Teachers Council Return and Report

I very much agree. One very useful skill to have in the LDS church is a sort of easy going “go with the flow” ability. We are a church of conformity and mediocrity (certainly individual areas may vary).

I just wanted to say that as I sit here working my heart out on non-church related stuff today, I keep reflecting on my experience with the teachers council today.

There is so much potential to change the way we do things in the church to make it a better experience WITH NO ADDITIONAL RESOURCES required. To improve to the point that when people come out of inactivity, or to church for the first time, they are impressed with the quality of the church experience, feel uplifted, learn something new, and want to come back again. Youth look forward to their weekly lessons and start bringing their friends. Parents suddenly find they have no problem getting their children ready for church — they are eager to go.

Rooms are overflowing with people who come to the lesson due to its quality. And they learn the principles we claim are the “words of life” effectively, without the same old same old repetition. Old timers and veterans like me look forward to going because they will learn something new even after years in the trenches.

This is not idealism — I have seen all these things happen in my own classes and some of the classes of other people over 3 decades in the church.

And then I sit here frustrated with the lack of vision from the leadership. Frustrated that I have to remind them over and over again about basic things, like to announce a teacher’s council is today and where it is held due to again, mediocrity in no central room booking mechanism in our Ward.

I’m at the point I wish I had’ve accepted the calling as Sunday School President a while ago. It was presented to me as “making sure classes are filled when people don’t show up”, which would have put me in the center of mediocrity. Something that creates more angst in me right now than you can shake a stick at. I now realize a vision of the SS president as someone who is pivotal in facilitating a Sunday experience that is media rich, content rich, engaging, etcetera. It goes beyond “plugging holes” when people don’t show up — it means actively measuring, improving, and facilitating excellence.

But guess what — that ain’t happening in my Ward unless I do it all.

So do it all.

GRRRRRRRRR :sick:

The pastor at one of the churches where I participate has shared about some of his experiences with the old guard. Essentially old stalwarts that defend the status quo out of comfort, nostalgia, and a feeling that the way they were brought up was the right way. They are resistant to things like drums in the worship band and are suspicious when new congregants start showing up in jeans and tattoos.

Many churches are trying to reinvent themselves to appeal to a broader audience (many that don’t adapt fast enough are left with aging and dying congregations). This brings in the dreaded consumerism model that Hawkgrrrl talks about.

We LDS exist in the same world but are altogether different. We are a heritage church. We defend and perpetuate the old ways. We seem to be good at retaining multigenerational families by giving individuals defined roles from cradle to grave.

Honestly, if I were a fairly agnostic person shopping churches I would not have a good impression of the LDS. But the church meetings are not designed to attract this type of person. I believe that they are more geared towards indoctrinating and retaining those multi-generational families. I believe that I am on pretty firm ground when I say that we are a conservative, insular, heritage church.

except our investment in a large-scale missionary force suggests we are in fact gearing up for new members.

I’m just thinking that the church might not be doing that as intentionally as one might think. Suppose research came out that said that missionary work through tracting was the least effective method of conversion around (I know it is a stretch but just go with it). It was followed closely by street contacting as the worst possible conversion method.

Now suppose that the best strategy was to have pot lucks after church meetings and regular ward talent shows…to then be officially “onboarded” by some ward/stake missionaries through a regularly held investigator class. Suppose that the study documented that the best missionaries with the most long term results are those that work and live in the community that they serve. IOW “every member a missionary.”

In this scenario, full time missionaries are both inefficient and unnecessary. Would the church discontinue full time missionary service? Why or why not?

I speculate that the church would not discontinue the missionary force because I believe church leaders perceive other benefits to continuing with the current model and that we would remain status quo even if a more efficient method were available.

I think you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek Roy because there have been studies that show tracting and street contacting as very ineffective

I had heard that but I do not have a specific study to point to.

I really do feel that the missionaries are somewhat superfluous in areas with an “established” stake of Zion.

I wonder when was the first time that they started doing that? “Hello Elder Jones from 1890 Provo Utah. The field is white and ready to harvest. You are hereby called to serve as a full time missionary in far away 1890 St. George Utah where you can teach the gospel discussions to any child whose slacker parents did not have them baptized before they had their 9th birthday.”

“Whaaaatttt?” 😮

I wonder when was the first time that they started doing that?

Probably near the time when they ran out of available visas to countries where they had established relationships.

Actually, I hear you teach a lot in those areas. There is such a high concentration of Mormons, non-members get hit by a lot of people who aren’t afraid to ask them to take the discussions. In those missions, you just teach all the time, I have heard.