- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
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.
I agree. I made the point in the meeting that I would have told them where to go for much of my inactive period, but there was a time when I was ready and an
invitationwould have been effective. I didn’t say I’m pretty sure I would not have responded well to the missionary, restoration thing, or challenge but I did respond to the way it was done (and since the SP did it he knows what happened). Nevertheless, I suppose for some people this plan might work. Not everybody thinks and reacts like I do. It is certainly not a one size fits all plan though. And I agree that better programming, perhaps less commitment, less shaming, less emphasis on “stewardship” “obedience” and “duty,” and perhaps less church (
hours) could also be helpful. I’d go to SS if I actually thought I could learn something there instead of repeat8ung the same things I have heard several dozen times already (the restoration, for example). As it is I mostly endure church as opposed to enjoying church. The better part of the sabbath for me is at home.In the local ward, we have a number of men who attend with their children. Their wives have not been seen a church in years. I can think of 8 families without stretching for names. Some of those wives served missions, they were all married in the temple. They all have devout husbands and children.
This new rescue effort doesn’t even acknowledge those women’s existence.
Another gender fail.
On second thought .. I wonder if this is about tithing $$$. Most men have employment .. LDS women may or may not be employed. Maybe this is all about efficiency in following the dollars.
amateurparent wrote:
This new rescue effort doesn’t even acknowledge those women’s existence.Another gender fail.
On second thought .. I wonder if this is about tithing $$$. Most men have employment .. LDS women may or may not be employed. Maybe this is all about efficiency in following the dollars.
Well, be careful not to get too conspiracy-theory on it. Remember that MP is a stake position. That’s why the name of a prospective elder has to be put forth among the whole stake for a sustaining vote, either at StakeConf or by a traveling HC. The SP is the president of the high priests in the stake and oversees the HPG and EQ in each ward. All other people fall under the fold of the Ward/Bishops. We can talk at length about whether that is appropriate, but it is the way it has always been. So, bottom line, it’s not necessarily that the stake is intentionally ignoring people. But if this is a stake effort, it makes ‘sense’ for them to apply their attention to MP holders.amateurparent wrote:In the local ward, we have a number of men who attend with their children. Their wives have not been seen a church in years. I can think of 8 families without stretching for names.
Some of those wives served missions, they were all married in the temple. They all have devout husbands and children.
This new rescue effort doesn’t even acknowledge those women’s existence.
Another gender fail.
On second thought .. I wonder if this is about tithing $$$. Most men have employment .. LDS women may or may not be employed. Maybe this is all about efficiency in following the dollars.
It is a targeted group, it’s not all men even. It’s just those MP holders who are inactive and have served missions (and by default were endowed) and those who are endowed but did not serve a mission. I don’t think it’s sexist, I think it’s targeting a specific group where there’s a likelihood of success.
Making it a “revelatory” statement eliminates the need to explain which key indicators or line on the unit reports are targeted. Interestingly, tithing is not included on those reports, I think partly because people are permitted to pay tithing annually (and I know some who do) and it would skew the report. That doesn’t mean tithing couldn’t be a reason, it could very well be – but I honestly don’t think the church is hurting. I think more likely stats are endowed members with TRs (about 2/3 in our stake) and MP holders attending at least one meeting (just over half in our stake). I think there might be some realization that trying to get back some guys who were once faithful will likely be more productive than trying to get the 650 “prospective elders” who were likely never faithful. (FWIW, that 650 figure is about 25% of our stake.)
I think these particular men are targeted because they apparently at one time were true (enough) to the faith and served missions or otherwise got endowed (likely by being married/sealed). I think that’s the point of asking about mission experiences because most RMs think fondly of their missions and can recall experiences which they believe (or believed) were profoundly spiritual. I’m probably the exception to the rule to some extent, but my greatest spiritual memories do not center on my mission and I can honestly say the seeds of my faith crisis were planted on my mission. Further, my main doubt is those spiritual experiences that I now believe were nothing more than emotion (perhaps manipulated). Undoubtedly they will encounter some men who are at the right point and remembering those fond (and good) experiences cold be the tipping point – even blind pigs get acorns.
And OON and I were typing at the same time, and his point is well taken. The SP can direct those included on the list of priesthood leaders because he is the presiding high priest. Ward RSPs answer to bishops and the stake RSP is much more of an advisory and training position.
amateurparent wrote:Another gender fail.On second thought .. I wonder if this is about tithing $$$. Most men have employment .. LDS women may or may not be employed. Maybe this is all about efficiency in following the dollars.
My gut reaction is that these men hold priesthood – priesthood means leadership possibilities – a deeper pool of leadership makes for a healthier ward and more growth. Finally, there is the idea that if the husband/father is strong in the church the rest of the family will follow.
A woman, no matter how great her spirituality or other talents, cannot do much beyond maybe being RSP.
The ROI is better with men (specifically with men that have already shown the ability to serve in LDS capacities).
There’s a requirement for creating new wards and stakes that there has to be a certain number of MP holders that are full tithe payers. To DJ’s comment above — a wise implementer of the program, when sitting outside the home of an unordained male member, would consider the strengths of their companion, the personality and situation of the “target” person, and their own strengths, plan to do what works — not what is programmatic. When inside the home, or on the doorstep, react in the moment to the person they are visiting, and do what feels right. That is what I would do. I don’t think it’s necessarily about tithing. I have sat in SP meetings, Bpric meetings and they never go after naked tithing dollars. It’s about activation, having more people to put into callings, obeying stake and area/regional programs and GA’s. I will give them that, improving numbers — at least, at the local level. They were concerned about fast offering deficits though, and often did things to boost fast offerings to clear off their deficit.
Regarding the sexist nature of the program — I see it as an outgrowth of the male-only priesthood policy we have in the church. They are going after the prospective elders because they want more leaders and to expand. If the women held the priesthood, I could see them going after all prospective priesthood holders. So, the root of the gender focus in the rescue program is the male-only priesthood policy.
While your comments are valid SD, this program is not going after the unordained or adult AP holders, nor is it going after the run-of-the-mill inactive elder. It’s looking at a more specific segment of the population. I do know there are people who fit the focus (I was one once) but I don’t know how many there are – but it is way less than the above mentioned 650 prospective elders. I looked at my ward list and identified 5 off the top of my head compared to the 53 listed prospective elders. Of those 5 above, I see one or two who, if caught at the right moment, might respond. One of them has some mental health issues which I think is the main reason he doesn’t attend – I don’t think this program will be effective in that case but I don’t know that for sure. I agree that the wise leader should look at what might work ahead of time and roll with the flow once inside. These aren’t cold calls, appointments are supposed to be made, so the member is going to be expecting something. Likewise, there is a prescribed program (the lesson, talking about the mission) that I think they are expected to play out – although I’m sure my own SP would give tons of leeway (but I’m not sure all the bishops would/will).
I have reflected more on this program the past couple days and considered how I might have reacted. I don;t think my reflection has changed what I think – in the days of deepest, darkest crisis I would not have listened to them unless they listened to me and this program seems to be more about talking about what they want to talk about as opposed to what I would have wanted to talk about. That’s why the visitors I did have during that time failed.
I stumbled across this while searching for something else Bednar said, but it is related to this post because of the reference to Bednar’s 2006 talk. http://religionnews.com/2017/01/27/do-mormons-leave-the-church-because-they-got-offended/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://religionnews.com/2017/01/27/do-mormons-leave-the-church-because-they-got-offended/ Quote:Do these people leave primarily because they’re upset by historical inconsistencies or problems, like Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy or questions about seer stones? I’ve heard this explanation from many people, especially those on the left who see the Church’s fluctuating approach to those complex issues as a sign of deception.
Or do they leave because they got “offended” by something someone said at church? This is the narrative Elder David A. Bednar focused on in General Conference a decade ago, and it’s been a prominent feature of LDS internal discourse ever since. I hear variations on it often, usually from current members who are explaining why people they know left the Church.
Well, guess what? Statistically, there is some merit in both explanations.
We surveyed 541 former Mormons (in addition to more than 1100 current Mormons who did not, obviously, receive this question). We asked them to name their top three reasons for leaving the Church, choosing from nearly 30 options that were broken down into two main categories:
-Doctrinal/institutional reasons (concerns about the Book of Abraham, say, or the lack of financial transparency about what happens with tithing money) and
-Personal/social reasons (like being excluded, not feeling able to trust the leadership, or losing a testimony of the “one true church”)
Overall, personal and social reasons dominated the list rather than specific doctrinal or historical problems people had.
Decent article. The comments are very much worth the read as well, especially the personal stories.
I’m tempted to share with my SP, but I probably won’t.
DarkJedi wrote:I stumbled across this while searching for something else Bednar said, but it is related to this post because of the reference to Bednar’s 2006 talk.
Quote:We asked them to name their top three reasons for leaving the Church, choosing from nearly 30 options that were broken down into two main categories:
-Doctrinal/institutional reasons (concerns about the Book of Abraham, say, or the lack of financial transparency about what happens with tithing money) and
-Personal/social reasons (like being excluded, not feeling able to trust the leadership, or losing a testimony of the “one true church”)
Overall, personal and social reasons dominated the list rather than specific doctrinal or historical problems people had.
One problem with surveys rests in sloppy questions. I consider “lack of financial transparency” to be closely related to “not feeling able to trust the leadership”, yet the former is in the category of “Doctrinal/Institutional” while the latter is in the category of “Personal/social”. Similarly, I would consider “losing a testimony of the ‘one true church'” to be closely related to “concerns about the BofA”, yet the former is in the category of “Personal/social” while the latter is in “Doctrinal/Institutional”. How in the world can this survey conclude anything? To take it out of the scope of just the survey, is polygamy a doctrinal or social problem? I’d argue both because it continues to show a devaluation of female currency in our Church culture. Is the Church’s stance on SSM a doctrinal or social problem? Surely it is both and in spades. The Ban? Male-only priesthood? WoW? Infallibility of leaders? People leave the Church for a cacophony of reasons. When asked if it’s social or doctrinal, and told they have to pick one, they will supply an incomplete answer.DarkJedi wrote:I stumbled across this while searching for something else Bednar said, but it is related to this post because of the reference to Bednar’s 2006 talk.
http://religionnews.com/2017/01/27/do-mormons-leave-the-church-because-they-got-offended/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://religionnews.com/2017/01/27/do-mormons-leave-the-church-because-they-got-offended/ Quote:Do these people leave primarily because they’re upset by historical inconsistencies or problems, like Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy or questions about seer stones? I’ve heard this explanation from many people, especially those on the left who see the Church’s fluctuating approach to those complex issues as a sign of deception.
Or do they leave because they got “offended” by something someone said at church? This is the narrative Elder David A. Bednar focused on in General Conference a decade ago, and it’s been a prominent feature of LDS internal discourse ever since. I hear variations on it often, usually from current members who are explaining why people they know left the Church.
Well, guess what? Statistically, there is some merit in both explanations.
We surveyed 541 former Mormons (in addition to more than 1100 current Mormons who did not, obviously, receive this question). We asked them to name their top three reasons for leaving the Church, choosing from nearly 30 options that were broken down into two main categories:
-Doctrinal/institutional reasons (concerns about the Book of Abraham, say, or the lack of financial transparency about what happens with tithing money) and
-Personal/social reasons (like being excluded, not feeling able to trust the leadership, or losing a testimony of the “one true church”)
Overall, personal and social reasons dominated the list rather than specific doctrinal or historical problems people had.
Decent article. The comments are very much worth the read as well, especially the personal stories.
I’m tempted to share with my SP, but I probably won’t.
I started doubting because of a lack of authentic spiritual experiences. Before that I swallowed doctrinal/social problems on faith. I think a doubt in one part of the church is like a crack in the levee. Once something bothers you that can’t be resolved, you start noticing other things. I can’t be the only one.
Side note, how much do you want to bet no one prayed about the veracity of this “revelatory” program?
I agree abut the crack in the levy thing, Syme. Now that I have clearer understanding about it not being all or nothing, I recognize it doesn’t have to be that way. But when my FC happened I certainly didn’t see it that way. IMO it’s highly likely no one has prayed about (including me). It was presented in a meeting of leaders who were instructed to pass it down the line. Most of those leaders were likely sitting there mouth agape listening to a prophet speak having no other thoughts of their own.
Syme wrote:I started doubting because of a lack of authentic spiritual experiences. Before that I swallowed doctrinal/social problems on faith. I think a doubt in one part of the church is like a crack in the levee. Once something bothers you that can’t be resolved, you start noticing other things. I can’t be the only one.
Ditto. I wasn’t finding God at church and I couldn’t say I had ever had a prayer actually answered – certainly not to “is the BOM/Church true?” For decades I kept assuming it was me doing something wrong.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.
This is my new goal. I will work with the R.S. to get a list of Visit Teachees that I can honestly relate to and who want me to be there to listen to them. They recently gave me a companion and a smaller, more realistic list – which is good. A sister moved into our ward that needs me as her Visiting Teacher, so I visit her and I let the R.S. Presidency know I visit her. If they want to update their records to reflect that I am taking care of this sister, then that is fine with me
I know they don’t want people visiting each other because most people don’t step out of their comfort zones to get to know new people. I can respect that, while recognizing that for me, talking to anyone is a step out of my preferred zone – yet I work as a help desk person full-time, have 2 kids, and talk to people….
Interesting this has floated to the top. Thanks for reminding me Amy. Turns out there has never been a real return and report on the is program. The closest we had was a discussion in a stake leadership meeting. The reported “success rate” was about 10%, with success being measured by an individual accepting the invitation. Actually coming to church was not measured but it appears of the approximately 10% very few actually came to church. The matter was promptly dropped and I have not heard as much as a peep about the “revealed” program since. It appears to have been a failure. My feelings on that are very mixed. I’m sorry that something someone felt very strongly about was such a failure. But I also predicted as much because the approach was wrong. Being very candid I do take some pleasure in being right, but that doesn’t make me a winner. There were only losers in this case.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.