- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I believe in the power of the home teaching program when it’s executed properly. I’ve had effective home teachers that have enriched my family and created a sense of belonging in my Ward. They were exemplary of the Savior in their willingness to help me. On the other hand, I wonder if it’s time an overhaul of its administration.
Personally, I have concerns about the administration because it’s too hard to stay motivated when in spite of your efforts, the only official visit you can count is one where you sat with the family and shared a message.
What about the people who won’t see you? Shouldn’t you be able to count those people on a best efforts basis, so the Stake can see the effort you’re putting into the program? And what about the family that only wants a letter, shouldn’t we count those families as home taught provided we sent the letter? Is is not counter-productive to insist on visiting families who don’t want a visit?
The reason I say this, is because I got worn out from the home teaching program because I never appeared to be successful at administering. It was a contributing reason to my decision to quit my Priesthood Leadership calling. It was like working at a sales position where you rarely, if ever, get a commission. Imagine the turnover you would have in positions like those where there is rarely any success. People get burnt out.
Stake leaders would often come to Ward conferences and tell us our records weren’t clean due to bad ratios. They would call everyone to repentence on home teaching, etcetera, when really, I was doing my best with my presidency to get it working. Why was the stake so hard on us? Because they were only looking at the visits made, and not all the other efforts made by home teachers who were routinely rejected, etcetera. Nor were they considering the efforts of the leaders in holding PPI’s since these activities aren’t reported in MLS.
I think there’s room for a kinder, gentler reporting system which respects the wishes of families who don’t want much contact, and also accurately represent the efforts of priesthood leaders and home teachers at large, in the MLS reports.
We had a meeting recently where we got chewed out (putting it kindly) for our home teaching numbers. I asked the new HPGL whether he saw a jump in home teaching as a result. He replied “No”. I think our reporting system does a lot to ensure the non-sucesss and lack of enthusiasm for the program.
What do you think? Can you envision a better system of looking after less actives, active families with needs, without the negative motivational effects that too often attends Ward home teaching programs?
I hesitate to post. Yet, you have opened Pandora’s box. LDS home teaching has run its course. It needs to be tenderly laid to rest. There should be one home teaching visit a year, mainly to let families know the names and phone numbers they might need, in case of tragedy, or for a lesser need from the home teachers. I fought the teaching battle for half a century. I never saw appreciable change. I never could arrange for a companion to be assigned with me. I took my own non-member brother until he got tired of slamming doors. Most people (mostly in-actives), really didn’t want me interrupting their lives. Their boundaries need to be honored. We are a church, not big-brother. My finest own visits, simply LDS family and friends who came on they own initiative, when they knew I was hurting. I practiced that policy as well. No “correlation” I know, just love emulated. For those who don’t need it, it isn’t effective. When they do need it, it can be a life-saver – especially for those in places where fellow members don’t live close and for those who tend to slip through the cracks without assignment. Imo, it’s not the program in and of itself that is the problem; it’s the way it is run by too many members and local leaders. I really do believe it is inspired, but it would be totally redundant and unnecessary if we loved and served each other as we should. Until that day, I want it to continue – with some out-of-the-box, fresh thinking and implementation.
There is a GREAT discussion about this (focused on VT) on By Common Consent. The link is:
http://bycommonconsent.com/2010/05/25/opting-out-of-visiting-teaching/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.