I'm still digging through letters regarding the question of whether a ward can be too reverent. (This question was posed two weeks ago by Stifled in Springfield, who wondered how she could visit the ward members she loved when she was prohibited from speaking in the chapel or in the halls or in the foyer during the three-hour meeting block.)

I'm finding that the letters fall in three categories:

I'll present the letters to you (in no particular order), and let you decide whether to be shocked and appalled at Stifled, shocked and appalled at Stifled's ward, or shocked and appalled at the helpfulness of the responses from Meridian readers. Shocking appalledness is ever so much fun!

Hi, I see where you feel stifled. I think the problem is that at one time the noise was out of control in your ward as was in mine. In the chapel in my church it was so loud when we walked into it, it sounded like a union meeting — not a sacrament meeting. So what we did was have our organist play 10 minutes before sacrament. Wow — how spiritual and comforting it is! And at the end of sacrament we were filed out in groups like yours.

We have 10 minutes between classes so if we want to chat we did it outside the chapel. Don't forget after church you can stand around and talk all you want. [Note from Kathy: You can stand around and talk all you want if you're the only ward meeting in the building or the last ward meeting in the building. If other wards are meeting when yours gets out, those ward members may not be too happy!]

What bothers me most in sacrament is the inconsiderate members who sit and read a book, drawing a picture, preparing a lesson that should have been done before, or snoring during a talk. Crying kids can't help it but they shouldn't be running around the chapel. Talking and hanging around in the halls is a no-no and very disturbing during a lesson. I'm sure if the members would work with the leaders they would ease up.

Jack in Canada

You make good points, Jack. It's very possible that the reverence policies in Stifled's ward were instituted because the ward had major reverence problems. I suspect that if ward members talked individually to the bishop instead of ganging up on him in ward council meetings, he might see they had a point. After all, Stifled herself pointed out that she had a great love and respect for her bishop, so I'm guessing he's a reasonable man. But if he doesn't agree with them, he's the bishop. The buck is going to stop with him.

The issue "Stifled" brought up is amazing. Even though the bishop set the rule, I am surprised that he got the ward to go along with it. I think several members of the ward council need to set an appointment with the bishop to discuss it. If they are not successful with him, then the stake president needs to get involved. This ward will lose members soon. No one wants that. I like the idea of entering the chapel quietly and even exiting quietly. To impose a "no talking" policy is dumb.

Thanks for bringing up the issue.

A reader in Fullerton, California

Thanks for your input, Fullerton . Perhaps a private appointment with the bishop from a small group of ward council members might be helpful in this situation.

I'd say that far from having a blind spot, Stifled's bishop is very wise. It is the ward members who need an attitude adjustment.

First of all, the chapel is a sacred area, and not just because of the sacrament service. The entire building is one of the houses of God. Our former stake president taught us many lessons on reverence; one of those was respect for the chapel area. He taught that no one , no matter how important they think their message is, should come up to the stand to speak to the bishopric before the meeting, that no one should talk aloud in the chapel before or after the meeting, and that no non-meeting business is to be conducted in the chapel (think of all those persons who bring their tithing envelopes up to the bishopric on the stand before the meeting).

Once I was about to begin playing the organ prelude when he came up behind me, tapped me on the shoulder, and beckoned to me to follow him; we went out into the hall where he gave me a message, and then we both returned to the chapel. I think that is when his example and efforts finally sank into my heart and I became deeply conscious of his feelings toward this place — the Lord's house, and began to share them.

Now it hurts my heart when I see people in the congregation laughing, speaking loudly, even calling to someone across the room — all while we're supposed to be preparing our spirits to receive the sacrament. The noise in the building foyers carries directly into the chapel. I'm sure every one of us has heard someone's loud voice from the foyer at an inopportune time during a sacrament service. Think of the decibel level of many voices laughing and greeting each other enthusiastically, and you can recognize the disruption that it can generate.

Your ward members have a big geographical space in which to greet each other — the confines of your ward boundaries. If you don't care enough about each other to telephone each other, or to visit in your homes, or to arrange activities together, then you really aren't dear friends, are you?

A card can be sent to a speaker whom you particularly enjoyed (and then the speaker will have a much more enduring and tangible memento of your feelings, and his/her appreciation will be multiplied accordingly). And if you choose to find fault with the bishop's policies, then you're fostering discontent and backbiting, rather than examining your own behavior and obedience. 

I hazard the guess that the sisters who are complaining about the present policy are the same ones who complain about not being allowed to wear pants, slacks, or jeans when they come into the chapel at times other than Sunday meetings — am I right?

For the past two years I've been pondering over the Apostle Paul's words in 1 Cor. 11:23-32, particularly the counsel for us to examine ourselves so we do not partake of the sacrament unworthily, and that unworthy eating the of the bread and water is a cause of weakness, sickness, and even death among us. If we truly appreciate the symbolism and meaning of this ordinance, we will do everything we can to make it the focus of our entire worship service — all three meetings, not only the sacrament meeting.

I feel very fortunate that this same stake president remained adamant that the wards in our stake follow the counsel to have sacrament meeting last in the meeting block — I believe it has enabled us to build our reverence in each meeting as we proceed through the hours to that time for renewal of the covenants we have made.

So my advice to "Stifled" is: Examine yourself. Ask the Lord what you need to change in your own heart in order to be truly reverent before Him, and ask Him how you can help be an example and teacher of reverence in your ward. He will answer.

Kathie Shepherd
Stansbury Park, Utah

Thanks for writing, Kathie. I always look forward to what you have to say.

Your letter pointed out how different all of us are — not only individually, but regionally. There are a lot of letters in my email box (some of which you'll read today) that say they feel much more reverent when they are warmly greeted in the chapel than when they are greeted by silence. And your letter was the first I'd heard about women complaining about not being able to wear jeans or slacks in the chapel on days other than Sunday. I didn't know that was even an issue!

It all goes to show we never know whose tender feelings we may be wounding. I have a feeling I tread on dozens of toes every Sunday and never even know it happened. How distressing!

Sorry, no sympathy for "Stifled."   Stifled says that most of us were happy to comply with a request from the bishop.  Implicit is gossip and backbiting, how else would this person have known what everyone else thought about the attitudes toward the request if they hadn't been talking amongst themselves about it?  Implied is that they are not happy to submit, or adapt to the request of the bishop. 

It sounds like an "us against them" situation these ward members have set up, even the ward council is against the bishop.  No argument when the bishop told [them] that [they] needed to be more reverent entering the chapel for sacrament meeting, but when he means it and tries to do what it takes in the second and third request to ensure the reverence then it gets ugly.  I have seen it time and again and this letter is another example. 

Stifled, reverence isn't to simply get in the mood   for taking the sacrament.  It is a completely different mindset, not even that, it is a change of heart.  "'By participating weekly and appropriately in the ordinance of the sacrament we qualify for the promise that we will “always have his Spirit to be with [us]'. That Spirit is the foundation of our testimony," quoted from Elder Oaks' Oct. 08 general conference, emphasis added.  When you have that Spirit you don't get so wound up with your bishop; it is cyclical.

It is sad that those attending do not feel the need to take on the issue of reverence individually, which would have preempted the formal dismissal from meetings and made the pleas for reverence unnecessary. I believe that Stifled will be surprised how open and friendly things seem once people take personal responsibility for their actions and thoughts and feelings and square it with the Lord.

Hoping for Zion in Virginia

Thanks for a thoughtful letter, Hoping. You have some good suggestions, although I hope Stifled doesn't follow the example of your ward members who skip gospel doctrine to catch up on their visiting!

Now are three short ones:

"Stifled" needs the Freedom Fighters to come to her ward as soon as possible. The Taliban has clearly taken over. She has tried talking to the bishop. The next step is to quietly start going to another, more friendly ward. We had some similar talks in our area and then about two weeks later, we had a general authority at stake conference. There he was, greeting members in the chapel, smiling and even having his picture taken with members. The temple is a sacred place. The chapel is just a building.

Keith Christensen
Modesto, California

Interesting point, Keith. I remember once when Elder Maxwell attended our stake conference and went around the chapel before the meeting began, greeting people and visiting with them. That would be a fond memory of mine if I hadn't had a cracked bone in my ankle and was resting my leg on the bench, so I didn't rise when he shook my hand. I've been embarrassed about that ever since!

Stifled I would advice you to go to the stake president, and see what he says about this.

A reader from Salt Lake

That might be a good option, Reader. Thanks for writing in.

I agree that not being able to quietly talk in the corridors is a bit OTT. That is the standard for the temple, not a ward building. I'm glad your ward members are sustaining the bishop by carrying out his wishes even though you don't agree with them; that shows faith.

Make sure you contact the other members of your ward family by email, telephone and personal visit during the week. Some members go grocery shopping or walking together to spend friendship time together in a busy world. Joint FHE's, visiting teaching and home teaching are good for socializing and uplifting one another too.

Vim

Thanks for your letter, Vim. I'm sure Stifled will be gratified to see that someone is giving the members of her ward credit for doing as the bishop asks even when they don't agree with the policy.

I agree with Stifled.  The Bishop undoubtedly thinks he is doing what our apostle that asked us to be more reverent is asking for.  We are encouraged to be friendly, loving people and what better place to show this than at Church!   Isn't that “having the Spirit with us”?  

We have the opening and sacrament hymns to help us be reverent — and we can do it by listening to the prayers and singing the hymns. 

Our stake has a 5-minute get reverent suggestion .   We are seldom successful with that, but isn't our Gospel the “Plan of Happiness”?  How can we sing — and feel “There is Sunshine In My Heart Today” if there is no sunshine (love)? 

Maybe emphasis could and should be placed on preparing our hearts for the sacrament starting in our homes on Sunday morning in our personal and family prayers and then while the hymn and sacrament prayers are said.  When our bishopric announces the sacrament they say, “We will prepare for the sacrament by singing (hymn title and page number).”   And we do have a reverent sacrament and a reverent meeting in spite of all the friendly chatter before and after meeting. 

The opening prayer often includes the request to prepare our hearts for the Lord's sacrament in addition for being grateful for it.  Gratitude may be the answer — grateful that we are a friendly people and can show love and concern for others at all times — including before and after meetings.   

Suggestion: (which you probably are already doing) — pray hard. My prayers are with you!

Friendly in Arizona

Thanks for a warm and compassionate letter, Friendly. You sound as though you'd make an excellent ward activities chairman.

And now our last letter of the day -

We, here in Utah, also have a situation in our ward where the membership is dropping off like flies.  Three families have even moved because of the bishop, and one family is just waiting for their lease to run out.  They won't even let anyone contact them.  Two past Relief Society presidents have gone inactive.  As you see, there is a monumental problem here.

As far as reverence is concerned, we have been instructed to be very reverent in the chapel as well and to leave immediately when the meeting is over with no talking.  Women have been counseled not to wear denim skirts or dresses and to wear close-toed shoes, and, believe this or not, not to wear perfume.

Don't get me wrong here.  I will and have testified to the world that the Gospel of Jesus Christ as embraced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.  The Church, however, is run by imperfect people who, many times, take things too seriously, too far, or put their own interpretation in a directive or idea.

Reverence in the chapel is important and should be maintained, I agree.  People should wear their "best" clothing when coming to church.  There are those families, however, that in wearing their best, the best that they have, may not be up to "code" with what the "leaders" have concocted in their minds.  Are they to be shunned?  If they talk to someone in a meeting or in the chapel while entering or leaving before or after a meeting, or in the hallway, are they to be tarred and feathered?  I say no. 

If a person walks in the chapel during a meeting with tattoos on both arms and reeks of cigarette smoke wearing jeans and sandals, is he to be shunned?  NO (A person curious about the Church came in a chapel one day dressed in jeans and a t-shirt in a neighboring ward once and a bishopric member turned him away. Naturally, the person never returned.)

I realize the subject is reverence, and I mention all these things because they all intermix.  But people are more important than rules in my opinion (don't take that statement out of context).  If we offend, or either become or show like we are indifferent to those who we serve and live around, how are we to help them and ultimately ourselves?

Just because a person holds a particular office does not give him (or her) the right to create a police state in the Church or in our lives.  Our leaders are actually there to assist us in accomplishing what we need to do to further the Lord's work.  The stake president's main job is to assist the bishops of the stake he presides over.  The bishop's main job is to assist the membership of the ward he presides over. 

If a ward membership is only going through the motions while in meetings or doing the Lord's work outside of meetings because of poor morale, then I submit that reverence is not and cannot be present and therefore we cannot be as effective.  That's what is currently going on in our ward, unfortunately and it is a sad thing to watch.

One-size-fits-all rules are not a good thing in most cases.  Had I taken that tack in law enforcement, I would not have been nearly as effective as I was.  The same thing applies in all aspects of our lives.  There are times when setting the rules aside for a time can be more beneficial than enforcing them (as in the case of the investigator in jeans). 

We need to be very careful about how we treat others, especially in a church setting.  As with a passive attitude, too many rules will reduce the effectiveness of a membership and cause problems that would not otherwise occur.  I believe that we as a membership have the "obligation" to inform the bishop of a problem that affects the ward membership and state our feelings.  I have done so a few times with bishops, especially our current one. 

Talk with your bishop.  If you feel the need to do so in a group, then do so.  But let him (or other leaders who are causing distress) know of your concerns and do it kindly.  He may not even be aware.  If he is and won't change direction and the ward is being negatively affected, then contact the stake president.  I have also done this once.  There are ways and avenues to encourage positive change and once again, a one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible.

A reader in Smithfield, Utah

Wow, Smithfield. I think you have just given Stifled a good reason to appreciate her own ward and her own bishop and even her own reverence police. Things can always be worse. Thanks so much for writing

I've noticed that wards, like people, can go in cycles. Sometimes a ward is friendlier or more spiritual or more compassionate than it is at other times, depending on who leads the ward and who the members of the ward are. Given the ever-changing nature of ward leadership, if you don't like the way things are being run, wait awhile. One of the only constants in life is change.

Okay, readers, that's it for this week. We still have enough letters on the subject for another week or two and then we'll move on to another topic.

Until next time — Kathy

“One act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer