- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
And so, the ministering program training continues. It sounds like President Nelson rolled it out before the training materials were ready. Which is cool to get it started. Our EQP did it better this time, without the guilt, but I still feel the following: 1. We are not using time wisely chasing after people who don’t want to be contacted or who aren’t coming to church. Sure there is worth in one soul, but you LOSE people over the monotony of the concept of home teaching in the active membership.
2. Having assigned people to each companionship is a good idea in the event of true emergencies. The Bishop needs that buffer between the general members and the Bishopric.
3. Elder Christoperson’s comments in a talk bothered me. He mentioned that he was concerned that if the stewardship interviews don’t happen, the added flexibility will only make things worse.
4. They talked about simplicity and keeping it simple. Don’t layer on more processes and procedures.
This to me shows a problem that is at the root of so many problems we have in the church — lack of trust and empowerment. There is this tendency to script everything we do to the point that creativity and learning is nearly extinct. He should be showing faith in the members’ ability to take the added flexibility and run with it. That he trusts the membership and that we are no longer on the Law of Moses plan with ministering — we are on the Law of the gospel plan where we go by the spirit and act with good faith. And that he’s looking forward to best practices emerging.
5. I did like one piece of the training — it was where one of then apostles mentioned that the focus is now on outcomes rather than process. I have said that all along — there was too much emphasis on “getting 100%” rather than focusing on whether progress was made with the member receiving ministering.
Also lacking, in my view, is that sometimes the best thing to do is simply LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE. I am in that case. I’ve been around long enough that people coming over to convince me or try to “move me along the continuum” is futile and annoying. I just want to be left to serve as I feel I am able and willing and leave it at that. Be there for me if a hurricane blows off my roof and I need help moving out sensitive items or temporary repair that I can’t do alone.
Anyway, I know we’ve been talking through this….perhaps another thread is out of line, I don’t know.
I have one guy I really enjoy — he talks to me all the time at church and we have good convos. I checked LDS Tools and apparently he’s been my home teacher for a long time, and I didn’t know it. He never told me that, which kind of bothered me, and then his wife approached me and told me I’m their family’s minister. That’s good for efficient use of time — to make these relationships reciprocal where possible.
We’ll see how it shapes up. I guess the next rubber meets the road experience will be when they interview me about my own ministering activities. I sent letters to everyone, found one person had moved, 1 who wants no contact but doesn’t want to write a letter, and two who never responded.
Not going to chase those two — in stewardship interviews I’ll mention that i offered to speak with them on the phone (no phone numbers were given or I would have phoned them), so I’m not going to pester them. They can be left on my list and 2 new ones added if they want. But I’m not going to their homes at all different times of day if they don’t have any interest in responding to my letter. That shows an indifference that kind of wears out people.
What do you think of the last paragraph and my action plan there? Comments?
Quote:Also lacking, in my view, is that sometimes the best thing to do is simply LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE.
Tough call. We have a couple who are currently inactive who were on my HT list.
One minute they are complaining no one looks in on them and they are always being ignored, and the next they are incommunicado. You can’t say no one stays in contact when you are continually turning down HT and won’t reply to texts and emails. And as for being ignored people would chat with them every Sunday.
I contrast this with a sister who turned down our visits and made her feelings clear… I respect her for that but we have too many people sending out mixed messages.
We also have a brother who says no one visits him or invites him to do anything, even though he repeatedly cancels on people. Often the same day. There is no winning with him. The reason people avoid doing stuff with him is that they don’t know whether he will stick with any arrangements. He was supposed to have a live sealing at the temple recently but he canceled for the second time. And he wonders why we won’t give him a calling or a role as a temple worker.
One of the things that are difficult about the LDS church is the guilt trips associated with not doing more. Moderately active middle way Mormons are in a tough spot. I am pretty good at ignoring general messages of repentance/ call to action/ lengthen your stride from the pulpit. Unfortunately our church is set up that someone always gets around with a follow up on why I am not repenting/ acting/ or lengthening my stride. We are not very accepting or welcoming of people that wish to participate under their own terms. The HT program was a non-stop drag/guilt fest and I am hopeful for its replacement.
I want to be praised for the progress I make – not berated for how far I still have to go.
Yup. Our TBM EQP has asked that my husband help out with ministering to a long-term investigator in our branch who has health problems. We have done some helpful acts of service for this elderly, wheelchair-bound gentleman, but we don’t have the resources to provide more (i.e. rides to church activities – our little car is not wheel chair friendly). My husband feels uncomfortable setting the boundary, but we’ll see how it goes. It never came up before because no one ever asked us. I have no problem saying “no” to giving him a ride every week because our car will not fit myself, him, and my 2 children. I also don’t know that I am physically strong enough to assist him into the car. If my husband wants to dedicate 30 minutes to going back and picking him up every week, that is on him to figure out how to manage that and his meetings before church.
Progress is never linear. We recently had a training from a Seventy on ministering. I’ve been meaning to post about it, but it was going to be a longer one and I haven’t found the time (or the energy when I might have time). Much of the talking points below from SD were adddressed by teh Seventy and out SP has been teaching these things regularly for some time. (Note: Our Seventy did point out this has been years in the works and there were signs ahead of time as some baby steps were taken and certain speakers – apostles – alluded to some of the principles.) SilentDawning wrote:
And so, the ministering program training continues. It sounds like President Nelson rolled it out before the training materials were ready. Which is cool to get it started. Our EQP did it better this time, without the guilt, but I still feel the following:I don’t think they rolled it out before they were ready, I think they rolled it out before we were ready. I think they are playing it by ear to some extent because it was impossible to tell exactly what resistance (a word I’m using on purpose) they would meet. To some extent it is a learn by doing experience – but there are basic principles.
Quote:1. We are not using time wisely chasing after people who don’t want to be contacted or who aren’t coming to church. Sure there is worth in one soul, but you LOSE people over the monotony of the concept of home teaching in the active membership.
Agreed and I’m not sure but some of the GAs might agree. However, if the principle in play is “love one another as I have loved you” truly loving those who are inactive isn’t going to hurt anything. Getting there is the hard part, and there has to be a recognition that we’re not there to make them be what we want them to be (eg active members).
Quote:2. Having assigned people to each companionship is a good idea in the event of true emergencies. The Bishop needs that buffer between the general members and the Bishopric.
A key part of this is for us as members to take more responsibility for each other. One of the points made by our Seventy was that if the EQP and the RSP don;t think they’re going to be busier and the bishop less busy then they need to go back and look at all the online training again. No longer is it the bishop or EQP’s job to plan a service project – it’s the minister’s job. He told us 99% of the needs should be taken care of by someone other than the bishop, freeing him to do more important things.
Quote:3. Elder Christoperson’s comments in a talk bothered me. He mentioned that he was concerned that if the stewardship interviews don’t happen, the added flexibility will only make things worse.
Over and over again our SP has said the key to the whole thing – which will make it either a success or a failure – is the interviews. Our Seventy reiterated that the interviews are nothing like HT/VT interviews or PPIs, they have nothing to do with guilt or hounding. They have everything to do with finding out what people’s needs are and meeting them.
Quote:4. They talked about simplicity and keeping it simple. Don’t layer on more processes and procedures.
This was the biggest take away I got from the Seventy. HT/VT were programs. Ministering is NOT a program. It needs to be kept simple and – he emphasized this – we need to resist the temptation to programize it. He honestly said he fears some leaders will complicate ministering by adding to it and quite directly said DON’T DO IT.
Quote:This to me shows a problem that is at the root of so many problems we have in the church — lack of trust and empowerment. There is this tendency to script everything we do to the point that creativity and learning is nearly extinct. He should be showing faith in the members’ ability to take the added flexibility and run with it. That he trusts the membership and that we are no longer on the Law of Moses plan with ministering — we are on the Law of the gospel plan where we go by the spirit and act with good faith. And that he’s looking forward to best practices emerging.
Maybe. I see it as quite the opposite. I see an effort to unscript and uncorrelate ministering and I see a great deal of flexibility and trust in members to do what is right. In the end we are not reporting any numbers (except interviews). (The Seventy mentioned numbers specifically in relation to the above simplicity.)
Quote:5. I did like one piece of the training — it was where one of then apostles mentioned that the focus is now on outcomes rather than process. I have said that all along — there was too much emphasis on “getting 100%” rather than focusing on whether progress was made with the member receiving ministering.
Yep – hence no numbers.
Quote:Also lacking, in my view, is that sometimes the best thing to do is simply LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE. I am in that case. I’ve been around long enough that people coming over to convince me or try to “move me along the continuum” is futile and annoying. I just want to be left to serve as I feel I am able and willing and leave it at that. Be there for me if a hurricane blows off my roof and I need help moving out sensitive items or temporary repair that I can’t do alone.
Agreed. A Christmas card isn’t going to hurt anybody though.
Quote:Not going to chase those two — in stewardship interviews I’ll mention that i offered to speak with them on the phone (no phone numbers were given or I would have phoned them), so I’m not going to pester them. They can be left on my list and 2 new ones added if they want. But I’m not going to their homes at all different times of day if they don’t have any interest in responding to my letter. That shows an indifference that kind of wears out people.
What do you think of the last paragraph and my action plan there? Comments?
First, if your leaders are calling it a stewardship interview they need to relook at the training. That’s not what it is. I think you tell them exactly what you said. You wrote, they didn’t respond (or did). Tell them you’ll send them a Christmas card. Leave it at that. If they don’t like what you’re doing, tell them they can assign them to someone else (“you call me you get me”).
SilentDawning wrote:
Quote:Not going to chase those two — in stewardship interviews I’ll mention that i offered to speak with them on the phone (no phone numbers were given or I would have phoned them), so I’m not going to pester them. They can be left on my list and 2 new ones added if they want. But I’m not going to their homes at all different times of day if they don’t have any interest in responding to my letter. That shows an indifference that kind of wears out people.
What do you think of the last paragraph and my action plan there? Comments?
First, if your leaders are calling it a stewardship interview they need to relook at the training. That’s not what it is. I think you tell them exactly what you said. You wrote, they didn’t respond (or did). Tell them you’ll send them a Christmas card. Leave it at that. If they don’t like what you’re doing, tell them they can assign them to someone else (“you call me you get me”).
First, I don’t think I’ve had a richer response to one of my postings here on StayLDS than this one. Thanks a lot DJ — I really appreciate it.
I agree with most of what you said. Love the response to the last paragraph with Curtis’ “You Get Me” line. In this case I believe in it wholeheartedly. I’m, already on the fringes, semi-active, and a pet peeve of mine is all the time invested in chasing people who don’t want to be chased while Sunday lessons are terrible and the experience of being a Mormon is neglected. So, yes, if you want me to be a minster, you get ME. And that means someone who works with people who want to be worked with, not someone who wastes his precious time in hopes one soul will respond. I will only work with people who want to be worked with. That’s the way I am.
The only thing I disagree with is the “no numbers” part. There ARE numbers in terms of interviews held. So, this is not a numbers free program. And all my leadership training and education, which is substantial, tells me that you MUST have some form of measurement for any initiative or you don’t know if you’ve achieved your goal.
So, in this case, measuring number of interviews is important. I would argue that continuing to measure metrics such as endowed members with TR’s, prospective elders ordained, priesthood advancements is important. But alongside that is also the effort made to achieve those goals. But not in a programmatic way for the effort portion — just in a qualitative way. This is to prevent the stake and Bprics from going ape on your head when they see a goose-egg on some metric. And when that goose-egg is the result of the free agency of the less active target group. There HAS to be respect for the agency of the less active members — don’t hold the priesthood leaders and active members for the choices of the less active active!!!! That way lies unfairness and inactivity for the active.
Nurture the active so they stay that way, and stop beating them up for things over which they have little or no control!!!!! I think the new program gets that principle at the minister level, which is great.
Other tidbits from the Seventy meeting: 1. The goal is for us to be better disciples and more Christlike.
2. The EQP and RSP meet together at least quarterly to coordinate, then meet with the bishop. (No meeting together, no meeting the bishop.)
3. Ministering is supposed to be individualized for the members/families and for those doing the ministering.
4. Ministering brothers and sisters are supposed to work on problems themselves, not return and dump problems on the EQP, RSP or bishop, and the EQP and RSP are not to dump on the bishop.
5. “The bishop presides over the work, he does not do the work.” The bishop might focus on the very few with the most critical needs, the other 95-99% are the responsibility of the ministering brothers and sister and perhaps the EQP/RSP with bigger issues. The quorum and RS need to work together to help everyone.
6. Don’t just take the list of youth and assign them companions. Meet with the parent, YMP/YWP, and bishop then talk to the kid and ask them if they are willing and who they’d be willing to go with (and don’t assign them if they are unwilling/reluctant) – it’s meant to be a good experience for them.
7. Interviewing can be flexible and done via phone Facetime/Skype or whatever works. In person is preferred but not a must.
8. Interviews are not for browbeating or guilt trips. They are to find out about families’ needs and meet them.
9. Assignments to families should be given in person in an interview which counts as a quarterly interview. DO NOT (his emphasis) just pass out pieces of paper (he made a joke about that practice). When the assignments are given, talk about the families assigned and needs that might already be known.
Quote:The only thing I disagree with is the “no numbers” part. There ARE numbers in terms of interviews held. So, this is not a numbers free program. And all my leadership training and education, which is substantial, tells me that you MUST have some form of measurement for any initiative or you don’t know if you’ve achieved your goal.
I agree. I am generally an anti-numbers person even though I understand the necessity of measurement. My hope for the interviews is that they will focus on needs and not just accomplishing the interview (and checking the box). The really good news is that the numbers are all on the heads of the EQP and RSP. (The Seventy did say that outside Utah most members of any given presidency will only do about 3 of these interviews per month.)
DarkJedi wrote:4. Ministering brothers and sisters are supposed to work on problems themselves, not return and dump problems on the EQP, RSP or bishop, and the EQP and RSP are not to dump on the bishop.
5. “The bishop presides over the work, he does not do the work.” The bishop might focus on the very few with the most critical needs, the other 95-99% are the responsibility of the ministering brothers and sister and perhaps the EQP/RSP with bigger issues. The quorum and RS need to work together to help everyone.
And this is exactly why I will be opting out of the ministering program. We all have backgrounds. For a reference point, my background has taught me that no good deed goes unpunished and that the two points you raise here lead to leaders violating boundaries of home teachers.
I understand and appreciate that leaders are trying to alleviate the burdens the bishop, RSP, and EQP carry, we genuinely need to do this, I just don’t care for the solution.
Here’s my issue. A family you are assigned to minister to has an urgent need. “Where are the ministers!” The ministers are expected to be right there at the forefront, helping to resolve the need. Does the minister have needs of their own? Is the minister currently in a position to help the family? It doesn’t matter, that’s the assignment, they are
expectedto be there helping. I’ve been HT to some very high demand, extreme need families in the past. I completely appreciate the difficulty of the calling of BP/EQP/RSP. They don’t have one or two high needs families, they have all high needs families… but I’ve also been in the position where my family was pushed to the limit and there was still the expectation that I go out and resolve the issues of my HT families. It was too much.
These points I quoted do not show any consideration whatsoever on the part of the minister. It’s just expected that they are in a position to help, regardless of whether or not they actually are. Why can’t we move to a model where the
entire wardis available as a pool of resources when there is a need? I know the comeback. A minister doesn’t have to go it alone. They can call other people in the ward to help out… but calling up half the ward looking for help can still be a burden to a minister that has their own demons they are wrestling with.
I don’t know. Seems to me, just me, the best solution is to opt out of a program that obligates the individual and to just be a free agent helping where they see need when they are in a position to offer assistance.
nibbler wrote:I know the comeback. A minister doesn’t have to go it alone. They can call other people in the ward to help out… but calling up half the ward looking for help can still be a burden to a minister that has their own demons they are wrestling with.
I don’t know. Seems to me, just me, the best solution is to opt out of a program that obligates the individual and to just be a free agent helping where they see need when they are in a position to offer assistance.
I have a few suggestions that administrators could be doing to allay these valid concerns Nibbler.
1. The membership needs to be educated on what kinds of needs the Ward can help with. And the famous process for requesting MONEY needs to be implemented at the ministering level. Why is it that as soon as the “cost” of something falls on the members labor, we are so casual with how we use it?
If money is involved, the church has very, very clear policies.
So, with this in mind, members need to know that when they have a need, they should rely on their family and circle of friends first. Just like we say in welfare cases. Then, if there is no recourse there, turn to the minister. Service is for short-term needs, not long-term needs. We aren’t in a position to be a regular care-giver unless the minister wants to do that — we are volunteer organization and people give what they can. We are not a moving service either — people’s expectations need to be set about what they can expect from the members at large.
The leadership as a whole has been remiss in educating the membership at large about what they can expect from their ministers. The leadership is very organized about it when it comes to using church financial and physical resources, why not with the members’ “free labor”? Given their lack of leadership in this area, it is up to the members to set those boundaries.
2. Talent pools — I think it would help if the leaders, from time to time, polled the membership, including less active people, and ask them about whether they are willing to help with standard kinds of things people need from ministers. Small household fixes, maybe moving if the person can’t do it themself, car fixes, temporary babysitting, teaching the gospel, counsel about how to handle problems at work, legal etcetera. Then the visiting teacher has a ready resource to draw on when there is a need.
Failing that train the ministers they are not alone — they can rely on the leadership to help direct them to the right resources. And if the minister can’t do it him or herself, the EQ, YW, YM, and RS leaders can get involved to marshall resources.
We downplay that. It’s the problem with the HT program and something that still plagues ministering. Stop taking the members for granted, and assigning tasks that have nothing to do with their strengths without giving sufficient resources!!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.