Hometeaching as a Temple Recommend Requirement?

I think we need to take some questions OUT of the interview – not add more.

However, I think the concept behind HT is more valuable and more important than some of the current questions – so why not? Scratch the whole WofW nonsense, and throw HT in there in it’s place. Why not? Replace one Pharisaical requirement with another.

If my Bishop said something like this – I would NOT home-teach, just because that is the way I am. I will home-teach and serve the Lord on my terms – not theirs. Something like this would just give me another valid reason to NOT attend the temple.

SD – when I read that post, I have to say that, IMO, there is some SERIOUS “unrighteous dominion” happening in your area. As we have discussed earlier, there are many MANY reasons why folks don’t do hometeaching, and for a local leader to pull a TR because of it is mind boggling to me. I mean, think about it, for 80% of active church members, they see this as the equivelent of “revoking one’s salvation.”

These reactions don’t surprise me, as generally, I find people are against the idea.

However, I found in my particular area, the Stake leaders are VERY adamant about home teaching — to the point of hurting relationships with their local leaders on whom they depend when perceived home teaching energy is low.

It seemed like the strangest dichotomy. On one hand, the program was emphasized and people regularly called to repentence over no home teaching like it was as important as oxygen, with Stake leaders talking about how it broached on temple recommend worthiness but then, there was no action on their part (such as even interviewing reluctant, temple recommend-holding brethren about HT after months of no home teaching) when local leaders had done everything in their power to pursuade their brethren to take on the responsiblity willingly.

My attitude going forward is that we have at least two alternatives as a Church to make this program work.

We can alter the program to make it easier to administer and execute, with success defined on a best-efforts basis, implementing some of the suggestions people made in the Alternatives fo Home Teaching thread. Reading through those suggestions brings me great peace when I think about administering hometeaching. Or, if we’re as serious about it as my local leaders are, if it truly does carry the weight of paying tithing or WoW, we can make it a hard commandment and embed it in temple recommend interviews.

The way we do it now elevates HT to the status of tithing and WoW, but there is nothing beyond moral suasion to get the job done. And that causes a lot of frustration. I don’t know about you, but I find it very hard to tolerate things in my life that never work the way they are supposed to for decades upon decades, AND people are constantly harping at me to make it work somehow (as a priesthod leader).

I guess I’m in level 4 when it comes to home teaching right now. To cope, I may well decide to either a) accept my next priesthood leadership calling with the caveat that I be left alone about administering home teaching. I’ll administer the program, but it will have to be on my own terms. Ward conferences, PPI’s need to steer clear of the topic and trust me to do my best. High Councilors leave me alone about it. Tell the Stake President or whoever calls me, and my local Bishop that I think the concept is good, but the administration requirements are flawed in their current state; that I will serve on the condition that I be left alone about the metrics, other than to give an arm’s length report each month, do the PPI’s, keep it organized, etcetera, but not be involved in any discussions about how to make it better; I’m like Moroni, laboring but without faith. Personally, if I was a SP, I wouldn’t call me unless I was absolutely desperate for someone to take the HPGL chair.

The other way of coping — refuse to be involved in its administration at all until the frustration with it leaves me. There are a lot of other ways you can serve in the Church without administering home teaching — you can be an Assistant in the HP group and never have to even touch the subject — you can focus on missionary work, temple work, helping the poor, planning service projects, planning socials, and being content to do a good job of your own hometeaching/fellowshipping families….or you can teach a class, even be in the Bishopric and simply not attend the PEC meeting on home teaching administration.

I don’t see these alternatives as necessarily getting you up to Level 5, but they at least prevent the program from keeping a person from becoming less active.

Right now, I don’t see any way of getting to level 5 with it, although I’m certainly open to suggestions.

Sounds to me like the leadership is rationalizing punishing those who are making them look bad. Church HT/VT reports are done quarterly to HQ (not monthly), so it’s only at the quarterly level that the leaders look bad to HQ – interesting that that’s where they are applying the consequences of pulling people in for a CTJM (Come to Jesus Meeting). Instead, they could be cleverer than that – build in better redundancies in the visiting (e.g. make some assigned “routes” a “batting cleanup” assignment) or rotate visits to the families who don’t want / need monthly to make sure those who consistently do the visits will get it all done quarterly.

People adding questions to the TR interview is a huge no-no. I would clearly tell them, “You can’t ask me that.” I have to think that these guys are going to hate that answer, but it is the truth. They’ve been instructed to read the questions as is with no interpretation or embellishment and to accept Yes and No answers.

If it’s not a formal question in the TR interview process, how about asking people about it informally in calls to positions and other personal interviews. Bishopric counselors mention it to people, the bishops ask about it, and give encouragement, but it’s not a formal temple recommend interview question.

A member of our SP asked me that question every time I had a temple recommend interview, but it was after he decided to issue the temple recommend. This way he was encouraging participation in the program, without necessarily tying it to the recommend issuance itself.

By the way, I’m neutral on this idea; more interested in hearing everyone’s reactions.