- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Our new (as of July) mission president recently implemented a new policy for the missionaries and meals. Since most people are home 6-9 pm the president decided that missionary meals should be at 5 so that the missionaries could spend the time in the evening being “more productive.” The issue is obvious – many members aren’t home at 5 yet either. In our case, I am but my wife and son (who has sports practice all three seasons) are not until at least 5:30. There is an exception to the rule – if you have a non-member or less active over dinner can be scheduled whenever. As a side note, they’re also only supposed to stay 40 minutes – 30 to eat and 10 for a message (unless a non-member is there). This has not been well received by the membership, I’ve heard the grumbling, including from our WML, in my ward and another. So, the matter was brought up in stake council. Before too many could jump on board, the matter was shut down with the above explanation and that the MP wasn’t going to budge because he thinks it’s valuable. The stake mission guy (HC) said it’s a problem for his family, too, and they just moved their dinner appointments to Saturday (as if that’s possible for everyone – everyone in his ward now has to do a night other than Saturday). He also said lunch or breakfast were options (but not very realistically because of the same reason dinner can’t be at 5). The SP then jumped in and basically said we need to support the MP in this because he believes it’s inspired. Fine, we don’t get to have the missionaries very often and now we get to have them less. I’m really OK with it because I primarily only do it because I remember what it was like on my mission when we didn’t have many appointments and because members fed my son daily while he was away. We’ve actually had a run of elders and sister I don’t especially care for anyway (although I do like the current greenie). I hope he asked for an increase in the missionaries’ monthly allowances because they’re going to be spending more on food.
I’m really just venting and I recognize the SP can’t change it – but he does meet with the MP monthly and can offer the input which I’m inclined to think he won’t because he didn’t even listen to it. And that’s why I’m venting – people expressed real concern and it was summarily dismissed (top down).
People probably need to vote with starvation. Our ward has had a 5 or 5:30 pm rule for a couple years. If a priesthood age son is in the home, that is good enough. But my family, we have no sons. I am a mother of daughters, and I have a husband who doesn’t get home until 6:15 on a good night. Weekends fill up fast on the calendar .. I no longer even look for a night. I just pass it on.
Another reason I’m not feeling the love.
That sounds rather frustrating. It’s too bad that they can’t do 40 min dinners at 6 instead of 5. That would still get them back on the road around 7 and that gives them two hours left to work. It’s not like the ward can change their work schedules to meet the missionary dinner times. I sure hope the missionaries don’t run into less meals because of this new idea. Always Thinking wrote:I sure hope the missionaries don’t run into less meals because of this new idea.
That’s already happening. One gets the somewhat arrogant response “If you have an investigator we can come later, so it’s really a motivation for members to do more missionary work.”
I am sure you have the mission presidents address you could send an anonymous letter explaining that the majority of folks you have talked to this means the elders are not able to help get their sons more excited to go on missions since in effect very few members can do the 5:00 timeframe. Let him know this does not motivate the members to invite someone over. Instead it tends to make the members think even less about missionary work as they never get to know the missionaries. Also let him know people are trying to feed this info up to him but see any negative info as this is seen as not supporting the MP. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here is where I will take comfort in the invisible hand. I have noticed that authority figures (local government recently, mission presidents, Bishops) can decree rules in a “rules without research” format. But guess what, unless there is a threat of death or imprisonment or other penalty for not complying, people will apply judgment in how strictly to apply the rule. Further, given how this will likely empty the missionary’s dinner calendar, and the Rest and Relaxation dinner appointments provide, this Mission President is going to have a hefty job in enforcing this rule over the long term. Unreasonable rules tend to atrophy into non-enforcement over time. The invisible hand spawned by free agency, practicality, and personal judgment will likely cause this rule to atrophy over time. Further, if the missionaries see their District or Zone leaders bending the rules, then the rank and file missionaries will bend them too.
I am not worried about this rule…give it some time, it will go by the wayside as impractical, difficult to enforce, and will be a lot like the rule you can’t get a ride with a female. We did it when it was the only alternative to getting somewhere we needed.
hawkgrrrl wrote:People probably need to vote with starvation.
I’d love to organize a Gandhi-like protest, but such would be frowned upon. As SD says, it will likely erode over time, but right now the missionaries are afraid to break the rule. I don’t know this guy very well since he’s only been here since July, but I have surmised in that short time that he uses a business model mission heavily focused on stats. At SC he showed little interest in meeting members of the stake. I happened to be nearly alone with him in a foyer (there was a missionary companionship there) shortly after he arrived here and he failed to acknowledge my presence. I think he’s bucking to be a GA (just my opinion).
LookingHard wrote:I am sure you have the mission presidents address you could send an anonymous letter explaining that the majority of folks you have talked to this means the elders are not able to help get their sons more excited to go on missions since in effect very few members can do the 5:00 timeframe. Let him know this does not motivate the members to invite someone over. Instead it tends to make the members think even less about missionary work as they never get to know the missionaries. Also let him know people are trying to feed this info up to him but see any negative info as this is seen as not supporting the MP.
The thought crossed my mind. There was a period of years when we didn’t have the missionaries over (I was inactive) but my wife decided it would be good for our sons to be exposed to the missionaries to encourage them to serve missions (so far two have). While I’m not all that into that idea, it is a point some could make. I do see an arrogance on his part and don’t think he’d care about any of the reasons given and he’s probably heard them all. He’s actually an interesting contrast to our previous MP.
I don’t have as much a problem with the policy/rule as I do that no one wants to listen to the rather widespread dissent.
This here is a “what the mission president doesn’t know doesn’t hurt him” situation. Also I bet his policy would change real quick if every meal calendar in every ward were to suddenly be empty for a few consecutive months. I’m not saying punish the missionaries for the “sins” of the father, but that may be the fruits of the change.
Another thing, I’d like to think that investigators are probably
alsoeating at normal, non-octogenarian times. The missionaries might as well be eating at this time as well because this isn’t going to be a productive time anyway. We did this in my area, it was really bad. I’d get a call requesting that I go retrieve the elders at 4:15 (or something equally ridiculous – seriously) to get them back to my house for a dinner appointment at 4:30 And you know how missions go, you go to pick up the missionaries at 4:15 and of course they are 30 minutes late.
👿 They often can’t help it but that’s the way the cookie crumbles.We’ve since backed off the 4:ish meal times and are now in the 5:ish arena… and we hear about how the missionary meal calendar is empty. Why is the meal calendar empty? We put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5pm.
This is another example of putting the needs of the organization ahead of the people. Bu-bu-but that eats into the missionary’s most productive time! But the members… The missionary’s
most. productive. time.Sorry, I can rant too. I’m a recovering WML.
As far as not listening to concerns… It all depends on how much autonomy local leaders feel they have. If they feel like they don’t have any leeway you’ll get something similar to your experience. (P.S. I’ve heard of several missions with this early meal rule, perhaps it came from somewhere higher up than the MP? Or perhaps it was a suggestion they get when they are being trained.)
Local leaders don’t get much, if any autonomy.
I have seen cases where the entire ward council erupted and a change was made. The BP did offer up some initial resistance but eventually relented as
no onelet up. It was a sight to behold. Later I chatted with the BP, we both agreed that the ward felt very strongly about the issue at hand. [/captain obvious] Maybe that’s what it takes in your council meeting. Not accepting no and getting a little contentious… to give people an opportunity to hear the spirit.
Yes, Nibbler, it is my understanding that this did come from higher up, a Seventy. This was brought up at the end of council, although our time was not limited by another meeting after. I think “discussion” was purposely nipped in the bud before we could get to the insurrection stage.
Someone earlier mentioned having a more favorable dinner time if an investigator was present. I just asked DW, “Remember when the missionaries ate at 4:30?” She remembered and reminded me of a very short lived policy where you couldn’t feed the missionaries at allunless you had an investigator or an inactive member present. Maybe the MP wanted to institute a mission-wide diet program?
About 3 years ago this rule was implemented in the mission I live in and it made a big (negative) splash. Our bishop at the time took what I thought was a good “high road.” He said we need to do the best we can to feed the missionaries, after all they are somebody’s children and are hungry teenagers. Three years and a new MP later the policy is still in place and there is almost zero missionary work in our ward. I believe it’s because the members never see and never establish trust with the missionaries. Good leaders will council with their people in any organization, church, work, wherever. That’s why diversity is valuable, so you can hear many points of view and decide based on more information.
I personally do not like feeding the missionaries. Perhaps this is partly because in my mission we were not allowed to eat with the members. In addition, if I am going to host a dinner over at my house I would rather it be with someone that isn’t going to leave the area in 3 to 6 months. DW OTOH, ate with the members all the time on her mission and enjoys having them over. Not long ago she had an dinner appointment with them and had the food almost ready. They called and explained that they had just left an appointment at the opposite side of town and needed us to go pick them up…at their car. Apparently they had used up their allotted miles and therefore were only to use the car for essentials. I did not appreciate that I was being inconvenienced at the last minute to drive round trip twice (once to pick them up and another to drop them off) rather than using a few more miles on the mission vehicle.
I am not motivated to host another dinner with the missionaries.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.