The Challenge…

I have heard this from my stake presidency as well. They tend to use “invite” and the stake president does seem to take it to heart. Others I’ve observed just use it as different syntax to mean the same thing. In their minds there is no difference in “encourage,” “invite,” or “challenge.” It’s sort of like “Oh, I get it. We’re just using gentler words, so I’ll invite this person to accept this calling, or go to the temple, or staff girl’s camp, etc., just like we always have [wink, wink].”

“Here’s our ward goals, I invite you to do them.”

My understanding of the way it’s supposed to work these days is that the Q15 come to agreement (consensus) on something and while they make announcements to the general membership either via statements/releases or in GC the real dissemination sort of trickles down. These multi-day meetings all of the GAs and AAs attend prior to GC are the training sessions. It is then incumbent on the GAs, especially the “department heads” and area presidencies to ensure the AAs fully comprehend and then train the stake presidents in their coordinating councils. Then, the SPs train their counselors, the high council, and the bishops, who are in turn supposed to fully disseminate to the wards and branches. This all takes time of course, but eventually under the tutelage of the GAs and AAs the SPs get what they’re supposed to get and most likely pass it along as they are instructed. I think the last part – getting it to the general membership and foot soldiers – is where it often breaks down and I think there are a variety of reasons for that (apathy, resistance to change, and just plain old not paying attention among them).

Thus for at least a while (probably years in many places) ministering is the same as home teaching and inviting is the same as calling.

But I do agree with you Nibbler, words do matter and even small changes when properly disseminated make a difference.

Are there still going to be those people who want to meet with the bishop the last days of the year to “settle” their tithing? I would wager yes, and can probably name a couple in my own ward. Eventually though I think it will change.

DJ,

That sounds like a recipe to ensure that the water never makes it to the end of every row and by the time it reaches the end of some rows it’s been telephone gamed so heavily that the crops end up getting watered with Diet Pepsi.

I suppose the most immediate way to make such a change would be to do so through a general conference address.

I think they more or less do that. The model I outlined above starts with a GC address or other announcement. I became familiar with the process with Pres. Nelson’s “big changes.” I’m most familiar with how this was supposed to work in ministering, elimination of YMPs and Come Follow Me. In all of those cases the main announcement and overview were announced in GC. The nuts and bolts “how to” came through the SP. For example, the key to the whole ministering thing working is supposed to be the quarterly interviews. Without those it falls apart. Lots of effort was put into helping EQPs understand that and what the interview is supposed to be (and what it isn’t supposed to be). Of course the other complicating factor in that situation is that presidencies are in constant flux, so it’s constant retraining. SPs and high councilors also constantly change. There are challenges for everything to reach the end of the rows, but I’m not sure there’s a better way with such a large organization.

I think getting the word out via GC works to an extent (many people pay no attention to GC, especially outside the US/Canada) but without the training model ministering really would have been rebranded home teaching (which I think is still true in some places where the system has broken down for whatever reason).

Just as a common example:

Moroni 10:3-5 is nothing close to a challenge, as we understand that word. It is an exhortation. That is a very different thing, and the difference is important.

(Also, verse 3 lays the foundation of remembering God’s mercy throughout time and, from that foundation, believing he will be merciful to each sincere prayer. With that mindset, an answer becomes expected – which can be self-fulfilling or unlocking, depending on one’s perspective – and which can be difficult for people who are not naturally inclined to feel spiritual confirmation. We butcher the concept in those verses when we focus merely on reading selected verses and praying to ask if the book is true. Just saying. Back to the actual discussion.)

That is a very good point SD. To present something as a “challenge” may be very effective for certain personality types.

Last night at a dinner party with a few couples from the ward one conversation came up about a stake president who was talking to a visiting Elder Bednar and he mentioned that he challenged some individuals to…I don’t remember exactly what…but Elder Bednar’s reply to the stake president was intriguing to me. He said when you give that challenge substitute the word challenge for encourage. That to me was meaningful because I have always had an issue with the “challenge” flowed down to members as sounding more like “…I bet you aren’t capable of…prove me wrong” and my internal response is always I don’t accept your challenge. I would however respond to encouragement, makes it sound like it’s for my own good not somebody else’s expectation. For instance, being challenged to read the BoM in a certain amount of time or a whole list of other challenges I’ve heard over the years. Why does this bug me? I thought the recommendation was great advice and I mistakenly remarked that the word “challenge” has been used for many years to which almost everyone at the table at the same time said “it still is”! It was kind of like a warning shot over my bow. Will I never be able to submit totally to all direction, unconditionally walking in step? Why do I have such a problem with being led around without questions? Am I in jeopardy of being a critic of leadership? I’m sure having a hard time assimilating.

Sometimes words have consequences. I have never had a problem with leadership – but I have resistance and sometimes bitterness with those that think they have authority over others. Sometimes people speak their thoughts that I interpret very differently than what they intended. For whatever reason – those that I have gone through trauma with – I tend to understand and respect regardless of their poor choice of terms.