- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This was inspired by Silent Dawning’s sacrifice objection thread. I think the basic premise of home teaching is sound – it is at heart “love one another.” It does have other benefits, such as being able to visit members that otherwise might not be visited, and most bishops simply don’t have time to visit everyone. That said, I also think that as a
programit often fails. I don’t go home teaching and I’m a high councilor. My (long time) home teacher is a counselor in the bishopric and comes a couple of times a year (please note that I’m fine with that). Granted, if there were a need I would help my HT families, and likewise I know I can call on my HT if I need something.I will admit, however, that outside general Christian good regard I don’t really care all that much about my HT families – one’s a very old guy (80s) married to a non-member wife that I have absolutely nothing in common with and the other is an inactive woman who has not been to church for over 25 years, doesn’t really like the church, and resists attempts to visit. I think in this case the program fails them and me – but the program fails on other levels as well. I suppose simply put, we can’t be called to love or care about each other, that has to come naturally. While I do believe that long term relationships can lead to the kind of desired bond, these things don’t readily come to someone like me who is introverted by nature. As to working with inactives, I think every ward has some story of a long term inactive that returned after years of visits by a loving home teacher. (My own scenario doesn’t fit this mold, however.) I’m pretty sure my inactive teachee is not ever going to return – I don’t know why she hasn’t had her name removed, she is antagonistic. The problem seems to be we don’t know which will and which won’t – they need to “come to themselves” (as in the prodigal son). Is it really the home teacher or God who makes that difference?
Is there a fix to this kind of thing? The program is in place because most would not naturally go out and visit others on their own, although there’s no question most of us would help another member in need. From an organizational point of view, the program could be efficient. Is there some other type of program/organization that would efficiently meet the needs of those in need?
Disclaimer: I am biased against programs for the start. I generally don’t like programs, and I don’t like the idea of “assigned friends.” I would much rather we all had divine motivation.
I think you touched on a key element, at least a key element for me: DarkJedi wrote:if there were a need
Maybe the HT program could stick to the assignments but do away with the expectation that there be a once per month visit and just leave it as “call this person when you need something.”
I believe the entire basis for the HT program is a scripture or two in D&C that says that PH holders are to visit the house of each member
but there’s no mention as to the frequency.I suppose they settled on once per month because once per quarter/year would be even easier to forget. Perhaps that was the plan all along? Press for once per month visits with the expectationthat most would receive visits a few times per year. Right up front, a visit once a month can be a need that a family calls on their HT to provide. People that look forward to a once a month visit can continue to receive one. Speaking for myself, I’d likely opt out of receiving visits. To me they’re just busy work for someone that already has lots of responsibilities. I don’t
needthe visit, so why not alleviate that “burden” for someone. Here’s a big hole that I see in the HT program. People that are in need want to talk to Elisha, not his priest. The HTs visit and everything is fine but when Sunday rolls around the family is in the bishop’s office soliciting help that the HT could have provided. Maybe people don’t want to broadcast their issues to multiple people (which get broadcast in PEC anyway) or maybe people have more faith in that high mantle calling. Either way the system appears to be broken in that regard.
The problem with the call us if you need us approach is that often the phone call serves a barrier that prevents people from asking for help. Sometimes people need others to be proactive in offering their service.
It’s a big problem and judging from the historic home teaching visit completion percentage most people don’t appear to enjoy it. There’s no simple solution to be sure but currently, with the focus on HT the way it is, I feel like I’m ministering to the program as opposed to ministering to an individual. There’s also no autonomy, at least that I’ve seen. We’re slaves to the HT program because that’s what we’re supposed to do. We never discuss alternative programs in church, we only discuss ways to get the teaching percentages up under the current model.
Back in the day HT was always the #1 source of guilt. I’ll have to bookmark this one so I can come back later to learn. Thanks for creating the thread DJ.
I absolutely love the concept and principle of Home and Visiting Teaching. The application of the programs gets wonky, because humans tend to want programs instead of principles and concepts – and because unapplied and misapplied principles and concepts often are worse than flawed programs.
How to improve?
All that comes to mind is teaching, obsessively, the concept and principle (watching over and giving love and help), keeping the general idea of regular contact and downplaying numerical reporting while stressing condition / personal reporting.
The problem is that is a moderate approach, and moderation is much more difficult than extremism (at both ends).
Throwing in my experience: I benefited from having home teachers visit, even the ones who weren’t very “good” at it, so to speak. Their lessons were boring and not planned well. It was clear they were only coming because they felt like they had to. But once they were at our home, they asked if there was anything they could to for us and the answer was always yes. That’s how my mom got help.
DarkJedi wrote:Although there’s no question most of us would help another member in need.From an organizational point of view, the program could be efficient. Is there some other type of program/organization that would efficiently meet the needs of those in need? Unfortunately, not my experience. My mom is a single parent with a physical disability. She absolutely wants the home-teaching visits and needs help. She’s had good home-teachers and bad. The bad ones were devastating for her and did a number on her trust in people. In some cases, her home teachers wouldn’t visit her for months. She’s done the whole process–talked to the Bishopric, talked to the Relief Society President, talked to her visiting teachers…asking for visits and help…
And still no visits. No contact. Nothing.
This wasn’t just a one-time thing. Systemically, there’s been failure to help out a single mom with kids in multiple wards.
I don’t like people being compelled to give service but in my experience, sometimes even when they are, they won’t.
university wrote:Throwing in my experience:
I benefited from having home teachers visit, even the ones who weren’t very “good” at it, so to speak. Their lessons were boring and not planned well. It was clear they were only coming because they felt like they had to. But once they were at our home, they asked if there was anything they could to for us and the answer was always yes. That’s how my mom got help.
DarkJedi wrote:Although there’s no question most of us would help another member in need.From an organizational point of view, the program could be efficient. Is there some other type of program/organization that would efficiently meet the needs of those in need? Unfortunately, not my experience. My mom is a single parent with a physical disability. She absolutely wants the home-teaching visits and needs help. She’s had good home-teachers and bad. The bad ones were devastating for her and did a number on her trust in people. In some cases, her home teachers wouldn’t visit her for months. She’s done the whole process–talked to the Bishopric, talked to the Relief Society President, talked to her visiting teachers…asking for visits and help…
And still no visits. No contact. Nothing.
This wasn’t just a one-time thing. Systemically, there’s been failure to help out a single mom with kids in multiple wards.
I don’t like people being compelled to give service but in my experience, sometimes even when they are, they won’t.
A clear example of the program failing your Mom. And it’s easy for me to say the program is failing her (it is) but the members themselves as well as her leaders are failing her. A big part of why I think the program fails people is because many people feel so many pulls on their time (and their time away from their own families and needs). I’ve been in ward welfare/council meetings where situations similar to your mom’s have been discussed, and invariably there is a desire to help but the resources to help someone every day all the time (or every week) are generally not there. The program isn’t going to fix that – it’s going to take a loving member or two with the time, resources, and
will to do so. As a side note, sometimes some of those WC discussions have been much more centered on the individual’s need for self reliance or pointing out the fact they “they seem to be doing OK without our help right now” (a somewhat sad but understandable sentiment that generally lacks full understanding of the situation). Frankly I’m not at a point in my life where I could regularly help another person with routine tasks over the long term – and I’m sure I’m not alone. Likewise dividing the work among many and coordinating such an effort can be just as taxing and time consuming as actually doing it all myself. I realize there are no easy answers. On the other hand, I have seen members who chip in and help those with serious long term needs, and in my area where there was a major flood a few years ago I can say that our ward members were generally better off than the general public because we looked out for and helped each other. I suppose we could add to the discussion: What should the expectation be? Can someone reasonably be expected to give routine (weekly or more) service to another to whom they are not related?
university wrote:I don’t like people being compelled to give service but in my experience, sometimes even when they are, they won’t.
University brings out some great points.
I have visited some great churches with great programs. I personally belief many needs are best served through honest friendships…but what about those that don’t make friends easily? Then there are outreach programs like food kitchens and shelters to serve those that might not be our friends… but what about people who are not so obviously needy as to be homeless but are still isolated? IMO there is no perfect program that would cover all the bases.
One thing that I have seen other churches do is called “small groups.” They are small groups led by church members that do something with a common interest. Family with young kids – there is a group for that. Book lover – there is a group for that. Empty nester = group. Early riser = group. Guys have a monthly pizza and game night. Ladies have quite a few different groups. Bible study. Cooking on a budget. etc. While not perfect it provides a medium for people to come together that might not otherwise know and associate with each other. Hopefully they can form honest friendships based on common interests.
Years ago our theater group began having unofficial dinner potlucks. A bunch of parents had assignments for the upcoming tech week and began bringing their own dinners. The theater group offered a dollar a slice pizza, or brown bag your own dinner. Without any planning, the parents found that it was easier to throw a crock pot meal together in the morning, then take a dinner for their family. Healthier, fresher, etc. Before long someone made it in to an official program. Sign up sheets went out, additional parental assignments were now required, and stress abounded. On paper it was a great idea. In reality it created competition, exclusion, hurt, conflict. It was crazy. I think VT and HT (and many other programs) take the same hit. The initial idea is a good one, to watch out for your fellow men. I have personally watched a good Home Teacher serve my family. Two weeks ago, my dad, who is an inactive man’s home teacher, was asked to speak at the man’s wife’s funeral. For many years my dad has taken this man to lunch once a month. They were co-workers and VP’s years ago. The inactive man is never going to return to the church, but the two men share a friendship and keep that as their main objective. At Christmas they exchange gifts. When his wife got sick, dad visited her in the hospital. She went down hill fast. It is a rare and unique Home Teaching success. But not the standard.
For the most part, everyone does it to keep the guilt a bay. And sometimes a real connection gets made.
I agree with Ray’s idea –
Quote:
All that comes to mind is teaching, obsessively, the concept and principle (watching over and giving love and help), keeping the general idea of regular contact and downplaying numerical reporting while stressing condition / personal reporting.The Ammon Approach would be a great place to start. We often overlook Ammon’s original goal – to just serve the people all of his life, even if they never became converted.
My deepest thought, is the church needs to let wards and stakes create their own organic systems. It would take re-tooling but it has potential. So either a ward gets ballsy and starts a different outreach program or we continue on in the stale situation we have.
For me, I explain to my VT – it’s Visiting Friending in my life. And I work to make it work that way.
It works wonderfully and powerfully for some – well for others – not very well for others – poorly for others – terribly for others. In other words, it is like most things in life that are up to people to do.
Im really torn about this! I personally hate getting visits because I feel like it is another time drain. Especially since it seems sundays are the popular day and the last sunday of the month which DH is also trying to get his done. In regards to VTing, our RSP said that her biggest problem was the younger women in the ward–which included me. Im terrible at it. She was trying to figure out how to get us to do it more often, and I got a few nasty emails and a nice call out during Relief society. It only pushes me to not want to do it more. I am terrible, I feel horribly guilty about it, but I cant seem to get it done. I just dont understand why we can’t visit those that we have relationships with and then add on a sister who needs some friends or is in need in another way. I find then our burden would be lessened and we could really focus on these needs. My friends would call me if they had any problems anyway, and then this extra sister would get the attention she needs. I don’t know, I just find when I get a list of women I have nothing in common with or a companion you have nothing in common with, it just doesnt ever work. I feel also that all these extra meal things are overburdening people. Im sorry, when did all of a sudden a woman need a months worth of meals because she had a baby? Did she not know for 9 months that this was coming? What happened to self-reliance and maybe getting the baby daddy to make a meal? Over time I have become a little annoyed and have stopped enjoying helping others out, it has become too much. I sound like a total jerk, but I really love people, I just hate the over asking! So I do wish that some changes to home teaching and visiting teaching were made. I wish we could make it less about stats and more about people and their needs. I get the march email saying “super important month for VTing, please get it done”. YIKES I would like to assess needs and then meet them. Like the single mother, YES, she needs more help!! Where as I need very little at the moment, so use my VTers to help with the single mom! Ramblings of a crazy woman here! haha Overall I think the home teaching and visiting teaching programs are a good thing. There have been a few times that I’ve been befriended and truly helped by someone I wouldn’t have normally ever associated with. Like others have said – it depends on the people. My current home teachers are the stake patriarch and the 1st assistant in the High Priest leadership. Last month when they tried to set up an appoitment my wife told them it’s a bad month and that we needed time together as a family. Our HT said ‘what better way to spend time as a family than with your home teachers.’ So she relented and HT came that evening. They spent the whole time talking about their own famillies and asked
not a single questionto my kids. And this is the supposed cream of the crop of our ward… I’ve openly told my ward that they don’t have to visit every month and even on the months they don’t visit they can report 100% teaching if that’s what the family wants. I have a less active person that I visit twice a year, and even that is while she mows the lawn, and I report 100% every month.
If done in a spirit of service, which I believe most do (albeit imperfectly), home teaching is a blessing for many people.
slowlylosingit, I think you encapsulated many of the issues that I’ve had with the program. In the past the all to familiar approaches that we take to motivate people to do their HTing only made it less likely that I’d end up doing my HTing. It’s not that I wouldn’t do my HTing out of spite, it’s just that the methods invited guilt and the guilt had a strong demotivating effect, I’d essentially get stuck in a shame spiral.
The main reasons I found HTing difficult:
1) I’m on the far end of the introvert spectrum, for me the hardest thing about HTing was just making that initial contact with strangers.
I don’t think there’s much sympathy at all for people that view HT/VT as a forced friend program. Duty bound interaction with strangers can be extremely traumatizing for some people. Do we try to involve them in the ministry in a way that they can feel comfortable giving or do we ask them to change their very identity to accommodate the program?
2) This feeds off #1. If I don’t know my companion well or if we don’t have anything in common that’s a
hugebarrier. I’d love it if we’d move to a system where HT/VT is combined into one visiting program where I can be companions with DW. There’s a whole host of reasons why this isn’t practical (no backup in place when someone is out of town, babysitters, alienating singles, some people may only feel comfortably receiving VT, etc.) but this was my little dream. Spouses as companions takes the inconvenience of syncing with a stranger out of the equation, one less barrier. In fact at times I would have preferred to do HT alone. No companion at all would have been easier for me to swing. 3) Many have already touched on this. People are busy. It’s hard to sync everyone’s schedule. Companions, families, work, extracurricular activities, god forbid some free time. Finding a common time is a time sink in and of itself. Couple that with the ever increasing demands in our work a day world…
4) This has also been touched on, burnout. I’ve seen units get caught up in a feedback loop, someone burns out or needs a well deserved break, other people have to pick up the slack… which contributes toward more burnout. This would be my suggestion to reduce the demands, a focus on visiting and helping others but without the quotas.
university wrote:I don’t like people being compelled to give service but in my experience, sometimes even when they are, they won’t.
That’s a tough position to be in but sometimes I wonder if the act of all the compelling that goes on isn’t the thing that turns some people off. When compelling people enters the equation I find that the reward is staving off the guilt, not a warm feeling inside. Holding off guilt isn’t a sustainable motivator.
DarkJedi wrote:
Is there a fix to this kind of thing? The program is in place because most would not naturally go out and visit others on their own, although there’s no question most of us would help another member in need. From an organizational point of view, the program could be efficient. Is there some other type of program/organization that would efficiently meet the needs of those in need?Even if there was a fix, I don’t think grassroots efforts have the power to convince higher ups to change it.
I will say this — if I was given the keys to the modify or delete the HT program entirely — I wouldn’t — in spite of agreeing with almost everything you said about its deficits. Here is why
Quote:The bishop needs a buffer of people between him and the needs of the members
With about 200-500 people the Bishop is responsible for, there is no way he can respond to all of their needs without help. Having an infrastructure in place to delegate satisfying the needs of needy individuals is a good idea. Particularly as an ongoing program.
On the other hand, I disagree vehemently with the way we measure “success” of the program, and the expectation of monthly visits from the Hometeacher.
For me, success happens when the HT meets the Hometeachee at the level of contact the Hteachee wants. And that level of contact must be what the home teachEE WANTS — not what they feel obligated to want (such as wanting HT visits because they want to support the program). So, if a Hteachee wants no contact, and I didn’t contact them, then I was a successful home teacher and get 100%. If the family wants a monthly email, and I send an email, then I was 100%. If the family wants a visit only when they need help, and I only visit them when they need help (which may be never), then I am at 100%.
I think one of the problems with the program is the fact that the measurement system only acknowledges a face to face visit with the hteachee as success. The reporting system does not account for free agency of the Hteachee. It also demotivates the hometeacher who never feels successful. VERY hard on the brethren in your quorum.
What will make this program work? Local leaders with judgment. Here is what they can do:
1. Buffer the local Hometeachers from the stake, and sometimes, their Bishop. I have stood up to Stake leaders who have called brethren to repentance before.
2. Report results to the Bishop and Stake TWO ways — on the gold standard of a visit in the home, and then your own system where you measure whether the Hometeacher met the Hteachee at he highest level of contact that hometeachee wants. Give two percentages in your report — the church’s percent calculation, and your own. Also, report any non-numeric home teaching results, such as letters sent to unassigned families. Give the underlying data so they know how you arrived at your own number.
3. Don’t put too much pressure on the HTeacher who won’t do home teaching. If you now the level of contact each family wants, then offer the Hteachers the option of HT at a certain level — on call for emergencies only? Send a monthly letter? A quarterly visit? An annual visit? A monthly visit? Let hteachers opt in to the level of contact they are willing to give.
If you don’t have enough HTeachers to visit the HteachEE’s who want montly visits, at least, put the hometeachees on a quarterly plan, or some lower level of contact, and report your lack of willing home teachers in your report.
4. Show you are administering the program — as I have found Stake leaders assume you are doing nothing as a priesthood leader when the percent is low — even if you are working your tail off. They need to know your efforts to administer along with the actual number so you can keep them from putting pressure on you, and your brethren.
5. Before Stake conferences and meetings, be proactive and give a report of your home teaching efforts to the High Councilor or Stake Presidency member responsible for priesthood leaders. Pre-empt assumptions that low HT numbers mean lack of effort.
SD’s HT program….
This is bringing back memories of a time about 20 years ago. I almost hate to admit it as looking back I see what a mistake I was making. I was called to be the EQ pres in a ward on the edge of town – consisted of suburbanites and “country folk” (no negative connotations intended – I loved the ward). The Stake Pres really came down on me to get 100% for the next month. I tried to push and I personally made a commitment to God (or was it the SP?) to get 100% no matter what. After nicely nudging folks and following up (what a pain in the butt I must have been!!!) we got maybe 50%. So the last week plus I dragged one of my counselors out for most of 2 Sundays and a few nights and we made contact with all the members covered by the elder’s quorum. I was exhausted. One of my counselors took up drinking and one became inactive and I think I have been a bit burned out on church callings since then.
Looking back now I see that I was more concerned about what the SP was saying. I would not react that way today to the SP if he started pressing like the pressure I got back then.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.