Rescue of inactive members

I think it has to be considered on a case by case basis. It’s not a job I’d like to do.

I want it done, due to some past experiences.

To me, DNC means just that, but I want the one who has wandered or drifted to be sought.

I think it’s a worthwhile thing to do. Consider why you’re still involved in the church, and invite them based on those reasons. I think it’s good to give people the opportunity to reconsider what they once thought to be valuable in their life.

When I was a missionary in Mexico, we’d use the member list as a way to tract. It was easier to say “We’re looking for this person do you know where he/she lives?” then go on to explain who we were and what we were about. It was far less intrusive than “Hi. We are here to convert you from the faith that your family has been practicing for hundreds of years.” When we found the person we were looking for, we’d say that we were updating the church records and then share a message, invite them to an activity, or etc, etc.

I don’t disagree. In my experience MANY of these “lost” people were baptized, maybe came for another month, and have been inactive for 10 to 20 (or more) years. It may have been important to them at one point, but for a very short time. Nevertheless, you never know when that one person is just waiting for that knock on the door.

DNC should be respected though.

If my tag says DNR, then DON’T RESUSCITATE ME!!!

Same goes for DNC. Respect people’s decisions.

I did literally hundreds of these visits as a HPGL. I determine the following:

1. I will never ask anyone to have their name removed. That is not charitable and is usually motivated by a desire to boost numbers. It also continues the culture of selling out people who are not in the mainstream in the church. Shame on that.

2. I will not contact DNC’s — that is disrespectful.

3. Better to have good wards with strong lessons and programs. Not one person came back from our visits of all those homes — but we had loads of people spontaneously show up at church. They need to have a good experience when they get there. Focus on that.

4. I will no longer weed the ward, as they call it, because it will be out of date within a year or more. Time is better spent having an impact in ways that really matter.

But you might enjoy it — I wouldn’t discourage anyone from doing it, but I’m certainly not enamoured with the idea anymore given my phase of development, which isn’t any better than anyone else’s, just that i’ve been down that path before.

SD

I dealt with this. I see earnest effort as well as a business like push for more numbers and resources.

For that reason it is conflicting to me. I see a lot of contacting of people that asked not be be contacted. Not just a re-contact but several re-contacts by escalating chain if command–mission->fellowship>bishop>bishopric>sp>sp HC>area or ga.

I see earnest efforts that se to ignore the person request because “they don’t know what’s best for them”.

The real problem is when someone sees themselves as a rescuer. It should not be called a rescue attempt because of the physiological impact that has on the “rescuers”.

Here is a recent quote from a adoption article I read some months ago that us very accurate to what I see in ourselves many times.

“When our thinking becomes ‘us as rescuers,’ we’re in grave danger,” Medefind wrote on the alliance website. “What often follows is the pride, self-focus and I-know-better outlook that has been at the root of countless misguided efforts to help others.”

I see that a lot lately since the “hastening the work” has began and less talk about sincere welfare motives and more of obligation to “save or rescue a soul from themselves”.