- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I had dinner with a TBM couple and their family this evening. They are exemplary in every way, physically, spiritually, you name it. We get along very well, which I found interesting as this was the first time I was in close proxmity to traditional believers for a long time — potentially slipping up with my contrarion ideas. Overall, it was a very good evening…I was able to talk traditional mormonism genuinely without raising any eyebrows, focusing philosophy of leadership, and said nothing contrarion, yet was pretty much myself. They are in a different Ward, so we were not a service project that I’m aware of. One thing came up that confused me. The wife is in a stake calling, and I asked for the manpower landscape of the stake. She said ALL wards are stretched for people to serve effectively in callings — except one Ward. That ward was teaming with people. They described the quality of the orientation of their young men when they moved into it, monthly youth temple trips, and so many other positive, organized, features of the Ward that showed how programs are SUPPOSED to work. This particular Ward was a McDonalds with hamburgers, a car dealership with cars on the lot, an exercise room with solid equipment manned by able trainers.
They felt the plethora of people available to fill callings capably was key to it all. When they needed a Bishop, everyone in the HP Group was a possible candidate given worthiness, ability and family situation, they said.
This is atypical in my view — out here in the mission field. Wards tend to be strapped for people. Yet it doesn’t HAVE to be this way. Wards could be allowed to grow to a much larger size than they are on average, so there are simply enough people to serve in callings to make programs good. Why do we not see more of this? Is there some business benefit to having a lot of legal units? Does it reduce the investment in buildings, since several small wards can meet effectively in a building, rather than forcing the Church to build/add on to another building to accomodate a larger Ward?
I have heard the old adage “small wards give more people an opportunity to serve”. But frankly, the hit the programs take, and the burnout us leaders take doesnt’ compensate for it in my view.
I am confused about this really — I have served in one (maybe two) Wards where the programs ran well — my whole Church existence. The most recent Ward TOTALLY ENERGIZED my family and pulled me out of semi-activity by simply being there, and witnessing the strengths in the programs. Yet, as a Church in general, normally the Wards are stretched, auxiliaries not fully staffed, myself and others burned out from simply too much to do and not enough people to go around.
Why are we this way? Why can’t we optimize our Wards to ensure that when people come they are fed, when they participate, the experience is good, for the ultimate benefit to their spirit and activity?
SilentDawning wrote:…The wife is in a stake calling, and I asked for the manpower landscape of the stake.
She said ALL wards are stretched for people to serve effectively in callings — except one Ward. That ward was teaming with people…They felt the plethora of people available to fill callings capably was key to it all…This is atypical in my view — out here in the mission field. Wards tend to be strapped for people. Yet it doesn’t HAVE to be this way. Wards could be allowed to grow to a much larger size than they are on average, so there are simply enough people to servein callings to make programs good. Why do we not see more of this? Is there some business benefit to having a lot of legal units? Does it reduce the investment in buildings, since several small wards can meet effectively in a building, rather than forcing the Church to build/add on to another building to accomodate a larger Ward?…I have heard the old adage “small wards give more people an opportunity to serve”. But frankly, the hit the programs take, and the burnout us leaders take doesnt’ compensate for it in my view…Why are we this way? Why can’t we optimize our Wards… Personally, I don’t think there is any hidden agenda to jerk people around as much as humanly possible even though that is often the end result of their lack of planning and resistance to change anything from the way we have always done things. To be honest, I don’t think they really put that much thought into ward divisions; basically if they have a certain number of active members within a certain mile radius then it looks like they will typically divide the members into a certain number of wards without necessarily trying to measure how dependable these paricular members are to be able to fill all the expected callings. Of course, in areas without a high percentage of Church members they probably feel like they have to settle for smaller wards and branches mostly so that members in the area don’t have to travel quite as far to attend meetings.
One possible problem with this approach is that maybe the same number of active members is not quite the same thing as what it meant 20 years ago in terms of the overall willingness to endure all these callings. In any case, the more ambitious and easily manipulated members often end up doing way more than their fair share of the work. Another question is just how much of this work is absolutely necessary to keep a ward/branch running at a minimal level and how much is just a matter of policy and tradition? In my opinion much of this work is mostly pointless other than being a convenient way to exploit people’s sense of duty to get them to attend meetings when they don’t really feel like it. That’s why I think a better solution than combining wards would be to first reduce the overall amount of time and effort expected out of the average member to fulfill callings, but because they refuse to do that my solution is simply to say no to callings and to discourage my wife from getting sucked into this manipulation as much as I can.
Quote:Personally, I don’t think there is any hidden agenda to jerk people around as much as humanly possible even though that is often the end result of their lack of planning and resistance to change anything from the way we have always done things.
I wasn’t implying that was the motive — I said they want to keep their facilities as utilized as possible, and this happens more easily with smaller wards that can stagger meeting times and keep the place busy as much as possible. The members pick up the tab by having worse programs, multiple callings, and burn-out.
Quote:Another question is just how much of this work is absolutely necessary to keep a ward/branch running at a minimal level and how much is just a matter of policy and tradition? In my opinion much of this work is mostly pointless other than being a convenient way to exploit people’s sense of duty to get them to attend meetings when they don’t really feel like it. That’s why I think a better solution than combining wards would be to first reduce the overall amount of time and effort expected out of the average member to fulfill callings, but because they refuse to do that my solution is simply to say no to callings and to discourage my wife from getting sucked into this manipulation as much as I can.
Good point. Part of my new coping strategy is that I don’t get involved with time wasters. These include training meetings deemed mandatory for people who have heard it a buzillion times. Training meetings formed without a needs analysis conducted to see what the people REALLY need, moving other people when they are fully capable of arranging their own moves, visits to less-actives who have shown no desire to come back. I have wasted a LOT of time doing such things in my lifetime…no more.
However, I still think having a lot of people can help the IMPORTANT things get done properly. LIke having good Ward programs that people WANT to be part of.
I think they are trying to achieve some things by dividing wards and keeping them small, and the non-effective parts you see are just by-products of achieving their aims. As congregations get larger, it becomes more difficult for volunteers (bishops, RS presidents, primary presidents…) to know what to do. They also try to keep building investments to a minimum, so 3 small wards can share a building rather than build a huge building for one large congregation.
pros of smaller congregations:
– more leadership callings for people to grow in
– you get to know everyone better, and know each others’ needs
– easier to get focus and hold activities with manageable size groups, including service opportunities and classrooms.
Cons of smaller congregations:
– more pressure on the few highly motivated servers, if they don’t show…nothing gets done.
– less effective activities if the few talents you have to draw on are not experienced
– it’s harder to hide in the back of the chapel and not get noticed
😳 (that’s mine)All things have opposites. There is no ideal. You just pick the best choice and go with it. My experiences have been I have more enjoyed smaller congregations in the East US over larger congregations in the West. Not sure if it is East-West or small-large, but I seem to like small even though they are less effective in some areas.
When they added a new ward to our stake my husband was called to be the bishop (of the current ward, not the new one). When SP called him the comment was made that our ward had been “gutted.” Yep. There are a lot of people, not just a lot of actives ones. It’s difficult. Plus our ward covers “in town” and “out of town” and for some reason with the ward splits this has been a big factor where before it didn’t matter. I’m not sure what that has to do with this discussion but I thought it was an interesting comment. I have no idea why the SP thought we needed a new ward in our stake, it’s made our ward much less effective and enjoyable. I’m sure in time we’ll recover.
Observant — had your Ward outgrown the building? “Effective” can mean so many things. Our Church is the only Christian denomination that functionally organizes on a strict geography basis. This creates an immediate constraint — distance from the meeting house. It seems like small wards happen where the density of active members is low, and there’s only so far someone can live from a meeting place and it still be practical enough to attend. This creates a fascinating tension — you can’t shop really for a better congregation like people do in other Christian denominations. If you don’t like the Bishop or the ward, you are kind of stuck. I think this is both good and bad, but mostly approve of it. It forces people to try to solve their problems and fix things instead of just running for easier and greener pastures when the going gets tough. I recall living in the Chicago suburbs as a child, and it took us 45+ minutes to drive to our chapel. I’ve also been in really tiny branches overseas in the military with just a dozen folks. We did a short sacrament meeting followed by a combined Sunday School / Priesthood / Relief Society lesson. Those small military branches were some of my best memories in the Church.
See, I think boxing the members in so they are stuck to work out their problems isn’t always good. People just deal with it by going inactive or attending a different organization altogether. Others attend another Ward unofficially but then, can’t be given a calling. Plus, it’s the nature of relationships to go through phases. There is the honeymoon period when everyone is new, and you are on your best behavior to get off on the right foot. Then life and reality sets in and people do things which offend others or create gaps in the relationship. Some relationships blossom during this period, but it tends to be sporadic. Then many people experience a period where it’s all routine and even a bit boring and need a change.
Having flexibility and change keeps things alive and vibrant, just like moving the furniture around in your office has that effect after years of the same layout.
Now, for people with a deep understanding of Christ’s message, I’ve noticed that during the phase when feathers are ruffled, they take proactive steps to repair the relationship, invest in it, and improve it….but I find those people are the exception and not the rule.
Old-Timer wrote:“Effective” can mean so many things.
Effective = solid ward programs that boost attendance and improve the lives of the people in the auxiliaries
Effective= sufficient manpower to be able to achieve results such a reactivation, temple attendance, service to others
Effective= able to get the day to day service and Church-related assignments done without burning out the same ten people, or letting things fall off the table
Effective=enough people so Ward leaders have time to do their jobs properly, rather than neglecting them and leaving the membership hanging.
I still think if you’re going to advertise yourself as the only true Hamburger joint, you’ve got to have some really good hamburgers in stock when people show up for them. There will always be a few who come anyway, but there a a lot who will just leave disillusioned.
Effective = I feel love and spiritual fulfillment when I go that strengthens me in being better at home with my family, despite the Gajillion distractions (church administrations) that are part of any organization. We were a one ward building. It was a little slice of heaven.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.