really. By the same reasoning, who wants to hear another cliche sacrament meeting poem? Or a lame joke about being nervous in front of people? Or any number of things. So often talks are for and about the speaker and are presented in such a way that it makes it really difficult for the audience to get much out of them.
Obviously an audience does have a responsibility, but what I would hope is that instead of chastising audience members, we'd try to adopt a new, audience-oriented approach to talk-writing. If we did that, texting (and other problems with church meetings) might begin to take care of themselves.
Also, I would agree that most people would say texting is rude in those settings (I would agree, to some extent). However, texting is so new that I think its yet to reach its full potential. In ten or twenty years I doubt anyone in the US will be bring physical scriptures to Church any more and the line between texting and note-taking on digital devices will be gone. Even if that doesn't happen its possible for us to reinterpret rudeness. For example, burping in public is rude in the west, but polite in some Polynesian cultures. Burping isn't inherently good or bad, but different cultures define it differently. While our culture might lean toward defining texting in meetings as rude, that could (I think should) evolve and change.
(BTW I think I'm going to experiment with being extremely liberal with my class policies this next term, to see how much responsibility my students can handle. I'll you know if everyone pays attention or just tunes out all term)
Love the blog, but I couldn't believe this post. I also believe texting in sacrament meeting is wrong. The first and most important reason is that an apostle told us not to do it. So even if we don't get it, or agree with it, we should do it anyway. Even Adam knew this. Several conferences ago Elder Ballard said that the perception many people have of the General Authorities is that they are old and out of date, and don't really "get" what going on in the real "modern" world. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one understands the modern world better than prophets and apostles. That's what prophets and apostles are for.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, Sacrament meeting is a worship service, not a school classroom. Big difference. The difference is that we go to sacrament meeting primarly to worship God, and only secondly to learn stuff. Worship entails humbling ourselves, thinking of Jesus, excersising self control, seperating ourselves from the world, being selfless, and assuming an attitude of penitence and respect. And this includes respect for the speaker. Last week, a very nervous elderly woman--and a recent convert at that--gave a talk that was definitly not elequent, profound, well spoken, or entertaining. But none of that matters. What she lacked in talen as a speaker she more than made for up by being on the Lord's errand. It was wonderful to feel that the audience's collective prayers for her created an almost audible buzz. The way I see it, my responsibility as an audience member is not to be entertained or even to learn stuff (the way it may be in an academic lecture or school classroom), but rather to have a prayer in my heart for her, that she and I both will be touched by the spirit, and to pay attention to her--even if it's hard and boring--the way I would want to be paid attention to if I were speaking. How we keep notes and record spiritual insights is our own buisness, and if that includes an electronic device, then great. (But can we really assume that this is all people would use texting for? Hardly.) Let's not convince ourselves that a good Sacrament meeting talk depends on anything other than the holy ghost, a relationship with whom it is my resposibility to cultivate, and no one elses.
And come on people, it's only an hour.
Jim if I didn't know you I would just think you were throwing things out there to make people crazy! Seriously. Your point can barely be argued because who is texting inspirational messages when they are texting in church? A very very low number, like no one. You are playing the what if exception game. As for being an entertaining teacher I think this is one reason education is going down. Students have no responsibility for their educations any more. I am not an entertainer, I am a teacher. I agree that I need to make the lessons engaging and motivating but ultimately the students need to take responsibility. Not everything is always entertaining and we need to learn to deal with that. Finally, since when do we adapt religion to fit into society? God doesn't adjust to fit into current trends.
ReplyDeleteThis is a response to several of the above comments:
ReplyDeleteI think what we're seeing here is a case of differing assumptions. Anonymous said seemed to indicate that once a church leader expresses an opinion on a topic, that issue is closed for discussion. I strongly disagree. First, if texting was put on the temple recommend interview or canonized in the standard words, I'd be willing to concede that its more than opinion. Before that however I think that it is very much open to interpretation. And while church leaders know more about the LDS church in the modern world, they're the last people I would turn to for information about technology. I realize this is NOT what you believe. My point is that we believe different things. And that we both think the other person is wrong. I think thats' the great thing about living in a time/place that allows for discussion. In any case, I am unconvinced by the argument that just because a church leader said something means that we can't form different opinions. I've heard that Brigham Young, for example, said that no one should ever wear pants with a zipper on them. Does that mean that was revelation? No. It means it was his (rather colloquial) opinion.
As far as the woman who spoke at your church, all I can say is that it sounds like it was a nice experience for you, but do you really presume to speak for everyone in the room? Do you seriously think that everyone got the same thing out of it as you?
Kim and others: I think that it IS the responsibility of instructors to ENGAGE students, though I never said they should entertain them. However, I think that we are in the midst of a radical paradigm shift and that the main problem with education is teachers failing to realize how radically different learning is today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. True, students do need to take responsibility, but that's difficult when teachers are generally unaware of how much they need to adapt to a new world and new media. I've been witness to this debate as I've taught English 150 and I think that teaching today is rather schizophrenic; it wants to hold onto old models of teaching while making token overtures to a changing world. Though I completely reject the idea "education is going downhill" (fashionable as that opinion is among educators), it that is the case its because teachers refuse to adapt as quickly as their students. I think this is nowhere more apparent than in religious discussion.
As far as religion adapting to the modern world, this constantly happens. When my grandma describes going to the temple, for example, she describes an experience that is wholly different from mine. Apparently they used to have open and closing hymns, live performances (which they still do in some places), etc. The changes were made to allow for people to move through the worship services more quickly. Even since I've been an adult I've been surprised at how much the temple process has changed. The move to a block schedule on Sundays is another obvious example. These changes weren't made because one way is BETTER than other, but rather because the conditions of the church members change, and so the way they performed their religious activities also had to change. Like I said, the doctrine doesn't have to change, but the media that conveys the doctrine does. So, to answer the question, we constantly adapt religion to fit society. In the LDS church and other churches.
Although I feel it may be a bit fruitless to try to persuade you on the matter, here is a link to another talk, which includes very direct counsel on the matter you address in this post:
ReplyDeletehttp://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-947-6,00.html
In this talk, Elder Oaks specifically says, "I sense that some in the rising generation and even some adults have not yet come to understand the significance of this meeting and the importance of individual reverence and worship in it. The things I feel impressed to teach here are addressed to those who are not yet understanding and practicing these important principles and not yet enjoying the promised spiritual blessings of always having His guiding Spirit to be with them. . . . Sacrament meeting is not a time for reading books or magazines. Young people, it is not a time for whispered conversations on cell phones or for texting persons at other locations. When we partake of the sacrament, we make a sacred covenant that we will always remember the Savior. How sad to see persons obviously violating that covenant in the very meeting where they are making it."
I think that's a bit more than apostolic opinion Jim. They're hard words, but they are true words. And I believe we (as congregations, as individuals, as families, and as a church) will benefit from following such counsel. Keep the sabbath day holy is a doctrine that will not change. Technology or not.
I'd hate to think that my opinion on any topic is completely closed. I'm always open to new evidence; the problem is that I don't see THIS evidence as particularly persuasive. I realize people will say things like my heart is in the wrong place, or I should just blindly submit to what Elder Oaks is saying, or whatever. The fact is, however, that I disagree with the no texting in church idea (even if the person who has that idea is Elder Oaks). Granted I don't think people shouldn't take their religious rituals lightly, but I don't think texting necessarily means they are (though in some cases it certainly does). What Elder Oaks fails to understand here (and I haven't read the full article yet, so maybe I'm wrong), is that texting can serve multiple purposes.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you attempt to persuade me isn't fruitless, the strategy is just the wrong one to use. I feel like I've already addressed the "well-an-apostle-said-it-so-its-true" argument by saying I reject it. As alarming an idea as that is, we can't really move forward with the discussion until we understand each other's positions and realize that our world views are (radically?) different. (If I was having this debate in Engl 150 I'd say we are in different stases and don't share the same assumptions).
In any case, though I think this particular talk DOES help me better understand that parameters of the church leaders argument. It seems far less techophobic than other talks, which is nice, if not refreshing.
Yes, well, I'm fully aware of our radically different world views, which is why I felt it was probably a bit of a waste of time to try and persuade you of anything. To be honest, I'm never quite sure how to respond without potentially coming across as offensive. But I thought it was worth a shot. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in blind obedience, believe it or not, but I do believe in faithful obedience, which seems to me a different thing.
I also think the issue here has little to do with being technophobic (lots of church leaders are really thrilled with technology, Elder Holland, Elder Ballard, Elder Uchtdorf) and I think they try hard to keep up with what they can. I'm sure a lot of them go to their children and grandchildren for all kinds of stuff.
But I think the issue here, while I concede your point about technology and missionary work, is that there is a time and a place for it, and sacrament meeting is not that place. I think what Elder Oaks is getting at (and I think he understands plenty - the talk doesn't really focus on the various uses of technology... it focuses on the purpose of sacrament meeting) is that sacrament meeting needs to be a place of reverence and worship. I think the idea is to minimize distraction, and cell phones and texting are distractions. He could have mentioned any number of things, but since that seems to be a larger problem, that's what got mentioned. I don't think the counsel is so specifically about texting as it is about reverence and personal improvement. Missionary work, sharing insights, etc. is a great thing. I hope we do use technology to do that as much as we can. But there is a time and place for missionary work, and there is a time and place for renewing personal covenants and focusing on what we need to do to remember the Savior and further develop a personal relationship with him. I think that sacrament meeting is for the latter, and missionary work can take place later, in this case.
So much changes about sacrament meeting (the boringness, for example) when we change our attitudes about it.
And I certainly didn't mean to force the "well-an-apostle-said-it-so-it's-true" view on you. That isn't exactly my belief anyway. I just think that the real issue was missed in the post. I don't think it's about technophobia, but reverence and understanding of time and place. God's house is a house of order, not one of multitasking. :)