A friend in my ward (congregation) sent over this wonderful video which very clearly and cleverly explains exactly what to expect when attending an LDS worship service.
If you have been curious what LDS church is like, or if this video made you curious, I would encourage you to go! It is likely that someone will approach you after sacrament meeting and introduce themselves, but if you simply say “I only wanted to come this week to see what it was like, and I’ll be attending my own church after this.” They will likely respond with “Well it’s wonderful to have you with us this week,” and proceed to ask you if you need help finding the next location where you should go. At the very least you will get to see some really cute babies. Our ward is brimming with them, and it’s very motivating for me to watch them crawl around each Sunday. I want one!
LDS bloggers and readers, I encourage you to spread this video around as well, it’s a really wonderful way to teach people what going to church is like for us.
February 7th, 2009 on 5:34 pm
The whole time I was watching this I thought “where have I seen something like this before?!” It bothered me through the entire thing. And then at the end, when YouTube pops up all the other videos you can watch across the bottom of the video screen, I saw it- Prop 8 made simple. Then I remembered that one of my friends had sent me that same Prop 8 video during the election.
I guess I’m just wondering- if the straight couple already hangs out with the friendly gays next door, and invites them to barbeques, takes them soup when they’re sick, etc., then their kids have already been “exposed” to the gay “lifestyle” way more than kids having ONE book read to them about two kings getting married, you know what I mean? So it makes no sense that Mrs. Straight Mom, who just *loves* her friendly gay neighbors enough to let them watch her dog and hang out with her kids, would freak out and decide to vote for Prop 8 when her sister calls and tells her “My child had a book read to her about TWO KINGS getting MARRIED!”. And furthermore, despite the fearmongering of *all* the churches involved, there is no way that churches would be forced to marry gay people if they didn’t want to. The oft-cited case is the Catholic charities adoption agency that was “forced” to close because it wouldn’t allow gay people to adopt kids. The difference is thus- if a church decides to keep people from membership due to their lifestyle, hey, that’s fine. It’s America, that’s what’s great about it! I absolutely support religious freedom, no church should be forced to perform ceremonies. BUT, in this case, the Catholic church was making an executive decision about children’s lives with far reaching ramifications- I mean, clearly there already aren’t enough families to adopt kids or, um, there wouldn’t be any kids to adopt
So the Catholic church was preventing children from being able to have a home due to their religious beliefs- in essence, they were forcing their religion and their values on the children, and as a result there was the very real possibility that some of those children would never be adopted. Some may say “hey, I’d much rather grow up in a Catholic orphanage than have two daddies or two mommies that love me!”. Maybe so, but the kids weren’t being given a choice.
I’m sorry, I sometimes pop into your blog and I really love it, and I know that wasn’t the point of your post, but when it popped up on the screen after the video you posted and I watched it again just got me thinking about one thing. Think about how happy you were when you found that video about Sunday meeting. “Yay, this explains it perfectly!” you thought. The information that was presented in it accurately depicted your faith. And those very same people presented a video that did not accurately represent Prop 8, which is an issue near and dear to *my* heart. I’m glad they were thoughtful in their treatment of your religion but the Prop 8 video was a little *too* simple if you ask me.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
February 7th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Chris I have to be honest, I don’t even think i have the energy to get into this.
So I will simply say, that without an understanding of the Plan of Salvation, one can never fully understand why the Church would urge its members to take a stand on Prop 8 the way they did. We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and that to return to live with God you can only be in a heterosexual relationship.
The entire belief system is based on the concept of a traditional family. We also believe that when a Prophet gives a command, it is from God. So the members who acted the way they did, did so because they believe it is the will of the Lord.
Someday, I will write a post that better explains the Church’s view on gay marriage, and why I believe the way I do. But I just need more time to heal from the attacks I personally went through before I do.
Reply
Chris Reply:
February 7th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I fully understand that aspects of your faith lead you to deny gay marriage and to affirm that homosexuality is abberrant- yet the important distinction is that nothing about your belief system was threatened by passing gay marriage. If gay marriage is legal, gay people get married. Your church can continue to deny to seal gay people, or to deny membership to non-celibate gays. Again, that is a right that I would fight for you to have. We should all have the liberty to practice our faith.
But voting against gay marriage doesn’t help you in your faith. Gay people will exist with or without gay marriage- trust me, it’s not like there are armies of homosexuals waiting to come out if only gay marriage could be legalized! All of the worries of influence, and “confusing” children would still be there- whether or not the lesbian couple at the dinner table next to you are married or not, your kid is still going to see them, you know? Ellen is going to be on T.V. regardless of whether or not her marriage is legal. Denying gay marriage doesn’t protect your faith, and it doesn’t get rid of gay people, and we’ve already established that people should have freedom of religion to practice as they should, so to me it seems unnecessary to legislate your personal flavor of morality into law.
Trust me, if there was a law that said “all churches will have to marry gay people” heck yes fight against that! That law would be ridiculous and against our constitution, and I would be marching the streets right next to you in defense of your faith. Honestly, that’s the only reason I mentioned it- because of the parallel between your happiness at your faith being represented correctly, and the joy you get from your faith, and the fact that you and many other faithful people chose to take your faith and make it law and therefore infringe on the beliefs and values of others. I one hundred percent don’t think you’re mean, or cruel, or anything else because you don’t support gay marriage…but the logical part of me thinks, you already have the freedom to feel that way, you already take part in a church that has policies regarding homosexuality, why is it necessary to take that step outside of your sphere of your beliefs and then force others to abide by your beliefs? It’s not about “standing up for what you believe in” because you already do by taking part in a religion that states homosexual behavior is a sin. I think that’s what has me soooo confused about the issue. It seems like an unnecessary overreach of the churches. Does that make sense?
Lastly I sincerely hope you didn’t think I was trying to attack you- this is just really one of those sticky issues that is just so hard for each side to wrap their head around the other side. And also just to clear something up- I was absolutely DISGUSTED by the defacement of the temple in California, and the ignorance of the signs at the protest in front of it. It makes me sick to think of someone’s holy building being attacked that way- completely unacceptable! The reaction by some segments of the gay community was hostile and petty and was just as discriminatory and biased as they felt they were being treated.
I’ll end this with saying- I just really like to talk about this stuff openly and I am over and over again impressed with your grace in talking with people with whom you disagree. It’s nice to see a place where we might not all agree, but we can be e-friends anyway
Reply
R Reply:
February 7th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Jenna, please feel free to delete this if it bothers you that the conversation is so very far off topic.
Chris, as a Catholic who cares a *lot* about adoption (and is sensitive to how astoundingly heterosexist our culture is) I would appreciate it if you would look into the Catholic Charities of Boston case a bit more before citing it in comments about LDS issues. Boston Catholic Charities wasn’t keeping kids in orphanages rather than placing them with stable gay couples. Catholic Charities was doing an amazing job of placing *foster* children with special needs. The state chose to allow children to continue to be shuffled around rather than adopted because the agency that was doing the best job of placing hard-to-place children had received a reminder from the bishops to not place children with gay couples (something they had been doing).
It was actually a case of progressives sacrificing the quality of children’s lives on the alter of equality, not of conservatives sacrificing the children to homophobia. This is not to say that the bishops’ method of handling the situation was flawless, but it is hard to take people seriously when they’re just grabbing onto anti-Catholic ideas without checking the facts. I think that we should all be sad about the loss of an agency that was doing a great service for children who needed it the most. And we should all be horribly worried about what will happen if the government tries to force Catholic hospitals to agree to allow abortions.
Reply
Chris Reply:
February 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am
My friend R, I am hardly anti-Catholic, as I adore my ardently Catholic grandmother
Sorry you took it that way, I apologize for your feelings of being personally insulted by it. More than once in my post I reference my willingness to fight alongside anyone for religious freedoms. I also never mentioned anything about Catholic hospitals, so I hope if I said anything that you interpreted as a slight you know that I really didn’t give a single thought to anything related to hospitals or abortions. Have a good day!
Reply
February 7th, 2009 on 6:00 pm
This was a great way to explain your services. There are so many things that seem wonderful.
I would love to know more about the third part- priesthood and relief society.
Reply
February 7th, 2009 on 8:48 pm
I will admit it often gets distracting when there is a child running up and down the aisles during sacrament meeting, but it’s probably just because she’s the only child in the room. I’m sure during family services you get used to it.
Reply
February 7th, 2009 on 9:49 pm
Thanks for posting this. I have one question about it though… what does it really mean when the narrator says “not expected”? Is it a euphemism for not permitted?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
February 7th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Nope, it means “you don’t have to do it”. I believe you are referring to the part where they talk about the sacrament? The sacrament is an ordinance that those who are baptized participate in to renew their covenants. Therefore, if a person hasn’t been baptized taking the sacrament doesn’t technically do anything for them because they haven’t made those covenants with God.
Visitors are always free to do so, however. Children younger the age of 8 also commonly take the sacrament, even though they haven’t made the covenants either.
Reply
Stacy Reply:
February 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
That’s interesting that the sacrament is considered to not do anything if the person hasn’t been baptized. I was raised Catholic (I’m not anymore, but I did Catholic gradeschool, mass 3 times a week, the works), and until we made our First Communion (this usually happens around Eastertime in 2nd grade, after a year’s worth of education on what communion and Eucharist means, etc), we were blessed by the priest and not even offered the bread and wine.
I know Catholicism believes in transubstantiation (I love that word, try saying it 3 times fast!), where the bread and wine is turned into the actualy body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is why blessings are offered to people who have not yet received their First Communion/non members (Catholics have closed communion services). So do LDS members believe that the combination of being baptized and ingesting the sacrament is what makes communion a sacrament? And do you all believe, as Catholics do, that what you are eating is the actual body and blood of Jesus?
Reply
Jenna Reply:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:03 am
The LDS Church doesn’t use the word “communion” the way that other churches do. Other than using it in a way to see “to be close to someone and communicate with them”, we actually never use it at all. I had to Wikipedia it to make sure I understood what it meant so I could try to answer your question
For us, the sacrament is an ordinance, a rite that we undertake which gives us the chance to reflect on the atonement and renew promises we previously made with God at baptism.
No, we do not believe in transubstantiation. The bread and water are symbols to help us remember the sacrifice.
Reply
February 8th, 2009 on 1:42 am
Jenna I’m so glad you found this video. I love it.
It makes everything so simple and easy to understand. Thanks for sharing it…I’m going to pass it on!
Reply
February 8th, 2009 on 6:32 pm
Cute video - it makes me wish one like it existed for Catholic masses… all that sitting down and standing up and kneeling and standing up again gets confusing sometimes. I remember bringing Mr Fink to a Polish mass once - all those gymnastics are even MORE confusing when you can’t understand the language (as you can imagine!).
I don’t think I ever told you this, but I actually went to a few Mormon services in my youth, back in high school when my best friend was Mormon. I even dated two very nice Mormon boys (and had to get a recommendation to go to the dances). Watching this video gave me huge flashbacks. I remember thinking those trays were so cute and funny at the same time.
Reply
February 8th, 2009 on 11:25 pm
Jenna, I like that video a lot. I have never seen it before, its pretty cute. Have you seen this one:
http://www.vimeo.com/2120177
Rachel does a really great job takings some tough questions and getting across what it is like to be LDS in real life.
♥ Celina
Reply
Jenna Reply:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Love love love it. Celina. Seriously. I’ve watched them all and now I want more!
Reply
February 9th, 2009 on 8:15 am
Jenna, I thought about Chris’ comment and your response throughout the weekend, and I think I “get it.” Can you let me know if I’m on the right track?
The general idea that I’m picking up is that you (as a person of LDS faith) are trying to save my soul. So, because it’s not about me as a person but rather about my soul, (if I were gay) you would oppose gay lifestyle.
Reply
Jenna Reply:
February 13th, 2009 at 2:17 am
This question has taken me several days to get around to because it’s such a complicated subject. I hope you will keep in mind that I am not an official authority on the subject, and that I am constantly trying to understand this principle better myself.
The concept of “saving” someone is thought of very differently in the LDS church. Most churches believe there is heaven and hell, and if you aren’t “saved” you go to hell and live with the devil. It’s not like that for us. We believe that ALL are saved through the atonement, no matter what (okay except for a few rare cases but they are seriously so extreme that I just don’t worry about them).
So it’s not exactly about saving people, because I don’t think a person is going to go to hell because they are gay. The reason why the LDS faith fights so hard against the homosexual lifestyle is that we believe that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God”. I’m going to say this straight out, and I hope you will work to understand it and not be offended, but essentially homosexuality is a perversion of what God intended.
Perversion often gets turned into a term that means “evil” but I prefer to think of it in relation to this scripture:
For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
I realize some person is goign to come along and read this and say “you think homosexuality is natural, so why is it wrong?” Nope, that’s not what I am saying. What I mean when I quote that scripture is that after the fall of Adam mortals have been presented with many choices. We can choose to harness our desires for the “carnal” things of this world, to put off the natural man and become like God, or we can submit to our nature.
One thing that many people don’t know, is that you can be a homosexual, and be open about your sexual preferences, and still be a member of the church in good standing. You can even attend the temple and everything. But to do that, you have to harness those desires of the natural man, and not many can do it because it is a very difficult thing to achieve.
I’m nervous that I did a horrible job answering this question. I hope that things won’t be taken out of context, I hope it helped you understand. Someday, I will get up the nerve to post about homosexuality and the Church. Right now, it’s just too hard, and I can’t handle the attacks I would receive because of it.
I do appreciate your questions though, and I hope you will continue to ask them in the future.
Reply
March 8th, 2009 on 12:02 am
[...] mentioned before that I go to Church for 3 hours every week. Last week I went to Church for four because we had what [...]