- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was thinking about this the other day. A year ago, I would make regular visits to less active members’ homes with the hope I would make a difference in seeing them return to full activity. I tried to look at that effort now through my new lens, and I had very little interest in it. To really touch someone, I feel that I have to be their friend — in a meaninful way — not just a visit, a message, and an invitation to come to Church without dealing with any of their issues. Without even knowing their deep thoughts and motivations that led them to make the decision to not come to Church anymore. I think it’s hard to make a difference with a single visit and then “assigning” a friendshipper. If you’ve ever been less active, what kind of contact have you really liked from the Church? Has there ever been a time when someone you didn’t know that well from the Church did something that instilled a spark of activity, or motivated you to even higher levels of commitment if you were already semi or fully active?
Great Question, Silent Struggler. By the way, I am finally doing so much better mentally and emotionally right now. As to your question: About 15 or more years ago, God had led me to visit the 7th Day Adventist church around the corner from the lds church (as explained in my intro). One of the things, that made it easier to return to the church at that time was my visiting teacher. When I left the church, she had asked if she could still come visit me and wanted to be my friend whether I ever came back to the church or not. I told her that was fine. So, for two years (the time I was out of the church) she faithfully visited me, brought goodies, and was cheerful and polite. Only asking if I could use any help. She never pressured me into sharing why I had left the church which I was thankful for at the time.
Now, 2010, as you know what happened with the bishop when we moved to Florida.( see my post on ” need advice”). I did attend the Gospel Doctrine class here in Florida for awhile. The bishop’s wife taught it and she is a great teacher and very likable. She had also been very nice over the phone when I had orginally tried to contact her husband. I also attended RS for a while and went to a few activities. Then my husband had talked to this bishop by phone as my husband was still in Davenport Iowa for sometime. He is finally here with me after 6 long months and that is wonderful. The bishop was very insulting and rude to my husband and basically, no visiting teachers or home teachers had ever come by during the time my husband was gone. One home teacher and the full time young missionaries came by about month ago and were nice and we had a pleasant discussion. Also, a German lady I had met and gone to the movies with once from the ward has kept in touch through email and phone calls. A few days before GC, I got an email from the bishops wife, who had thanked me for the funny utube spoof about visiting teaching. She said that I was missed and reminded me that GC was going to be on and that maybe I could find answers to my doubts and questions there. That was all fine. But, then she lays into me stating that she had listened to the John Dehlin link about why people leave the church and that I should not let this kind of anti-Mormon stuff keep me from loosing my salvation, and temple marriage. She asked how someone like me who had served a mission could possibly wonder if the church was not true and then did the witnessing thing to me that my sister in law had done. Well, that ticked me off and I finally did write her back and said that if she had seen the John Dehlin utube she would know how to treat those that have become disilluioned with the church. I also finally told her that how her husband had treated me and my family when trying to move here was the straw that broke the camels back and how it made us feel. Have not heard from her since.
I think if this bishop here had been empathetic and had sympatheized with me as to how hard it must be to be the only member in my family and how they would try to reach out to my family with love, it might have been different. Instead it was an interogation, treating us like moochers, and conditional love; instead the message was that only active, faith believing members are wanted in this ward. I had also called and sent my home teacher the John Dehlins link and have never heard from him. My previous bishop and old lds friend from Iowa looked at it and thought it was very good and have started a class in their ward with people who have doubts or questions. This is the right attitude. So, how one is treated makes a huge difference.
Thanks for sharing this Bridget. It sounds as if simply being there for people and being pleasant and non-judgmental is the best thing you can do when people have doubts — if they aren’t willing to open up and share them with you so you can talk about them. I had a similar experience with a good home teacher. I was semi-active for 7 years and our home teacher came faithfully and became my friend. We had a lot in common and eventually I looked forward to him coming over to share what was going on in our lives. He taught a lesson monthly, but never asked about my less activity or prodded me to do anything personally. I didn’t feel he was judgmental either. In fact, at times I felt I would’ve opened up to him if he asked, but since he didn’t ask, I didn’t share anything.
During this period, the Bishop asked me to share what was going on in my mind, and I refused to tell him (politely). He asked if he could meet with me annually just to see how things were going, and we did so for about two years. The talk was more about how I felt about the Church with an “open ear policy” if I wanted to share anything, which I never did. I didn’t share anything beyond the fact that I wasn’t really ready to be active, etcetera. He had me over for dinner a couple times since I had been friends with his wife before they were married.
Finally, in our third annual meeting, I told him about the event that knocked me off the Stage 3 wagon when he sort of hit the question softly. He tried to counteract my attitudes, but did so in a kind way, and even said that before the meeting he was praying to share what he wanted to share without offending me. I can’t remember what he said, but I think it was all about forgiveness and the SMA’s we are used to hearing. But I wasn’t offended because he showed a real sensitivity to how I was feeling, while still getting his message across. I did share with him my problem with tithing and the Church welfare system (I was NOT a recipient — but had issues with some of the things I saw, which I won’t go into).
Unfortunately, he must’ve shared this with a member of the Stake Presidency, because in a Stake Conference talk, this member of the SP said during his talk, he spoke about celestial glory, and then he appeared to look straight at me and said “If you have problems with tithing or the Church welfare system, you can’t have it.” I felt his stare when he said it, which required turing his head at my direction and leaving it there, as well as my recent convo with the Bishop were too much of a coincidence to be of a general nature.
This put me off for a moment, but fortunately, the kindness of my Bishop and the other Ward members had a neutralizing effect on me. I viewed that member of the SP as a highly judgmental person who knew nothing about the circumstances that had led me to my conclusion — which were life shattering and harsh.
The other thing that made me WANT to go to Church was when a man in the Ward I got to know introduced me to his son, who offerred to help me with some yard work. He came over and spent a full day helping me move a woodpile, rake leaves, and other things. After he left I felt like I wanted to go to Church. I’m not sure why, I guess the kindness drew me in….
The other thing that put me off, was the behavior of a returned Mission President. I had started teaching Elder’s Quorum very occasionally, and apparently did a good job at it. I got a lot of positive feedback which seemed genuine, and not simply attempts to make me feel good about contributing at Church again. But at one point, I used someone’s answer to a question to crack a joke, and this returned Mission President (who later became SP) said “No!!!! He made a good comment there, and YOU’VE just made a joke of it”. As a professional teacher who abhors it when “students” in my secular classes challenge me rudely in front of the class, this was a huge withdrawal in my “coming out” of semi-activity as well.
Upon reflecting on these things, I think one approach to activation is to show regular expressions of love and affirmation, and NOT to be judgmental. Give them space. Help people feel part of the Ward and the overall social experience even though they may not be fully active. Be patient…and I think you have to stop WANTING people to become active again to the point you write them off when they don’t respond immediately. AS the author of “Conversations with God” said — live life without expectations of any specific results.
When I was a leader, I felt really frustrated with less actives who wouldn’t budge and didn’t want their name removed either. Should I ever return to it, I think I’m going to be much more empathetic. And I’m going to politely put those overbearing stake leaders in their place when they start demanding results… as someone once said, when working with people, slow is fast, and fast is slow.
Exactly a month ago, this posted on my personal blog: Quote:I don’t reach out to anyone any differently than I reach out to everyone – unless I feel impressed to do so on an individual level. I smile at everyone; I talk with everyone; I hug or shake hands with everyone; I flirt with all of the older widows (and many of the older non-widows, whose husbands love it); I play with all the kids; etc.
I am bothered more than I can express whenever I hear someone talking about someone else as a “project” – as the focus of something that has to be done. I believe the best help I can give anyone is to get to know them and sincerely befriend them. That’s when I can usually get the best inspiration about how I can help them.
I think if we truly knew, loved and accepted everyone simply as a natural extension of our “love orientation”, “activation efforts” would be simply a part of that perspective – not separate activities that need to be carved out of our schedule. That is the ideal.
To be clear, I have NO problem with thoughtful and careful consideration about how to reach and help someone – or to whom to reach out and try to help, but I don’t like ulterior motives. “Coming back to church” will happen when someone feels drawn to return, for whatever reason, but it generally happens best or most lastingly when it’s not a temporary focus that stops when an objective has been achieved.
If I were in charge of activation efforts, I would say, basically, “I feel like __________ needs a friend right now. Go be that friend. If she is interested in returning to activity or not, be a friend. No matter what happens with other callings and assignments, don’t stop being her friend. This isn’t a temporary assignment; treat it like a life-long request.”
Wonderful advice Ray! Quote:If I were in charge of activation efforts, I would say, basically, “I feel like __________ needs a friend right now. Go be that friend. If she is interested in returning to activity or not, be a friend. No matter what happens with other callings and assignments, don’t stop being her friend. This isn’t a temporary assignment; treat it like a life-long request.”
I think that sums it up pretty good. You can have only so many good friends — that takes time, but you can invite that person over for social events with other people, include them in park trips, barbeques etcetera, be friends on facebook and stay connected with them there, etcetera.
I remember a month or two ago a nice lady sat next to me and talked. She didn’t just say hi but asked questions about where I lived etc. etc. Then she gave me her phone number and told me that I could call her anytime if I wanted to talk or needed something. The phone number was nice. I felt like she didn’t mind if I ACTUALLY called her and she wasn’t just asking if I needed anything like a lot of people say (sorry but I am not sure if they are serious/honest all the time when they say that). Anyway, her giving me her number was nice and when I see her in Relief Society she always comes and sits by me and is friendly. Most people might say hi and forget about me after a month or say hi but never sit by me or give me a phone number.
I like what you said Mormonmom… When someone asks me “How are you?’ anymore, I sometimes say, “Do you really want to know or are you just trying to be nice?” You are making me doubt just how much of a traditional believer I ever was. I always felt a certain discomfort about the more persistent (and disrespectful) of activation stories. In my mind, I suppose, the end never could justify certain means. I think the most harmful tactics are the “tinkle or get off the potty” ones. Unfortunately, some bishops want clean church records more than they care about people. I think the key thing to do is to remember that church is voluntary, and you have to help people make choices that work for them in their own time frames. I went to visit a less active sister about 8 months ago with the RS president at the bishop’s request because this sister had asked for a visit. I had tried to visit her before, and she had dodged me every time, so I just dropped some nice holiday things off now and again and figured she didn’t care to see anyone. The visit was great fun – what a terrific woman. But she’s not interested in coming back to church. Maybe she will feel differently later. I think if people’s lives are pointing them toward the church, that’s the time they will come back, not before. People who get frustrated with inactives are probably thinking administratively (about their own interests) and not about that person’s actual needs. If the person doesn’t see the benefit for them right now, it’s just not going to happen. hawkgrrrl wrote:People who get frustrated with inactives are probably thinking administratively (about their own interests) and not about that person’s actual needs. If the person doesn’t see the benefit for them right now, it’s just not going to happen.
I have found the Stake can instill this kind of thinking. When you get a numbers oriented Stake Presidency, High Councilor or Bishop, they can invoke these kinds of “tinkle or get off the pot” attitudes. I think that’s a very short-sighted way of looking at the inactive’s attitudes. Our last SP was kind of like that, composed of two lawyers and a senior manager of a global corporation. They were hard nuts to crack.
When I was HPGL, I would visit people and they would be rude. But then, a couple years later they would show up at Church again. One person lost his job and couldn’t find any decent employment and turned to the Church for support finding a job. Another person went through a divorce and this somehow freed her up to enjoy Church again now that her former spouse was out of her life.
I also made the mistake of HPGL of asking people if they wanted their name removed if they didn’t want any more contact with the Church. Our Bishop encouraged this. This only upset people and made them feel even more like an outsider as I was basically saying “if you don’t feel good about the Church anymore, why don’t we just nullify your Church membership?”. It doesn’t help for people who still have a glimmer of a testimony or a small affinity for the Church.
Quote:I also made the mistake of HPGL of asking people if they wanted their name removed if they didn’t want any more contact with the Church. Our Bishop encouraged this.
I have a good friend in our current ward who was extremely irate about this issue. Her family (parents & siblings) all went inactive back in her native country due to some concerted efforts of anti-Mormon influence, and she has struggled as the only remaining believing member in her family (yet still very critical of the church) to make sure that her family is welcome at church and that there’s no ultimatum that will drive them to take stronger steps to sever ties. She had an issue with some local church leaders asking them to have their names removed, which offended them and enraged her. I think she was in the right; well, according to official church policy she was also.
SilentDawning wrote:I also made the mistake of HPGL of asking people if they wanted their name removed if they didn’t want any more contact with the Church.
I think there are cases when asking that question is entirely appropriate, even to the point of having a form letter and a stamped/addressed envelope ready for them to sign and mail in. People who get sick of being contacted will either become angry, abusive, or elusive. Other times I have run into people who were friendly but who were long-time members of another church, and simply had no use for further visits. They were too polite to simply say ‘get lost’, but were genuinely grateful for information on how to dissociate themselves from the church formally and finally. I firmly believe that they all have a right to know what their options are. Refusing to give people that information when it is clearly called for, in the hope that they will eventually rejoin the fold, is silly in my opinion. I’m not suggesting anyone here is saying that. It’s just been my observation that people feel like it’s the nuclear option and should almost never be contemplated, and preferably kept secret.
Quote:I think there are cases when asking that question is entirely appropriate, even to the point of having a form letter and a stamped/addressed envelope ready for them to sign and mail in.
I agree that yes, there ARE times when it is appropriate to invite name removal. Like when they start spouting off anti-Mormon ideals in a rude and angry way. I suggest it then, but they often just get rude and refuse to write the letter. Also, when they are mad about repeated visits, I have offerred name removal as a way of stopping visits. It’s maddening when they refuse to write the letter out of laziness though, or just being ornery.
It’s funny, people accuse us of being a cult, but refuse to do the simplest thing in just writing a letter to get out of it.
And here’s the absolute worst case scenario. Our former Bishop wanted us to offer name removal if the person was antagonistic or anti-Mormon or just plain indifferent. I put a lot of effort into getting such name removal letters. However, he didn’t process the letters, so these people, who thought visits would stop, continued to get visits. I mentioned this repeatedly to our Bishop and he never bothered to take the names off. That was another contributing factor to my self-inspired exodus from my priesthood calling — all this effort for no results.
Regarding form letters — not allowed says the CHI. The letter is supposed to be in their own handwriting. The way I got around this was to show up with a pad of paper and a pen and have them write the letter right there. If they objected due to laziness, I would say “It will only take 3 minutes and then visits will stop”. The CHI also said they can specify in the letter they want removal IMMEDIATELY, without having to get a phone call from the Bishop in 30 days to make sure they haven’t changed their mind. Also, if the person threatens legal action, or the letter is lost after being written, name removal can happen on the strength of a letter signed by two Melch priesthood holders.
I had one situation where a guy threatened to call the police and sue if we kept coming around to visit him. But when I tried to explain that he could write a simple letter, he just slammed the door in my place. I was with two missionaries, and asked them to sign a letter indicating what had happened so the Bishop could process name removal. Their mission president refused to let them sign the letter, so this person’s name is STILL on our Ward records in spite of threatening to call the police and sue.
End of story — I still believe in name removal for people who find the Church a major irritant and get mad when you come to the door.
I also think our Church MLS system should have some functionality that allows us to accurately track people who want to stay on the records but who don’t want contact so we can respect their wishes. When we keep bothering people who no longer want to see us, we are acting like any other temporal organization — like telemarketers who call you OVER AND OVER AND OVER again — not an organization with a “divine commission”.
SilentDawning wrote:
I also think our Church MLS system should have some functionality that allows us to accurately track people who want to stay on the records but who don’t want contact so we can respect their wishes.That seems like a good idea, but how would that work? If they’re still on the records, then it becomes someone’s responsibility to decide when to move them back to the ‘standard’ category, which would be ascertained by … a visit! Practically that wouldn’t be much different than the current system of someone maintaining a ‘do not contact’ list … or moving them to ‘address unknown’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.