- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is more of a rant than anything else. Thank you for giving me time and place to do so just to get things off my chest once in awhile. Our stake has been chosen to pilot a new reactivation program aimed at MP holders who are inactive and have served missions or are endowed. This was presented as “revelatory” to an apostle I won’t publicly name. Each ward is supposed to choose at least one of these individuals (preferably more than one) and send a priesthood leader (defined as bishopric, EQP, HPGL, or stake presidency) coupled with a full time missionary to visit. The missionary is supposed to give an abbreviated version of the restoration lesson and they are supposed to inquire about the person’s mission experiences (if he served one). They are then supposed to “challenge” (his word, I was surprised the word wasn’t “invite”) the person to come back to church. The missionary is involved to bring “bold enthusiasm” while the leader brings life experience. The apostle, through the AA, is expecting a report prior to GC. We are one of 10 stakes involved. The promise is “many” will return.
We weren’t asked for input, but when we were asked if there were questions I gave my input anyway
From the perspective that if this only helps one person in the ten stakes, I think it’s worth it. Likewise, in ten stakes there will likely be enough “success” stories to make up the correlation/causation fallacy and expand this program worldwide. After all, thousands of missionaries knocking on millions of doors do get some converts from that method.
Overall my feeling is that this plan will have limited success and may make things worse for as many as it makes things better. Since my involvement is limited I don’t think I’ll have to worry. I could go on abut the faults of the program, but I’ll step off the soapbox. Thanks for listening.
It sounds like an interesting program. I would like to see how it turns out, DarkJedi. Just what we needed. Another program. When we were fully inactive, we still let the HT in. Some of them at one time or another, we considered close friends. Once inactive, it was difficult to communicate with them. There were times they treated us as though we had a contagious disease and they were running the risk of catching it. (Whatever “it” was.)
Do we really need a new program? IMO, we need members who can show empathy, sensitivity & compassion. HT’s & VT’s who are willing to listen instead of talk.
It was a good & compassionate HT that got us to go back to church again.
It sounds like they are relying on Ward leaders, Stake leaders & Missionaries to work this new program.
It will be interesting to see how successful it will be.
DarkJedi wrote:…program aimed at MP holders who are inactive and have served missions or are endowed…
…The missionary is supposed to give an abbreviated version of the restoration lesson…
Surely if there’s anyone that needs to hear an abbreviated version of the restoration it’s endowed MP holders that have served a mission, active or no. I’m sure the goal is to get people to remember the good times but…
“Abbreviated version of the restoration” describes about 75% of church lessons I’ve attended so far this year. I’m gonna scream for mercy right in the middle of a class one of these Sundays. I guess it doesn’t help that it’s D&C year in SS.
I’ve got to think that the motivation for this program is related to losing some of the people that otherwise would have been leaders in the church. I’ve heard that there is a high inactivity rate for returned missionaries, many dropping out within a year of returning home. I don’t think an abbreviated version of the restoration is going to cut it. IMO that’s part of the problem. The church has got to offer something
morethan “abbreviated version of the restoration.” I’d rather our efforts go towards making church a place people want to come as opposed to focusing on motivating people to come to something that doesn’t really interest them. I’m not sure how this is any different than current efforts in the 5-5-5 program but middle management has got to come up with something in the meeting where they are grilled for new ideas to improve activity rates among the RM and endowed demographic.
You touched on this DJ. During my crisis stage I purposely stayed active to avoid these sorts of rescue efforts.
When I was WML there was this… well he was an endowed MP holder that was an RM that was inactive. The missionaries worked hard with him. He showed up to church one day, I sat next to him, he leans over to me and says, “I just came so the missionaries would get off my back.” I wonder whether he gets counted as a success?
There was another endowed MP holder that was an RM that was inactive that we worked with and he stated coming back and ended up loving it. I believe he now teaches the GD class (my old ward). I’m sure the program is for the people like him. So yes, you probably end up annoying the 99 to rescue the 1. No worries, I’m sure the inactives are used to being annoyed. They knew what they were signing up for when they stopped coming.
Minyan Man wrote:Do we really need a new program? IMO, we need members who can show empathy, sensitivity & compassion. HT’s & VT’s who are willing to listen instead of talk.
You and your unreasonable solutions.
🙄 Might as well expect people to treat gossip and bullying as strongly as WoW violations.
Is “success” a story you can relate in stake meetings about someone that they got to come back….or is “success” someone that came back and appreciated the attention, love, support, and invitation that it helps provide them with direction in their life to help them feel closer to god and maybe reconnect or recommit? My guess is there is opportunity for both which may make it worth it because the latter is possible to happen, even if the former is the measurable result.
These programs are what the church does. They are mixed bags, good and bad, many situations and circumstances. God is in the details.
It is something to mobilize members so they are busy going about doing something, and sometimes even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.
I hope it leads to some good things. And I hope people in your stake are charitable in how they do it. I can understand your rant.
nibbler wrote:
Surely if there’s anyone that needs to hear an abbreviated version of the restoration it’s endowed MP holders that have served a mission, active or no. I’m sure the goal is to get people to remember the good times but…That was my point. I don’t consider my two years (18 months) to be anywhere near the “best two years.” Those good old days weren’t so great.
😮 Quote:“Abbreviated version of the restoration” describes about 75% of church lessons I’ve attended so far this year. I’m gonna scream for mercy right in the middle of a class one of these Sundays. I guess it doesn’t help that it’s D&C year in SS.
Try not going to SS. Works wonders, no screaming needed. I certainly agree that after 35+ years in the church (even with the 10 years of inactivity) I don’t need to hear an account of the restoration again. I actually ran through my head what I might say if this were to happen to me. During my crisis period I had a knack for turning away would be rescuers without really knowing that’s what I was doing. Lines like “I don’t believe a restoration was needed because I don’t believe there was a great apostasy” would stop the “bold enthusiasm” of almost any missionary. If by chance it didn’t, expressing a disbelief that Joseph really had a First Vision or that he was a prophet would probably put a serious damper on the meeting. “Brother Jedi, I challenge you to come to church this Sunday” is easily parried by a very amused facial expression with a firm “no.”
😈 Quote:I’ve got to think that the motivation for this program is related to losing some of the people that otherwise would have been leaders in the church. I’ve heard that there is a high inactivity rate for returned missionaries, many dropping out within a year of returning home. I don’t think an abbreviated version of the restoration is going to cut it. IMO that’s part of the problem. The church has got to offer something
morethan “abbreviated version of the restoration.” I’d rather our efforts go towards making church a place people want to come as opposed to focusing on motivating people to come to something that doesn’t really interest them. I’m not sure how this is any different than current efforts in the 5-5-5 program but middle management has got to come up with something in the meeting where they are grilled for new ideas to improve activity rates among the RM and endowed demographic.
Totally agree.
Quote:You touched on this DJ. During my crisis stage I purposely stayed active to avoid these sorts of rescue efforts.
When I was WML there was this… well he was an endowed MP holder that was an RM that was inactive. The missionaries worked hard with him. He showed up to church one day, I sat next to him, he leans over to me and says, “I just came so the missionaries would get off my back.” I wonder whether he gets counted as a success?
I know some people like this as well. And there are those who just come to keep a spouse, children, or parents off their backs. Undoubtedly the one who comes back to get the missionary/leadership off his back will count as a success (key indicator noted above).
Quote:There was another endowed MP holder that was an RM that was inactive that we worked with and he stated coming back and ended up loving it. I believe he now teaches the GD class (my old ward). I’m sure the program is for the people like him. So yes, you probably end up annoying the 99 to rescue the 1. No worries, I’m sure the inactives are used to being annoyed. They knew what they were signing up for when they stopped coming.
I’m also sure there are people like this, and there are likely some sheep who don’t recognize I am a llama who would say the same about me. I think that has to do with coming to oneself (as in prodigal son). I have thought since the meeting that I might suggest anyone who undertakes the endeavor read and ponder the parable, and I may email the SP with that counsel.
I was fortunate in that I was not annoyed much, but in hindsight that might have something to do with my dark powers in defeating attempts. I now wish I could have been a fly on the wall in the next ward council after I put one of these guys in their place (quite kindly, of course). However, my concern is much more about not annoying the inactives than the would be rescuer – they’re the ones who are choosing to go into an unknown and perhaps hostile situation and should be prepared for the occasional beat down.
Quote:Is “success” a story you can relate in stake meetings about someone that they got to come back….or is “success” someone that came back and appreciated the attention, love, support, and invitation that it helps provide them with direction in their life to help them feel closer to god and maybe reconnect or recommit?
Success is SM attendance. I’m sure some of the stories can be related in stake conference or other leadership meetings. I’m also sure those are the only ones we’ll hear, there will be no mention of the failures.
Quote:I hope it leads to some good things. And I hope people in your stake are charitable in how they do it. I can understand your rant.
I hope so, too. I can see my SP being compassionate, others I have much more doubt about. I have little doubt about the missionaries. Not to belittle them, I even like our current missionaries in the ward. But they really have no idea what they’re talking about and their exuberance generally annoys me.
Minyan Man wrote:… we need members who can show empathy, sensitivity & compassion. HT’s & VT’s who are willing to listen instead of talk.
This is spot on! The problem with programs like this, is that the leaders don’t stop to think about the reasons people left. They assume that all of the fault lies on the inactive person. What will happen, when one of these people come back, and find the exact same environment at church that caused them to leave in the first place? In the 17 years that have passed since I returned from my mission, I have belonged to 9 different wards (not counting student wards), and have attended dozens of others. I only felt like people were welcoming, open, empathetic, and compassionate in two of those wards. Even when I was TBM, I recognized that some wards were just more welcoming than others.
Rather than pushing another program to get inactive members to come back to same environment, it would be nice to hear leaders push active members to be more accepting of differences. To second MM, we need more empathy, more sensitivity, and more compassion among our active members, before asking our inactive members to come back.
DJ – Is there no place in this plan for asking the man why he isn’t active? How do you think people would respond? It amazes me that the church doesn’t ask/doesn’t seem to want to know, “Why?” Mnyan Man, I agree with you members showing empathy and compassion helps so much. i also agree that when members do home teaching or visit teaching that really talking to who they visit also really helps. Quote:Rather than pushing another program to get inactive members to come back to same environment, it would be nice to hear leaders push active members to be more accepting of differences. To second MM, we need more empathy, more sensitivity, and more compassion among our active members, before asking our inactive members to come back.
I agree with that as well. Unfortunately, some members would take this statement still as meaning most inactives are that way because they were offended or lazy.
:thumbdown: Ann wrote:DJ – Is there no place in this plan for asking the man why he isn’t active? How do you think people would respond? It amazes me that the church doesn’t ask/doesn’t seem to want to know, “Why?”
I didn’t get the full training, just an overview. Only bishops got the full training so far, they’re supposed to share with those more closely involved. But, the SP who was giving the overview did not mention anything other than giving the modified missionary lesson and talking about the member’s mission. I suppose they could talk about anything they want. I think my own case was more like that which Ilovechrist indicates – the members/leaders thought they knew. In fact they didn’t know and nobody in the entire 10+ years nobody bothered to ask. In all likelihood things will be the same in these cases. I think they will probably assume they already know (Uchtdorf’s offended, lazy or sinful) and/or don’t want (or care) to know. Nothing new there.
I will add the “reference talk” used in conjunction with this overview was Bednar’s “And Nothing Shall Offend Them”
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/and-nothing-shall-offend-them?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/10/and-nothing-shall-offend-them?lang=eng DJ – Is there no place in this plan for asking the man why he isn’t active? How do you think people would respond? It amazes me that the church doesn’t ask/doesn’t seem to want to know, “Why?”
Because they have Divine confirmation that the only possible “why” is because he’s wrong and needs to be driven back to the path.
DarkJedi wrote:Our stake has been chosen to pilot a new reactivation program aimed at MP holders who are inactive and have served missions or are endowed. This was presented as “revelatory” to an apostle I won’t publicly name. Each ward is supposed to choose at least one of these individuals (preferably more than one) and send a priesthood leader (defined as bishopric, EQP, HPGL, or stake presidency) coupled with a full time missionary to visit.
The missionary is supposed to give an abbreviated version of the restoration lesson and they are supposed to inquire about the person’s mission experiences (if he served one). They are then supposed to “challenge” (his word, I was surprised the word wasn’t “invite”) the person to come back to church.The missionary is involved to bring “bold enthusiasm” while the leader brings life experience. The apostle, through the AA, is expecting a report prior to GC. We are one of 10 stakes involved. The promise is “many” will return.Why do they expect this to be any different from other programs they have made a big push for recently such as, “keeping the Sabbath Day holy” and, “hastening the work” where there was so much talk but little to point to in the way of noticeable results after the fact? To me it sounds like Church leaders are becoming increasingly desperate as if the losses are impossible to ignore anymore but they don’t really know what to do about it so they keep trying different possible solutions hoping to change major trends they don’t like to see. I almost feel sorry for them at this point (Matthew 15:14).
There are perfectly understandable reasons why many of these RMs are inactive and in most cases it’s absolutely not due to a lack of familiarity with the restoration story and high pressure sales tactics like the “commitment pattern.” But are Church leaders even trying to understand why so many members basically don’t want to have anything to do with the Church anymore? Not as far as I can tell; instead it is just more of the same old approach of telling the rank-and-file members to try harder to make the same old product work and sell better than it really does in practice for average people nowadays. They wouldn’t even need to make radical changes in core doctrines or anything like that to make the Church much more appealing to more people than it is now, just be a little more careful about what they focus on the most, try to improve the experience of being an active Mormon in terms of callings, meetings, home teaching expectations, etc.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Why do they expect this to be any different from other programs they have made a big push for recently such as, “keeping the Sabbath Day holy” and, “hastening the work” where there was so much talk but little to point to in the way of noticeable results after the fact?To me it sounds like Church leaders are becoming increasingly desperate as if the losses are impossible to ignore anymore but they don’t really know what to do about it so they keep trying different possible solutions hoping to change major trends they don’t like to see. I almost feel sorry for them at this point (Matthew 15:14). My take on it is because it was presented as “revelatory” by the apostle. I will keep speaking sheepese (more not speaking at all) and not refute that it was revelatory, but I highly doubt it. I think it’s something he just got excited about as being a good idea. Whether or not it is a good idea remains to be seen. If hundreds of guys return because of this I’ll admit it might have been revelatory. Meanwhile the “one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding” applies as far as I’m concerned.
I agree with the rest of what you said as well. Focus on the Savior instead of prophets goes a long way with me. When I start to hear a talk or testimony about family history or how we’re so much better off than other Christians, I immediately tune out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.