- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If the program was received by revelation what will the thought process be if it does not bear fruit? Try harder or try a new program? I don’t need an answer, I’m just thinking out loud. I could see the answer being different for top leaders and local leaders. I realize your SP is only taking direction from people higher up in the hierarchy but in your (DJ) comments it sounds like in some small way you have the SP’s ear. Do you think the comments made by people in your HP group are being heard? By heard I mean more than a simple acknowledgement that a comment was made, consideration for implementation. I think MM’s point about listening instead of talking is an issue at all levels. It’s hard for the people making the visits to listen because listening is so rarely modeled in our meetings.
I’ve found that the question of the millennium, “What can we do to retain people?” is more rhetorical in nature. Sure, the question is asked but often the answer is given, without pause, by the person asking the question. It’s hard to get revelation when we think we already have the answers.
I’ve ranted about this here before. I went to a youth retention meeting for parents. The question of the millennium was asked. I thought the meeting was going to be a forum for parents to talk about the problems our children were facing but it was a meeting about encouraging parents to double down on making sure the youth were doing specific things, things the youth find to be the most boring aspects of the church. Talking and not listening was modeled and the program was asking parents to talk and not listen to their children.
Maybe an analogy can be made for personalized medicine, where doctors take a person’s DNA and create a personalized treatment just for them. Listen, figure out a person’s DNA. Create a personalized treatment, which by the way could be doing nothing more than listening. Sometimes knowing you have someone’s ear is all it takes to heal someone.
I fully agree with DA and nibbler and those thoughts on this. DarkJedi wrote:They are then supposed to “challenge” (his word, I was surprised the word wasn’t “invite”) the person to come back to church.
I understand that from a certain perspective all endowed priesthood holders have made multiple covenants to consecrate their very lives to the building up of the church. In this perspective these priesthood holders are akin to deadbeat fathers that do not pay child support payments – remiss in their responsibilities and commitments. In this regard a “challenge” is an appeal to the priesthood holders sense of duty.
Holy Cow wrote: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?
Some other churches have a model where you want to come for the environment even if you do not believe. I believe that our church is based upon a model where our conviction of the truth of our beliefs is so strong that we endure all sorts of environmental unpleasantness for the sake of that belief. To be fair, the ability to “endure” and “overcome” hard things is a useful life skill.
Roy wrote:To be fair, the ability to “endure” and “overcome” hard things is a useful life skill.
That is a very fair point, Roy. I agree.
On the other hand…it can become unbalanced and be overplayed, and cause suffering in areas that are not really necessary.
Learning to let go of some things and live in the moment, with less stress and pressure to adhere to things just to fit in, is also a useful life skill.
Roy wrote:Some other churches have a model where you want to come for the environment even if you do not believe. I believe that our church is based upon a model where our conviction of the truth of our beliefs is so strong that we endure all sorts of environmental unpleasantness for the sake of that belief. To be fair, the ability to “endure” and “overcome” hard things is a useful life skill.
Unrelated to this and it’s been going on for a few weeks, I have been giving some consideration to the idea of enduring. The thoughts were prompted by the differences in Christ’s words in 3 Nephi 11 where he talks about his doctrine (in first person) being believing and being baptized leading to being saved and inheriting the kingdom of God. I often quote from that scripture about the simplicity of the gospel, but it is interesting that Christ does not use the word gospel in that passage, he uses doctrine. A few chapters later (chapter 27), after organizing the church among the Nephites Jesus talks about similar things by referring to them as his gospel and does not use the word doctrine. In chapter 27 he says the gospel is about him being lifted up on the cross and that the gospel is that we must repent, be baptized, and endure to the end (and as part of this will receive the Holy Ghost). Many speakers and testifiers seem to tie all of this together sort of like the fourth Article of Faith and add endure to the end to that. Frankly, I’m not sure that it was meant to all be tied together because Christ himself didn’t tie it together, but I do believe that the gospel of Christ is in there (I tend to lean toward the simpler doctrine in chapter 11). And in full disclosure it bugs me when people refer to this idea (adding endurance to the fourth AoF) as the doctrine of Christ and/or the gospel.
That has led me to consider what it means to endure. While this was not brought up in the meeting I was at, I do fairly often catch the undercurrent as we speak of inactives in classes and meetings that there is a perception that said inactives are not enduring to the end and therefore somehow lesser (even damned) for their actions. As I have pondered this all together, I have realized that I have endured more than most people in those classes and meetings. Endure is a verb which can be used in two different but related ways. It means both to bear, tolerate, and allow as well as to continue to exist or suffer patiently (not to get to grammary here, usage depends on the existence of an object). I endure almost each and every Sunday in the latter sense, like many of us here do. My perception as a former orthodox member was that then endure meant more “keeping on keeping on” (essentially doing the Primary things, church, prayer, scriptures, FHE, etc.). I don’t think that’s enduring any more. I have come to recognize that other members “keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” (Princess Bride)
In summary, I’m not sure Christ (or Joseph Smith) meant endure in the way most members seem to interpret it.
Heber13 wrote:Roy wrote:To be fair, the ability to “endure” and “overcome” hard things is a useful life skill.
That is a very fair point, Roy. I agree.
On the other hand…it can become unbalanced and be overplayed, and cause suffering in areas that are not really necessary.
Having to endure and overcome the behavior of the people at church is taking it too far, IMO.
Of course, the Great And Holy Standard Excuse is “the Church is perfect but the people aren’t,” but I have to ask just how perfect any organization can be that has so little meaningful effect on such a vast number of its members that they behave so directly counter to its stated morals…especially when so many of the “inferior” versions out there do an excellent job of showing Christian charity and acceptance to the ones who are honestly trying to live a Christlike life, but may be failing in “worse” (i.e. more visible) ways than the “worthy” ones.
DarkJedi wrote: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 I just read this talk and I must say that it is terrible!
Quote:To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else……
In many instances, choosing to be offended is a symptom of a much deeper and more serious spiritual malady. Thomas B. Marsh allowed himself to be acted upon, and the eventual results were apostasy and misery……
Many of the individuals and families who most need to hear this message about choosing not to be offended are probably not participating with us in conference today. I suspect all of us are acquainted with members who are staying away from church because they have chosen to take offense—and who would be blessed by coming back.
Will you please prayerfully identify a person with whom you will visit and extend the invitation to once again worship with us? Perhaps you could share a copy of this talk with her or him, or you may prefer to discuss the principles we have reviewed today.
👿 Roy wrote:To be fair, the ability to “endure” and “overcome” hard things is a useful life skill.
I think learning to move on once you recognize a hardship no longer
hasto be endured is another useful life skill. And I say that as someone that’s got a white-knuckle grip on some hardships.
A thread from years ago that is a pretty aproposresponse to this program: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5057 Lot’s of great comments, including this one from DevilsAdvocate:
DevilsAdvocate wrote:What they need to realize is that many if not the majority of disaffected members are never going to “repent” and regain a traditional LDS testimony and they often only put up with the Church as much as they still do mostly for the sake of their relationships with remaining faithful members. So in cases like this any hint of the idea that we are broken and need to be fixed mostly adds to the problem on both sides. It is aggravating to many disaffected members that already feel like they are doing fine with their current beliefs and/or they can’t really believe anything different than what they already do and it also encourages some of the remaining faithful members to have unrealistic expectations and judgmental and disrespectful attitudes toward members with different beliefs.
I am just going to sit down and cry. This past week our Relief Society lesson was so hopeful in just being non-judgmental friends with inactive’s. Not prying, not judging, not many things. I am sick. Thanks for the heads up DJ.
The only part I hate worse than this program, is the obedient people who will mean so well and add so much pain and they won’t have a clue why. It’s like building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. It ain’t gonna work.
On Own Now wrote:A thread from years ago that is a pretty
aproposresponse to this program: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5057 Lot’s of great comments, including this one from DevilsAdvocate:
DevilsAdvocate wrote:What they need to realize is that many if not the majority of disaffected members are never going to “repent” and regain a traditional LDS testimony and they often only put up with the Church as much as they still do mostly for the sake of their relationships with remaining faithful members.So in cases like this any hint of the idea that we are broken and need to be fixed mostly adds to the problem on both sides. It is aggravating to many disaffected members that already feel like they are doing fine with their current beliefs and/or they can’t really believe anything different than what they already do and it also encourages some of the remaining faithful members to have unrealistic expectations and judgmental and disrespectful attitudes toward members with different beliefs. I had forgotten about that thread. To be honest, at this point I think Church leaders probably do realize that many disaffected Church members will never return but they typically see this as something wrong with these members more than anything wrong with the Church and the way it currently operates and they apparently think it is worth it to pester many Church members that will never return for the sake of any few that they hope will actually heed the call to “repentance.” That’s where I think they are wrong because this whole scorched earth style approach of nagging people to strictly conform to so many very specific beliefs, rules, and routines and acting like the ones that don’t are a lost cause unless they get their act together will end up leaving many people with a negative impression of the Church and make it harder for faithful and obedient members to get along with less faithful members and non-members very well.
It contributes to pointless and unnecessary family strife in many cases and even divorce in the worst cases. There are some disaffected members and ex-Mormons that basically don’t want their children indoctrinated in the Church the way they were because they see it as harmful overall. Results like this don’t reflect very well on a church that claims to be Christian, family oriented, a force for good, etc. And it doesn’t just impact the inactives and their families it could also contribute to to the burnout, loss of faith, etc. for some of the leaders and missionaries asked to carry out this order. My guess is that most of these inactive RMs already don’t really believe in the restoration story and/or don’t really like the Church very much at this point.
So reiterating the restoration story and challenging them to return is typically not going to be nearly enough to overcome the fundamental reasons why they left in the first place and even if some of them did go back if they still don’t really feel like it’s for them it will be a temporary effect of the outside pressure that will be hard if not impossible to sustain in sufficent levels to overcome the most common sources of dissatisfaction with the Church. That’s why I think a much better and more efficient solution would simply be to at least try to give members fewer reasons to want to leave and more reasons to want to stay in the first place. This would make the Church more of an environment that more wayward members could return to and feel comfortable about staying around and supporting, even if mostly for the sake of their families, community, etc. than what we see now.
Roy wrote:DarkJedi wrote: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 I just read this talk and I must say that it is terrible!
Quote:To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else……
In many instances, choosing to be offended is a symptom of a much deeper and more serious spiritual malady. Thomas B. Marsh allowed himself to be acted upon, and the eventual results were apostasy and misery……
Many of the individuals and families who most need to hear this message about choosing not to be offended are probably not participating with us in conference today. I suspect all of us are acquainted with members who are staying away from church because they have chosen to take offense—and who would be blessed by coming back.
Will you please prayerfully identify a person with whom you will visit and extend the invitation to once again worship with us? Perhaps you could share a copy of this talk with her or him, or you may prefer to discuss the principles we have reviewed today.
👿 Um…I choose to be offended by some of those things in that talk…because it seems to justly be offensive.
Is there an evil in being offended? Always?
I think not.
There are times it is offensive. OK. We can accept that. Of course, how we respond and how we act about it is our opportunity to learn and grow. Because sometimes sharing a copy of that talk would NOT be the right thing to do. Sometimes it may help. We need to learn to discern and be able to see things as they are…not just blame those feeling offended.
If someone attacked the sacredness of the temple…I’d feel offended. And I don’t think the church would tell me to feel otherwise. Right?
It’s not the end of the world to feel offended. Don’t do a Kellyanne Conway pivot and focus and blame that as the problem…where there are real problems why some people who aren’t in that conference listening to that talk. In Star Wars fashion…”Stay on Target”
Rescue the folks that want to be rescued, and need something in their life. Not all that wander are lost…so leave the others alone to peacefully travel in places they are happy traveling.
I’ve got some great friends who are not mormon and are doing so well as a family…I wouldn’t to disrupt their family success by telling them they need this mormon thing.
Besides, the beauty of mormonism is they get the chance in the next life to accept things…so…there is no panic or urgency. The focus should be on what brings people happiness. We can radiate the joy of our discovery, not talk people back into activity in the church when they are fine where they are.
Some things simply are offensive. However, there is an important point in being able to not be offended about lots of things that are not worth taking offense.
As with almost everything in life, the best way is somewhere between the extremes.
Regarding this new rescue program, the strength of it is likely not in the implementation of the specific practices, it’s in connecting those people who are likely ready to come back on a large scale. At any given time, I think there are a few people in that state — due to life circumstances, their own Road to Damascus experience, the influence of someone they met, a new dating interest, etcetera. I don’t see the one size fits all approach as its strength however. It makes sense to let the missionary make the invitation if the member is not comfortable or experienced doing so, but not in all cases. The blurb on the restoration — how insulting…But let them try it. I have often thought that if all the energy put into chasing less actives was funneled into better quality Sunday and regular programmatic (youth, primary, stuff for adults that help them) experiences, then when people DO come back, they are more likely to stay. You have people returning to church all the time spontaneously. Work on making the experience of being a Mormon good. You have much more control to that. I consider it low hanging fruit because you are working with the most dedicated, active people who are buying into the experience already.
SilentDawning wrote:I have often thought that if all the energy put into chasing less actives was funneled into better quality Sunday and regular programmatic (youth, primary, stuff for adults that help them) experiences, then when people DO come back, they are more likely to stay. You have people returning to church all the time spontaneously. Work on making the experience of being a Mormon good. You have much more control to that. I consider it low hanging fruit because you are working with the most dedicated, active people who are buying into the experience already.
Totally agree. IMO, this is particularly clear in YM/YW, where leaders seem to take reaching out to less-actives as the primary focus of both the program and what they are trying to teach the youth leaders. Yet Mutual is often not very appealing to the best and brightest of LDS youth, who go because they are expected to, rather than for anything useful. I’ve observed plenty of active, all-in youths who have been glad when a job keeps them from having to participate in Mutual.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.