- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As you know, I have a few beefs with the LDS experience — moving all the time (and the lower back pain to prove it now, for the rest of my life), hometeaching (a good program, measured wrongly and often used as a guilt trip) and other things. My wife told me Jeffrey R. Holland talked about how we can’t always do the gold standard of a visit in the home as our measure of success in home teaching. He seemed to lighten up on what it means to be successful as a home teacher, based on what she told me. I did not hear the talk, but did anyone come away with impressions the church is going to finally rethink how we measure and define the success of the home teaching program?
SilentDawning wrote:I did not hear the talk, but did anyone come away with impressions the church is going to finally rethink how we measure and define the success of the home teaching program?
I’d like to see people matched up a bit better, with an honest appraisal of wants/needs; put the folks who don’t want to HT with the folks who only want on-call-for-emergencies HTs, and the ones who like to visit with the ones who want to be visited. Then, rather than having the HTs report, have everybody only report each month if they wanted a visit and didn’t get one.
Personally, I’d rather my HTs just check in by phone, FB or whatever once a month and call it good.
I heard the talk, but I was doing some stuff in the kitchen at the time. But it was clear he was lowering the bar. He even admitted it was silly to rush out at the last of the month and read the ensign article that the family had probably already read. Some reasonable stuff. In areas with great distances or too many inactive – just try to make sure people feel they are wanted. Make sure someone doesn’t go months with no contact.
So I would say it was a positive step back from “100% home teaching or we are all going to hell”, but we all know how all it takes is a SP that still feels that way and the pressure will still come down.
I remember when I was EQ pres the SP wouldn’t let me go unless I committed to 100% for the following month.
I did hear the talk, and while I appreciate that Elder Holland put some focus on ministering as opposed to checking off the box on the last day of the month I don’t really see any major change coming. Quote:Brethren, may we briefly examine the priesthood duty that has been described as “the Church’s first source of help” to its individuals and families. Entire forests have been sacrificed providing the paper to organize it and then reorganize it. A thousand pep talks have been given trying to encourage it. Certainly no Freudian travel agency anywhere could possibly arrange the number of guilt trips this subject has provoked. Yet still we struggle to achieve anywhere near an acceptable standard of performance regarding the Lord’s commandment “to watch over the church always” through priesthood home teaching.
My first thought when he said this was, “Then maybe we’re doing it wrong.” Seriously, if it really is a commandment to watch over the church always and home teaching has never been successful at that, maybe we need to do something different.
He then goes on to discuss why it’s hard – demographics (really translated distance, although I appreciate that he understands all wards are not like Utah wards); limited number of men who can home teach which can overwhelm them; cultural taboos; and safety. With that said, Elder Holland says:
Quote:Brethren, in the best of all worlds and in those circumstances where it can be done, a monthly visit in each home is still the ideal the Church would strive for.
Nothing new there, and he quotes a FP letter from 2001that in circumstances where the ideal isn’t possible leaders do their best (Utahns are apparently not off the hook). From my experience way out here in the mission field, our more orthodox leaders interpret “do your best” to mean we should do 100% with the priesthood we have, while people like me just don’t care.
Elder Holland then tells how he and his AP comp strove to visit everyone (apparently quite literally) and threw in that while they were working to visit everyone they also sent emails and texts and made phone calls and posted on social media. What an awesome guy (meant halfway as a compliment and halfway sarcastic). Understanding he’s not really the average Joe in any ward, if any of the average Joes in my ward who is not my assigned home teacher called to come visit I’d probably turn him down.
Quote:Brethren, the appeal I am making tonight is for you to lift your vision of home teaching. Please, in newer, better ways see yourselves as emissaries of the Lord to His children. That means leaving behind the tradition of a frantic, law of Moses–like, end-of-the-month calendar in which you rush to give a scripted message from the Church magazines that the family has already read. We would hope, rather, that you will establish an era of genuine, gospel-oriented concern for the members, watching over and caring for each other, addressing spiritual and temporal needs in any way that helps.
This, I think, was the main point of the talk. I don’t disagree. Ideally we’d all look after each other without being assigned as home teachers but in reality that’s never going to happen. Likewise, it’s never going to happen (under the current system at least) that we’ll move away from reporting numbers. I get that it’s the only way to track but having the reporting-the-visit system isn’t going to achieve the above. Our stake is moving toward a system where instead of the EQP or HPGL asking if the visit was done they’re supposed to ask what the needs of the family are. (I have yet to be asked the question, but my answer would be “I’ll let you know when they tell me one.”)
This next quote was interesting to me. Again, I don’t disagree with it and in fact I like it.
Quote:Now, as for what “counts” as home teaching, every good thing you do “counts,” so report it all! Indeed, the report that matters most is how you have blessed and cared for those within your stewardship, which has virtually nothing to do with a specific calendar or a particular location. What matters is that you love your people and are fulfilling the commandment “to watch over the church always.”
Story: I was a struggling unmarried YSA in my late 20s once. I was also fairly TBM at the time. I went home teaching pretty faithfully and mostly achieved pretty close to 100%. I knew who my home teacher was, he was active, and I saw him every Sunday and at other activities and sometimes around town. He never visited. In an interview with my bishop seeking counsel I told the bishop I thought it might be helpful if I was home taught. He looked at his report to see who my home teacher was and told me his report said I was home taught every month! I was genuinely shocked and told the bishop so and why I was shocked. I did get a new home teacher, and I also talked to the EQP about what I had learned. The EQP explained to me that my former HT did what Elder Holland indicates above to some extent. That is, if he interacted with me during the month (he always did) he counted me as visited. In retrospect, he was doing what Elder Holland is advocating, counting everything – but on the other hand he had no clue what my needs were or that I was struggling.
Elder Holland concluded:
Quote:My brethren of the holy priesthood, when we speak of home teaching or watchcare or personal priesthood ministry—call it what you will—this is what we are talking about. We are asking you as home teachers to be God’s emissaries to His children, to love and care and pray for the people you are assigned, as we love and care and pray for you. May you be vigilant in tending the flock of God in ways consistent with your circumstances, I pray, in the name of the Good Shepherd of us all, whose witness I am, even the Lord Jesus Christ, amen.
I get it – but I maintain the reason it won’t happen with everybody, or even most, is because of the current system. No, SD, I don’t see a change in the HT program. We’re still going to be assigned people we may or may not like, much less love. And we’re still going to be asked if we visited them this month and that number is still going to be reported (at least the third month of every quarter, the only one that really counts). Yes, I am being critical and I am stating the problem without a solution (because I don’t have one other than scrapping the whole thing and starting from scratch).
I agree with what NightSG says. Put your highest needs people with your most dedicated home teachers, put those who don’t home teach with those who don’t want to be home taught, let friends visit friends, etc. Like NightSG, I’m fine with my HT just checking in once in awhile as long as I know that if I do need something he can and will help (which is my current arrangement). In the interest of full disclosure I don’t home teach although I am assigned. As part of doing the church my own way, this works for me – I neither require (or request) home teaching and therefore owe nothing in return. No stress of having to get it done and no worries about scheduling a visit.
And maybe a couple of big lessons about not abusing HTs. (Or the entire EQ, for that matter.) Asking me to miss a couple hours work to help someone who could easily afford professional movers because a weekday is more convenient for them falls in the abuse category, IMO.
To me, if you can afford to hire someone to do it without substantial hardship, you should offer at least a reasonable amount to anyone you’re asking to do it for you.
Good summary and comments DJ and NightSG.
DJ wrote:No, SD, I don’t see a change in the HT program.
I agree. No change…just a reminder message to remember why we do home teaching and what the emphasis should be.
In my ward…they’ll remind us every Priesthood opening exercises to do get it done. Ho hum. I don’t expect it to change.
I haven’t gone back and re-read the talk but I remember it being the best talk I’ve heard on the subject. My general feelings were that Holland was making sure that the emphasis was on people, not the program. That sometimes you bend the rules to accommodate the situation. It’s rare to hear flexibility being preached from the general conference pulpit, I’ll take that any day. I don’t see any changes to the formula coming down the pike. I think it’s going to be same old, same old with the understanding that the current formula represents an ideal, something to work towards but not something to wallow in guilt over when the program isn’t followed to a tee.
NightSG wrote:I’d like to see people matched up a bit better, with an honest appraisal of wants/needs; put the folks who don’t want to HT with the folks who only want on-call-for-emergencies HTs, and the ones who like to visit with the ones who want to be visited. Then, rather than having the HTs report, have everybody only report each month if they wanted a visit and didn’t get one.
I’d love to see this approach. For one it takes some of the needs (note I said needs, not desires) of introverts into account.
This lovely gem of a talk will go the way of Daughters of My Kingdombook. – Gone. On the good side – we now have a General Conference Talk from a Big Wig that states Spirit of the Law. And we can carry it around all the time as a guideline. No more white shirts, messages, or stale meetings in the front room. As families with HT we can create a plan that works for us. As HT you can ask directly, “How would you like your HT? Sunnyside up, over easy, scrambled, toast or hashbrowns.” And you can report “Done.”
Keep this one handy it has at least a two year window of use on it.
nibbler wrote:I’d love to see this approach. For one it takes some of the needs (note I said needs, not desires) of introverts into account.
And those of us who get tired of “are you available ____ for a HT visit?” texts. Especially when they’re really generic like “Sunday between noon and 7.” I don’t want to be stuck in the house waiting for HTs that are as vague as cable repairmen. I can read the Ensign article for myself, thanks. Don’t need pants to read it myself, either.
NightSG wrote:I can read the Ensign article for myself, thanks. Don’t need pants to read it myself, either.
:thumbup: Like.I loved his message. Will it change at every local area immediately? Of course not – but it gives explicit approval for change, so it will change in quite a few places.
I see it, frankly, as a near perfect step in the right direction. It didn’t abandon a really important thing for so many members, but it put it in proper perspective – AND it stated explicitly that guilt-tripping people about it is wrong.
I learned a few things when I was in priesthood leadership about home teaching. Do what Holland says and report everything — visits, letters, emails, etcetera. You can report the gold standard of a visit to the home, but also report on the side all the other stuff you did to try to reach people.
Don’t let the program be a source of disharmony between you and your quorum — accept people where they are at, and if they don’t want to do their home teaching, then don’t push it. Work with the ones who DO their home teaching.
I would like to revise my above comments after rereading Elder Holland’s address. In the section about visiting members with is AP companion, this is not something that apparently actually happened but something Elder Holland said he woulddo under certain circumstances. My apologies for initially misunderstanding (and/or not carefully reading) and any disrespect I might have heaped upon JRH. (Although I might add that I’m not sure he would actually do what he said and I think he may have – perhaps unknowingly – put forth an unrealistic expectation of local leaders.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.