Will the new ministering program change your level of engagement with "ministering"?

It will probably change mine some. I already have the agreement with my active families (two) that I will not make a monthly visit. They know, however, if they need something I’ll do what I can to help. I talk to them at church, sometimes text, speak on the phone once in awhile, and we’ve sometimes done things socially. It works for all of us. (I have the same agreement with my HT and told him to just count me as visited every month.) That will probably not change. What may change is how I interact with those who are not active who I currently do nothing with/for. Now that it’s totally kosher I may reach out to them in some other way.

I guess I’m not sure what’s changing. Instead of having a list of families to visit, we’re assigned persons to “minister” to. Instead of having a monthly or quarterly PPI with quorum or group leaders we’ll be having quarterly meetings to report on persons needs. Instead of being mindful of families needs we’re to be mindful of persons needs so we can “minister” to them. Instead of families having HTs and VTs assigned they’ll have someone from the EQ and RS called to look after them. I’m not trying to be difficult or snarky but just what is changing?

For what it’s worth:

Years ago my husband had major, life-saving, emergency surgery.

It was a scary time for us and life stopped dead still while we waited and worried and healed during his week-long stay at the hospital and 6-month recovery time at home.

In that time, he received a number of hand-written cards and letters from strangers – all wishing him well and letting him know that they were praying for his recovery.

Why? Because his SIL, who is a member of another church, put his name and address on their prayer list in their prayer/cheer group. Sure enough, this church (not in our city) had a prayer/cheer group and when a parishioner knew of a need, they would add the name and sometimes the address to the group’s list. The group members then chose how to respond to the need. In my husband’s case, they sent letters and cards. At first I was a little put-off, but I it didn’t take long and I honestly felt love from my brothers and sisters in Christ not just for my husband, but for my family as well.

THAT was ministering in my opinion and I was so grateful for it.

If that is the kind of ministering we can participate in, I’m all for it.

It’s been fun to watch my facebook feed fill with tongue-in-cheek comments about how thrilled the sisters and brothers are to have a new program.

It seems like being given “permission” to just be a friend is what was needed. Being a ministering brother/sister…having a ministry…that “feels” like something to many people, I think.

No idea, I’ll take it as it comes.

My main concern is it may cause some people to quit visiting altogother.

I think it will remove a HUGE burden of guilt over not being able to get into so many people’s houses every. single. month – and I see that as a MAJOR change.

They have removed the following things I have experienced first hand.

1. Hometeaching Success Defined by a Single Number and a Strict Criterion

In the past, home teaching “success” was defined as whether you saw the family in the home and read the FP message. It completely ignored the fact that there are two variables — the agency of the HT and the agency of the family. Everyone was held accountable for 100% home teaching. What a crappy system where you NEVER feel successful given the need to be RESPECTFUL of people’s desired level of contact.

This irked me for years. HOlding ME, The HPGL for 100% home teaching when to do that, I*’d have to trample on the level of contact the families I am supposed to be serving actually wanted.

2. Priesthood Leaders (Stake) Raking You Over the Coals for a Single Number

We got called to repentance on home teaching because the SP didn’t do their home work about our efforts. It was only in Ward Conferences where they, after raking us over the coals about HT got the full story. I remember them telling me I had work to do in cleaning the records because we had 99 prospective elders and only 1 active. No, I said, I had notes on every one of them and gave examples of why they weren’t coming. THEN they understood.

Now, they are focusing on whether the leaders are meeting with the members to find out what the needs are. So, the requirement is to communicate with the members about needs and bubble them up and make sure they are being met. A more outcomes based way of doing HT.

Now YW are also ministering. I don’t know how effective this will be, but in wards with mature YW it may work to spread around the load.

4. Contact allowed via any means that fits the needs of the family.

No more annoying visits to people who don’t want them. A phone call is allowed, an email, chat, video — you name it.

I hope they refine this as the organization learns, but it’s a step in the right direction.

I simply wish it was voluntary now rather than assigned.

I am kind of with GBSmith thinking, “So what has changed?” They are backing off on the 1 visit per month assumption (partially because the stats were a bit depressing AND many active members felt it was not helping their family) and they are backing off the reporting. So maybe it has reduced the guilt over HT/VT (which is good), but I don’t see it as all that much of change – certainly not a huge revelation from on high.

I agree that I don’t believe this is really a “Thus saith the Lord” moment, but I think the things you mention as little changes are actually huge. It’s easy to find out what a family’s needs are without the monthly visit with accompanying “lesson.” Granted a single text is probably not going to do the trick, but if they’re active people you know they’ll share if they need something. In my own ward where there is a relatively large number of hardcore inactives it takes away a good amount of guilt.

If I can draw on my years of studying and teaching and implementing change and studying drivers of culture. The church has done a marvelous job of creating certain cultural variables that drive behavior. We may not agree with them all, but modesty, serving a mission, staying married, all those things. How about creating a culture of love in our wards? Ultimately, that is what this new program is all above. Loving each other. Not checking boxes or systemizing or programming love but actually loving others.

There are certain levers that drive culture. Talks at the podium, the informal comments people make, the behavior of leaders, how leaders interact with members, rites of passage, the frequency and content of training — all these things create culture. It’s time to make love part of our culture. I seriously question if the woman who crucified my character to the entire ward leadership years ago would have done it had the culture of love been as strong as our culture of “every worthy young man should serve a mission”, for example. And I seriously question if our Bishopric would have handled her misbehavior as they did (a reprimand and indifference to me) if the church was eye-ball deep in the love culture.