- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This was suggested in another thread, and I thought it was such a good topic perhaps we could explore it here (if we haven’t already, I don’t remember this happening in this way in the past). If you were to guide a traditional believer in developing their ability to talk to less active or dissaffected LDS members, what would you suggest? For example, if a traditional believer believes it’s time to talk to a dissaffected member to encourage them toward greater levels of activity, how might they do so successfully, so they do more good than harm? What attitudes might they consider approaching the situation with?
Listen, really listen, with out judgement…because all that wander are not lost… Reflect carefully on your answers to their questions..really reflect don’t just spout the same old answers.
Try to put yourself in their shoes…really try.
Be real and genuine in your caring…really do it.
Acknowledge they have questions and it doesn’t make them evil for asking.
Accept that Prophets, Seers and Revelators are human and that every word they speak is not holy scripture and might just be human opinion.
That just because some one is a liberal or a democrat doesn’t make the evil or stupid…(I am serious about this, I know to many inactive members who are democrats that have been driven out of the church due to political views) Learn that political views and Church Doctrine are NOT the same thing.
Learn to separate the Cultural teachings from the Actual Doctrine and live the Doctrine not the Culture
AND
When it comes to hating, gossiping, ignoring, ridiculing, holding grudges, or wanting to cause harm, please apply the following:
Stop it!
Oh and realize the tatooed pierced smoking gang banging hoodlums are just as loved as you are by God. And if they show up to take the sacrament…welcome them with open arms instead of gasps of fear.
I would suggest they drop the short-term orientation we often see in activation efforts. Someone on the Ward council is assigned to talk to the Xson’s family. They go there, talk to them, get rejected, or get a commitment from the family to come to Church, and then the person never comes, so they take them off the focus family list and move on. I’m not really sure that a focus on metrics like # families activated, % of endowed members with temple recommends etcetera is a good goal anymore. I think the focus should be more on experience goals:
a) Do our members report feeling the Spirit in our meetings regularly?
b) Are the members satisfied with their Church experience?
c) Do people who come to the Ward for the first time feel warmth, love and acceptance?
d) Is there a strong sense of community in the Ward?
It seems that in religious circles, these are the most worthwhile things you can measure; people change when they want to change, and these metrics above encourage change, without demanding it right now.
These ideals (or others you think of) may well certainly drive the kinds of conversations that Arwen is suggesting above — non-judgmental ones that are more loving and less unkind.
I see effective conversations with the dissaffected (I don’t really like that word, by the way) as driven more by underlying attitudes than about specific behaviors.
SilentDawning wrote:a) Do our members report feeling the Spirit in our meetings regularly?
b) Are the members satisfied with their Church experience?
c) Do people who come to the Ward for the first time feel warmth, love and acceptance?
d) Is there a strong sense of community in the Ward?
I might add:
1) Are we building an environment where people who are indifferent or even put off by our truth claims can feel comfortable?
2) Should we?
I had a Stake President once who asked what I think is an incredibly proound question: Quote:“What would we have to change in order to have 50% of those attending any of our meetings be non-members – without sacrificing our core doctrine?”
I really like the comments so far, but I think the key is looking at it from the perspective of, “What would we have to change?” (rather than “How do we need to talk?”) I know the previous comments mention things we would need to change, but I think it’s important to say it explicitly in that way – since it puts the responsibility squarely on those trying to understand and talk.
Elder Wirthlin’s talk, “Concern for the One”, makes the same point – that it is the responsibility of those attending regularly to understand those who are not attending regularly. That’s an important distinction, and it needs to be explicit.
I really like some of the responses above given, especially Arwen’s points…those were right on :clap: Basically, to answer the questions:
SilentDawning wrote:For example, if a traditional believer believes it’s time to talk to a dissaffected member to encourage them toward greater levels of activity, how might they do so successfully, so they do more good than harm? What attitudes might they consider approaching the situation with?
My response would be:
“Why?”
Why does the traditional believer think its time to talk to a disaffected member?
If the motive is coming from, “Well, we need to have them in the church and apart of the group so they can have the blessings we have.”
…I guess, I would tell that believing member that it sounds like they are acting out of selfish reasons.
If the disaffected is happy and is not asking for help…then why do we need to talk to them?
If the traditional believer says, “We need to talk to them because I don’t think they know we love and accept them the way they are, that all we want to do is change them and I want to clear that up with them. I just want them to know we care and they are welcome.”
…with that response, I’d say we should talk to them when a genuine opportunity presents itself. Maybe we need their help with their skills…so the ward could use some advice from an expert. Maybe our kids share the same school, and we can offer a ride.
Perhaps I’m just a bit worried that after conference where the “Rescue Effort” was presented, that people will start feeling a duty to reach out and “save” the disaffected. Those believers need to be reminded that their intentions may not be pure, even if they are compelled to be obedient. Instead, they should reach out and just accept everyone…disaffected or not. And we can remind them of that. It is a benefit we can offer them by having the perspective from the middle way.
I really like this discussion. I have two things to add: 1). I remember when I was a missionary in Austria, my companion and I went to visit an inactive couple whose husband was very hostile to the church. Most of the members and missionaries had given up on this family because the husband was so bitter. I was very kind to him and asked him what bothered him the most. He went on a tangen about church history and stuff that he had read that I thought was anti-Mormon. It was difficult to listen to but I really tried to look beyond the words to what he was feeling. So, I do believe reflective listening and trying to understand is very important. I believe it took alot of his anger away just to know that someone was trying to understand and was really listening.
2). Sometimes, I have shared on this group how some of my own family members have attacked and insulted me for expressing my doubts and problems with the church or JS etc. It was very hurtful to be attacked and made to feel stupid or sinful. When I was still attending church, and had problems with things the teachers were saying about church history or looking at the manual lesson seeing no mention of BY or JS other wives were made, I felt frustrated because I knew I could not speak up and ask real questions like: “Why is there no mention of the other wives…they sacrificed and contributed alot…why do they not deserve to be mentioned or have statutes made of. When TBM would mention how wonderful and spiritual it was for them in the temple, I knew I couldn’t say, “Well, what about people like me who had bad or no spiritual experiences in the temple?” There is fear to be really honest with where you are at because it threatens members, so I don’t have the answers. It is my understanding that the church is trying to start a website where people with the difficult questions can go and get answers. I have often gone to the FAIR site and gotten some good answers, so that was helpful.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.