- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
Implementation gets all kinds of wonky and even twisted, because people are all kinds of wonky and their thinking often is twisted, but the motivation usually is sincere concern, at least, and often the best love that is possible for those people.
You know, I think this is right as well. I don’t think the people who bugged this lady had ill intent. She is hyper-sensitive to the church being the motivation for the contact as opposed to just love. In the case of many LDS, they see the blessings the church can bring as such a benefit; their motives are genuine to try to help. But, it does sometimes get twisted in the mix.
Anyway,…I think that this idea of a bishop going around and offering to have names removed?…I’m going to soften my position on this. I’ve read all the posts on this tread pretty carefully, and I see the potential for abuse wafting the other direction. I do think it would be helpful if the pathway to have one’s name removed were a little more clearly posted out there. Perhaps it is–I haven’t looked this up recently, so don’t know. But, often times there are those who are less active who get weird when they are asked to have their name removed–they really don’t want to. Pushing it wouldn’t help.
I kindof think that some folks like being on the fence, neither in nor out.
Rob4Hope wrote:Are you kidding?
You are freaking brilliant.
😆 😆 you crack me up.We all learn from each other here. Same to you…no holding back.
Rob4Hope wrote:I kindof think that some folks like being on the fence, neither in nor out.
I think so too, and not in a manipulative way or to draw attention, simply because they don’t want things to be so final. They want to be out for a bit because they’re bugged…but they don’t want to officially remove their names and make it final…they just want to be left alone for a bit.
It seems people want separation…but their level of separation…and that leaves members and leaders guessing a bit on what exactly they need. Many people really appreciate the efforts for people to come invite them back. That is why the regular visits and invites come from a genuine place of inviting to come to christ by coming to church. Some people respond to that.
Sometimes that is still not enough separation for some, and it is taken like members are suffocating them or just want something from them (money, time, obedience, etc).
If a person makes it clear to a leader so the leader doesn’t have to guess…it would be easier. “Please don’t contact me for 2 years, then we’ll see how it goes” vs. “Don’t ever contact me and remove me from your records” ….these are two different things that leaders are unsure what the person wants.
But I agree with you, some want to sit on the fence and wait to see what is going to be best for them. I think those are the ones the members and missionaries are targeting to pull them off the fence and ask them to be on our “team” because they are wanted.
As you said before…it is the “how” they do it that messes things up sometimes.
But how your friend “feels”, although valid, has never been something I’ve seen church members or leaders try to do.
And, I think all of this is why it’s so hard to get an accurate count of how many are leaving. Our membership records are full of people who left the church long ago, and have no intention of returning. But, we keep them on the records just in case they ever decide to come back. And many of them just don’t care to remove their records, because it’s not something they want to waste their time on, because it just isn’t important to them. If somebody leaves with a chip on their shoulder, and they have an ‘anti’ stance, then they are probably more likely to have their names removed, because they feel passionately about it. But, for somebody who just doesn’t want to have anything to do with the church anymore, they usually just fade into the background. There’s not just one way of leaving the church, and everybody who leaves has different experiences, intentions, feelings, etc. Personally, I’m neutral about whether or not a bishop wants to approach members about having their records removed. If he thinks there’s some value in it, go for it. If not, don’t do it. I served in a mission where there were 200-225 missionaries, and the mission averaged 8 baptisms/month. For a few months, we started hearing about this one companionship who were consistently baptizing 6-10 people/month for about 4 months in a row. The senior companion was ‘promoted’ to AP, and I was transferred to take his place. When I got there, we started visiting all of these new members to teach the New Member Discussions. I quickly found out that most of them had never read anything in the BoM, had never heard of Joseph Smith, knew nothing about the restoration or first vision, and had never even attended church. Several of the new members were living in a small community that was a ‘mental health’ community, and really didn’t even know what baptism meant or what they had agreed to. The branch president had almost a hostile stance toward missionaries, because of what that missionary had done. I wouldn’t have blamed him if he had gone back through all of those new members and removed their names, because they really shouldn’t have been baptized in the first place.
The numbers game is damaging, whether it’s a mission president pushing for new members, a stake president pushing for attendance, or a bishop pushing for HT/VT percentages. Too often, we forget that their are people behind those numbers. When the only focus is on the numbers, then the people are the ones who suffer. It causes people to take unnecessary measures, like baptizing people who aren’t ready, or removing people when you don’t need to. It gets extreme on both sides of the fence.
:thumbdown: Holy Cow wrote:It gets extreme on both sides of the fence.
Your whole post, HC, is makes great points.
It is why one person’s experience, while valid, does not accurately reflect a generalized opinion that all the church is like that. Or one missionary’s baptisms or enthusiasm represent all missionaries or all the people who are baptized.
It’s a pretty critical point to understand.
God is letting us all play in the sandbox. Experiences vary. Understanding individuals and concern for the one is the best course of action and to keep things in perspective.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.