Ministering Rules

[Anonymous]

I do not like the idea of having a companion. I am not sure what the point of having a companion is since it would seem awkward and weird to me to come over and share a message. All the ministering that I have done to my ministering families in the last year has been with my wife and my family. To me it feels more natural that a family could minister to another family.

This brings me to a sticking point.

I was informed last ministering interview that there is a rule against visiting a sister alone. I have lots of questions about this. 1) Is this a rule or a guideline – as in – what are the consequences of breaking it? Do I get released? Do they take away my TR? 2) What counts as not being alone? My companion? What if my companion is my 11 yr old son? My wife? My 13 year old daughter? Various children under the age of 10? 3) Is this only a rule for ministering brothers? As in, if I visit my ministering family as a friend and neighbor but not in my capacity of a ministering brother is that ok? I had borrowed some sleds from my ministering family to do some sledding. When we came back to return them the Lady of the house invited me and my kids in for some hot cocoa. Her husband was not home.

What if I was not assigned as this family’s ministering brother? Would that change the verdict? What if this family was not even a member of the church?

I would appreciate some background here. Is this rule written down somewhere? What is the church’s goal with rules like this? Is it reasonable or too paternalistic?

[Anonymous]

Your question prompted me to peruse the handbooks, and I found that they have been updated recently (moving from language about HT to language about ministering, probably updated for combined quorums too). I don’t remember hearing any announcement about the change.

Handbook 2 has info about ministering in section 7. Here are excerpts:

Handbook 2, Section 7.4.3, Organizing Ministering to Meet Local Needs wrote:

…

The guideline that two responsible adults be present with youth does not apply to the assignment of ministering companions. However, under the direction of their bishop, leaders should use wisdom and seek inspiration when assigning youth as companions to adults.

This relates more to being alone with youth, not being alone with members of the opposite sex. The policy of two adults being present with the youth is in section 13.6.2 of Handbook 2:

Handbook 2, Section 13.6.2, 13.6.2, Adult Supervision wrote:

At least two adult supervisors must be present at all Church-sponsored activities attended by children, youth, and young single adults.

My translation: It’s okay for an adult to be alone with a youth if they are ministering companions. IMO you could still run into serious issues if an adult and youth ministering companionship isn’t father/son or mother/daughter.

Continuing with handbook 2, section 7:

Handbook 2, Section 7.4.3, Organizing Ministering to Meet Local Needs wrote:

Adult companions should avoid situations that might be misunderstood. They should use care regarding isolated one-on-one situations so that youth have a safe and rewarding experience with ministering. Additionally, leaders should use wisdom in not assigning youth to difficult home or family situations.

This sounds closer to the policy you’re talking about, but the preceding and following paragraphs deal with these adult/youth companionships, so it’s hard to arrive at the context. Also, the language isn’t very explicit.

All the official polices are right there in section 7.4 in Handbook 2, and I didn’t see any specific language that prohibits what you’re talking about.

It’s a start. I’ll keep looking.

[Anonymous]

This one is a little obscure to the topic of ministering, but it’s specific language about married members of opposite gender/sex being alone:

Handbook 2, Section 13.6.24, Travel wrote:

A man and a woman should not travel alone together for Church activities, meetings, or assignments unless they are married to each other or are both single.

Yeah… travel.

I can easily see an interpretation that a married person travelling to a person’s house with a member of the opposite gender/sex alone is forbidden but if you’re married and show up to the house of a member of the opposite gender/sex and you end up being alone then that is okay, as it did not involve actual travel alone.

Just make sure both of you remain as motionless as humanly possible during the visit. If either party takes more that a combined 12 steps during the Sabbath… I mean visit, it may be interpreted as travel.

Now I’m going to throw things that aren’t in the handbooks against the wall:

Missionary Handbook, Missionary Conduct, The Law of Chastity wrote:

To help yourself obey the law of chastity and to protect yourself from such charges, always remain with your companion. Never be alone with anyone else, male or female, adult, youth, or child (except as explained in “Stay Together” on pp. 30–32).

Eternal Marriage Student Manual, Fidelity in Marriage, President Ezra Taft Benson wrote:

“… If you are married, avoid being alone with members of the opposite sex whenever possible. Many of the tragedies of immorality begin when a man and woman are alone in the office or at church or driving in a car. At first there may be no intent or even thought of sin. But the circumstances provide a fertile seedbed for temptation. … It is so much easier to avoid such circumstances from the start so that temptation gets no chance for nourishment” (“Law of Chastity,” 51–52).

That it’s a part of the culture, there’s little doubt, but if you take a black and white approach at what is in the actual handbook, there’s certainly room for a married man (speaking to your case) visiting with a sister alone… provided it doesn’t involve travel together? Kind of weird that it’s that specific. Maybe it is an oversight, meaning the policy should say “while functioning in the capacity of any official church activity” (IDK, I’m no lawyer) or there is no such policy as it relates to the visit itself and people used cultural teachings and the rules for missionaries to build a hedge.

You may be interested in the following:

Handbook 2, Section 7.4.3, Organizing Ministering to Meet Local Needs wrote:

The elders quorum presidency normally assigns brothers into companionships of two. A married couple may be assigned to minister together if that would most effectively meet the needs of a particular individual or family.

[Anonymous]

Fascinating.

Supposing that the “never be alone with the member of the opposite sex” rule is not a rule at all, How do I go about explaining that to the EQ leadership that seem to think that it is a rule?

This is certainly not an issue where I would particularly want to take a stand. The circumstance in question was unique and not likely to be repeated. I just am generally opposed to creating extra rules as a hedge around the law.

Quote:

But this may present a problem for some because there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”

[Anonymous]

Looking at the title, I thought this would be a post about how awesome ministering is. MINISTERING RULES!!!

This “rule” is in large part to protect the “good name of the Church”. If a man is alone with children who are not his, or with a woman of the opposite sex who is not his wife, and accusations are made… well, there’s very little recourse. Society at large has a”Guilty until proven innocent” mentality about those sorts of situations. And if the man were on a Church assignment, the Church will absolutely be getting bad press, and will probably get sued.

I hope false accusations are in the minority, but when they happen, they are ruinous. Beyond that, the LDS Church is the richest religious organization in the entire world, and would go to great lengths to protect its good name. If someone is upset at the Church, wants “financial compensation”, has a questionable moral compass, and sees the opportunity… it won’t end well for you.

Plus… there is something to say for helping to keep the law of chastity by avoiding “difficult” situations. People fall for those they spend time with and confide in. Being alone gives the opportunity. I’m not saying you would ever consider having an affair… but then again, I once would’ve never considered reneging on my commitment to the Church. “By small and simple means”, as the scripture goes.

[Anonymous]

The “don’t be alone with a member of the opposite sex” is probably a holdover from more prudish times, although I think it is commonly believed. FWIW, missionaries not hugging a member of the opposite sex hasn’t been in the “White Bible” for several years – but I bet almost everyone you ask (including the vast majority of missionaries) believe it is.

Then of course there is the “you can’t be too careful” idea. I buy this to some extent. As a teacher, I have had a longstanding policy of never being alone with any student, male or female, because it protects both of us from real, imagined, or malicious issues.

So specifically to your situation. My companion is my wife, and I love that my ward does this more as a rule than an exception. We do have a single sister assigned, but she’s inactive and we don’t visit. We don’t visit the two married couples either (in case you’re having trouble with the math, we don’t visit anyone). I would agree though that if we were to decide to visit I would be much more comfortable doing so with my wife as opposed to another male in the ward. I think a focus of the new initiatives (ministering, home based church, etc.) has been to simplify and unprogam them. Hence, I’m not sure “rules” (programs) such as those that existed under home teaching still exist – the Old Guard just hasn’t realized that yet (or maybe some have but can’t deal with it). I’m still encountering a fair number of people who can’t deal with not being programmed – they just don’t know what to do.

[Anonymous]

I understand the church wanting to prevent bad press, public relations, and financial payouts. Therefore, if it really is a rule then the church should be willing to write it down as a condition of continuing in a ministering assignment. It does not help the church if we kind of had an unwritten rule that may or not have been explained to the parties involved.

I also understand what I call “guardrails”. These are personal boundaries that are places some place prior to making bad decisions to help keep you away from those bad decisions and/or Sins. The key is for these guardrails to be personal. If someone’s guardrail becomes an expectation on others then “gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.””

For me personally, I would have no problem calling this a guidline or best practice and moving on. Making it into a rule just does not sit right with me.

P.S. DJ and I were posting at the same time. Yes, DJ I do think that the whole thing might be somewhat of a holdover from HT days. HT was about coming over every month with a message from the church leadership. It would make some sense that there would be certain expectations involved. For me ministering is closer to being a good neighbor. I do not feel that I am “on assignment” or representing the church. I am just being a friend.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

P.S. DJ and I were posting at the same time. Yes, DJ I do think that the whole thing might be somewhat of a holdover from HT days. HT was about coming over every month with a message from the church leadership. It would make some sense that there would be certain expectations involved. For me ministering is closer to being a good neighbor. I do not feel that I am “on assignment” or representing the church. I am just being a friend.

I also think this is the definition of ministering.

There is no question in my mind home teaching was broken, and it was broken because it missed the mark. Instead of the mark being what I think ministering is supposed to be, it became “visit, give canned message, report you visited (check the box).” Ministering is an attempt to fix what was wrong with home teaching, and I think it has great potential. I think it’s biggest fault is that we are still assigned to be friends/neighbors – but I also recognize the extreme difficulty in fixing that.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I do not like the idea of having a companion. I am not sure what the point of having a companion is since it would seem awkward and weird to me to come over and share a message….

I would appreciate some background here. Is this rule written down somewhere? What is the church’s goal with rules like this? Is it reasonable or too paternalistic?

It is not entirely a bad thing. If you visit someone, having a companion potentially protects you or the family from trouble. They can’t accuse you of things and it is less likely that you would do anything (not that I believe you personally would).

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Therefore, if it really is a rule then the church should be willing to write it down as a condition of continuing in a ministering assignment. It does not help the church if we kind of had an unwritten rule that may or not have been explained to the parties involved.

With ambiguity in the Church, it gives them freedom to strictly clarify them however they’d like, the moment clarification is needed. I have no doubt, should a situation arise and be taken to court, they would present plenty of written statements showing it was expressly “against the rules”. But unless you get into trouble, I doubt they’d care. In fact, I’d say if it was an explicit rule now, people would follow it even in those circumstances where it’d be better not to (such as emergencies, etc).

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

What is the church’s goal with rules like this? Is it reasonable or too paternalistic?

I think it’s reasonable. One false accusation or misinterpreted act by a brother alone with a sister and your reputation is shot. People will take sides and you will be in a hearsay situation. Better to have a witness with you. And the “courts” — whether at church or in the secular world, are not very good at discerning truth. And in my view, the deck is stacked against a man accused of inappropriate behavior with a woman when alone together.

I have learned that in my profession as a university teacher. I’ve seen how misconduct, whether real or imagined, can ruin careers and get people fired — even good, honest people who may not have done anything. I won’t ever be alone with a member of the opposite sex unless we’re in a public place. I never give them a ride, or let them give me a ride if we are alone or with very young children who can’t articulate what happened afterwards — it’s the way of modern times. I would use judgment, I guess, if there was a calamity or emergency, but I’m not walking into that bear trap if I don’t absolutely have to.

I look at it as a rule meant for the protection of everyone.

[Anonymous]

Yes, Silent Dawning, that is a good summary. It is for the protection of everyone. It helps prevent a) situations of abuse and b) accusations of same.

Personally I’m glad they’re there. I’m not always very sensitive to precarious situations and have walked into them unwittingly once or twice.

I used to man the Family History Center on a weekday evening, on the same night Young Women’s class was held. Anyway, I was heading out of the chapel and the lady who ran YW asked if I could give her and one of the YW a car ride. Well, we all lived in the same direction so it made sense.

But here’s the thing. The YW in question didn’t like me. She said in the car park when she thought I couldn’t hear “But I don’t know him.”. At this point I started to feel upset, because I don’t like to think folk find me creepy. I did actually know her family a little bit, and I spoke to her adult sister sometimes at church, but I make a point of not having much to do with the children in the ward, for this reason. Anyway, we all got in the car and there was a really bad vibe about the whole thing even though I tried to be polite. It took twenty minutes to get to the YW’s home and it was a very uncomfortable twenty minutes.

To cut a long story short, that particular evening didn’t suit me much anyway, so I asked the FHC director if someone else could do it because I had other things to do (which was partly true). Although nothing had happened, I really didn’t like the situation. I didn’t tell the woman in charge of YW how *I* had felt. But it is so easy to see how it could have been even worse. What if the seat belt got jammed or she misinterpreted something I said? I didn’t want the matter brought up at an official level, because then people might think something had happened, and I didn’t want that to my name.

[Author]

Posts