- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Here’s my thoughts (as a current non-believing EQP). First, ever since Elder Holland’s talk Oct 2016 about HT, our stake has interpreted that as every one in the ward needs to be assigned a HT. I am in the process of getting that assigned, but a couple months ago I gave a lesson in EQ preparing the quorum for longer lists. This is basically what I said:
– Prioritize your lists into widows, homes without a father in the home, struggling families, active families, etc.
– Widows, those with specific needs, etc get a monthly visit if possible. I try to make the lists so no one has more than 2-3 of those types of names.
– Active families that may still have some needs try to get a quarterly visit.
– Active families in active positions get a yearly visit (Bishopric, ward council members, etc)
– Otherwise the main thing is to know how your families are doing and check in with them from time to time (at church, email, text message, phone call, facebook, etc)
– Elder Holland said that it “all counts so report it all”
– I tried to stress that I don’t care about the numbers reported at all (because I don’t), but that you should be able to report on how the familes are doing at least each quarter and stressed the principle is watching over each other and providing service when needed
I think the lesson went over fairly well. Still, our quorum will hopefully get to 10-12 assignments each max. And even then, most of those names will not be visited. Some will be email/text/ only. Some will be annual or quarterly. Only a couple would be families or households with real needs that should be visited with any sort of monthly regularity.
My advice for you, if you decide to actually keep the assignment is first, continue to laugh out loud because it is ridiculous. Then, look at the list and prioritize. If you have more than a couple that should be visited regularly then it needs to be changed. For the others, email, text, or check in at church and call it good.
But another perfectly reasonable action would be to throw in the towel. I hate that I have to even make so many assignments and have a lesson about it, but I hope my approach at least made it more palatable and reasonable for the members of the quorum.
I want nothing to do with the program quite frankly — looking at your priority list makes me tired and weary. At one time I would have hunkered down but I simply have nothing more to to give. It’s time they figured out a different way to fulfil the mission of the church rather than draining the people who come to church. There is more than one way to skin a cat — and their unwavering, silly commitment to this tired, worn out program is getting ridiculous.
nibbler wrote:
To be a bit serious, this is one of those situations where I would have fully expected a leader to approach me with a facial expression that conveyed discomfort and understanding and saying something like, “I know it’s a lot but we don’t expect you to visit all these people. Just focus on a few of these families.”Even then… 18 families. Why not 40?
I’m still reminded of one Bishop we had. The Stake insisted we drive across town 40 minutes to set up chairs for a meeting, and then come home again. It was for a women’s meeting, so the priesthood would not have any reason to be there.
He framed it up this way:
Quote:We didn’t have any extra home teaching or chapel cleaning for you to do this month, so we have this chair-setting up exercise to lay on you
Everyone laughed really hard, and then we all did it. At least he showed some empathy.
Anyway, I am toying with the idea of meeting with my Bishop and telling him where I stand. Not doubts shared, just how they are lucky I’m even involved as much as I am. And then ask to have the names whittled down to 1 family and my son as HT companion.
My biggest concern is that he will refuse to do it, which will sorely tick me off. What do you think is the risk of the Bp ignoring my request, or going TBM and drilling into me about it?
DarkJedi wrote:
I’m curious to know why you think this is directly related to ordaining your son? Could it not be happenstance?
It could always be coincidence but there may be a few reasons. With SD acting in a calling and his son being ordained to be a teacher leadership may feel that SD is now fully back in the fold after some time off. I’m sure they see his work ethic outside the church as well.
Here’s the thing I think ties the PH ordination and HT together, teachers are expected to home teach. At least in my stake. In fact some leaders were so jumpy about getting the kids started that they started leaning on the deacons until they realized it’s against church policy.
Now that SD’s son is a teacher it may have directed leadership to think about making an assignment for SD’s son. Typically (in my stake, perhaps others are different) teachers get assigned to HT with their fathers, SD’s son becomes a teacher, SD gets roped into HTing.
That said, if SD and his son are companions, 18 families is absolutely crazy. Do they really want a kid’s first experience with HTing to be an overwhelming assignment? Ease the kids into it. Assign 2 or 3 families tops, and make a couple of them the families of any friends he may have at church… or make it an oppressive assignment, either way.
Quote:I want nothing to do with the program quite frankly — looking at your priority list makes me tired and weary. At one time I would have hunkered down but I simply have nothing more to to give.
I feel exactly this way right now. Obviously not HT but VT, primary calling, cleaning the church, making meals for members, making meals for missionaries. The sad part is, I am doing the bare minimum by only doing these things and probably looked at as a slacker.
If you feel like you want to take one family because you think it would be good for your son then do that. If your bishop refuses to take the rest of the families away from you than i would just pick the one you want to do and forget the rest.
I know that can be hard because I am like you, I just can’t leave a job undone that is my responsibility. However, once you tell the bishop you were unable to do it, then the responsibility is no longer yours. In all honesty, jobs need to be left undone in order for change to be made. If members keep agreeing to run themselves ragged for the church, then it will never change. When programs aren’t being done and no amount of lecturing or guilting still isn’t getting them done, then that is when change will happen. (Hopefully)
I hope you stick to your guns in order to protect yourself and your son.
Wow, SD. I have no advice, but this is surreal. Maybe he just wants everyone assigned on paper in case of a natural disaster – someone to try calling and accounting for everyone’s whereabouts.
When our freshman in college called in tears because her bishop had told her it was her presidency’s responsibility to get out in the last 48 hours of the month to visit teach
everyonewho hadn’t been visited that month….we, as her parents, just said, “You are not doing that.” We expounded a bit more, but for starters she just needed to hear the “not.” I agree with Kate, especially if you are sick and tired of the program. I don’t even think you need to meet with your bishop. Just tell your EQP or HGL when you report that you visited just one family and that’s all you plan to do. If he is not ok with that, he can reassign. Doesn’t need to go through your bishop, in my opinion. And thanks for the feedback about being tired and weary about the prioritizing. Sometimes I feel like I’m trapped between what leaders ask of me and what I actually think is best. That was my compromise, but for me personally, I agree the program should just go away.
For those who are true believing, even that isn’t enough to motivate most of the time. And for those of us who are somewhere else with our faith, the only motivation might be teaching a child a lesson or maybe true opportunities to really serve. Showing up to give a canned lesson is not service, despite what they say about “serving in the church.” Most of that “service” is nothing but fruitless busywork and time wasting (again, my opinion).
DoubtingTom wrote:
Most of that “service” is nothing but fruitless busywork and time wasting
I agree. It has that feel.
To be fair some people really do enjoy social visits, at least that’s what people tell me, I’m an introvert. So in some cases a social visit can be productive service even if it doesn’t appear to be productive. But the last thing I want is for more churchy things after I get home from a more-than-three hour block on Sunday. I’m an introvert. Thanks for the visit HTers, now I’m going to need to take Monday off work to get a “real” weekend.
nibbler wrote:
To be fair some people really do enjoy social visits, at least that’s what people tell me, I’m an introvert. So in some cases a social visit can be productive service even if it doesn’t appear to be productive.But the last thing I want is for more churchy things after I get home from a more-than-three hour block on Sunday. I’m an introvert. Thanks for the visit HTers, now I’m going to need to take Monday off work to get a “real” weekend.
I can skip the social visit as well, especially on Sunday when my introverted cup runneth over with socialization during the block. It’s why I don’t go to linger longer – I’ve lingered plenty long enough.
kate5 wrote:I know that can be hard because I am like you, I just can’t leave a job undone that is my responsibility.
One of the things that really turns me off from home teaching is when we get the lecture about it being our priesthood responsibility, that it’s part of the oath and covenant of the priesthood, etc. Making it my “duty” does not make it better or easier. I’m not any more willing to do it whether it’s my duty or not – your Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded. When I come to the point where I want to home teach because I want to, I’ll do it (in my own way of course).
Do you notice how many “success” stories about home teaching sound like it was a good home teacher that just came consistently every month? Not what they did when they came, not what benefit was felt…just simply…it is inspiring it can be done for long periods of time dutifully. Home teaching sounds often like a program for the home teachers to do their thing. The structure can take away from the family receiving something from it.
It doesn’t have to be that way. As a home teacher, I can choose how I do it…as DJ said…”my way”.
Ann wrote:
Wow, SD. I have no advice, but this is surreal.Maybe he just wants everyone assigned on paper in case of a natural disaster – someone to try calling and accounting for everyone’s whereabouts.
When our freshman in college called in tears because her bishop had told her it was her presidency’s responsibility to get out in the last 48 hours of the month to visit teach
everyonewho hadn’t been visited that month….we, as her parents, just said, “You are not doing that.” We expounded a bit more, but for starters she just needed to hear the “not.”
I have noticed that church programs get highly efficient when there is a monetary cost to the church. But when the cost is in volunteer labor only, inefficiency abounds. Can you imagine what the home teaching program would look like if it cost the church $40 to have a family seen, whether the family wanted a visit or not? Just visualize how the church leadership would react. Who would be assigned a home teacher? Who would be asked to be a hometeacher if the church was paying the person to see the family? How would the church leaders measure success of the program?
Suspend your disbelief about the impraticality of what I’m suggesting for the time being — I know it will never be, but if the church had to bear this cost, what would our home teaching program look like? Whatever you think there’s a strong chance that such a program would balance organizational needs with individual home teacher’s needs — and it would be a much better program, focused on actual results and need.
18 families x $40/visit = $720/month. That’s almost enough to cover the monthly Dorito bill! My guess is that if there were monetary costs associated with HTing that they’d do something like what they did with the janitors, ask the members to do it voluntarily.
Sorry for the dad jokes. A serious answer to that question is that I think they’d move to a “call us when/if you need us” model.
I’d like to see the program improve. Elder Holland’s talk last general conference was a step in the right direction… but it was also stuff I’ve heard for years and I haven’t seen much change.
nibbler wrote:
18 families x $40/visit = $720/month. That’s almost enough to cover the monthly Dorito bill!My guess is that if there were monetary costs associated with HTing that they’d do something like what they did with the janitors,
ask the members to do it voluntarily. Tons of irony in that last statement, as its not voluntary now.
😆 😆 Also, there are about 200 families assigned to High Priests so 200X40 = $8000 per month. That’s not only a Dorito bill, that’s tithing for one person in a semi-profession. [How miniscule when you consider the tithing dollars raked in by many wards, another source of
😆 They can afford it]Quote:A serious answer to that question is that I think they’d move to a “call us when/if you need us” model.
Exactly. And that’s what’s practical.
I have been seriously thinking of contacting the Bishop for an interview, and laying out where I stand. Help him see the ringer I have been through and how traditional activity is NOT a recipe for happiness for me. He has kept at me over and over and over again for high commitment stuff. And this 18 family thing, with no discussion, is the last straw.
But here are my concerns.
1. It might come across as petty. Many people detest the HT Program, and most people know indifference is the reaction to the program. Given this standard way or reacting to HT assignments, does it appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill? To me, it’s not. This is because I take any assignment given to me seriously, and even being available for 18 people on an exception/crisis basis isn’t my idea of something I want to assume. But I wonder how he’ll look at it.
2. Leadership roulette — how might he react? Should I want a TR when my daughter gets married in the next few years (an open question), would he hold this against me? Or would it seem like compliance if I agreed to see one family a month with my son?
3. Could the interview, where I share what led me there (NOT referring to doubts, but experiences) digress into something that is akin to confessing doubt in the mind of this Bishop? In other words, is expressing a loss of feeling of community, a loss of commitment, while still having am intact, but battered testimony, akin to being a doubter in the average TBM’ers mind?
4. Is it likely that he would just say “see as many as you can each month and only worry about the rest if there is a need”. Which might have been the intent of it all? And even then, is it being picky to ask to have them taken off my name on the system?
Put yourself into the shoes of the Bishop and try to see how you would react if you were him, with a TBM mindset, and probably a bit frustrated that if HT don’t step up, those emergencies eventually fall on your desk, you, the Bishop….
Here are my concerns about telling the Bishop my commitment (not doubt, commitment) story so they lay off… Quote:
1. It might come across as petty. Many people detest the HT Program, and most people know indifference is the reaction to the program. Given this standard way or reacting to HT assignments, does it appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill? To me, it’s not. This is because I take any assignment given to me seriously, and even being available for 18 people on an exception/crisis basis isn’t my idea of something I want to assume. But I wonder how he’ll look at it.2. Leadership roulette — how might he react? Should I want a TR when my daughter gets married in the next few years (an open question), would he hold this against me? Or would it seem like compliance if I agreed to see one family a month with my son?
3. Could the interview, where I share what led me there (NOT referring to doubts, but experiences) digress into something that is akin to confessing doubt in the mind of this Bishop? In other words, is expressing a loss of feeling of community, a loss of commitment, while still having am intact, but battered testimony, akin to being a doubter in the average TBM’ers mind?
4. Is it likely that he would just say “see as many as you can each month and only worry about the rest if there is a need”. Which might have been the intent of it all? And even then, is it being picky to ask to have them taken off my name on the system?
Put yourself into the shoes of the Bishop and try to see how you would react if you were him, with a TBM mindset, and probably a bit frustrated that if HT don’t step up, those emergencies eventually fall on your desk, you, the Bishop….
What are your thoughts on this?
SilentDawning wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?
Hm. I mostly think that some of that is his problem to deal with. You can look at and handle your situation, and leave the stuff for him or his reaction to be his deal.
They can assign me 150 families if they want. I’ll do what I can. At some point…them assigning me more than 3 seems to be a poor leadership decision. That’s on them. If they look down on me and think I’m not doing enough…that’s on them too. I’ll do what I can, and be honest and up front with them about it.
I try not to fear what goes on in interviews anymore. It is what it is. This is who I am. Their TBM mindset will reveal who they are and where they are at.
The church is there for me, not me for the church.
I can’t control how others see things. I try to appreciate the efforts of others and the leaders that do their best.
But a program assigning 18 families to someone is not a program setup for success, IMO. It will go away when it shows it doesn’t work. Perhaps that is one consideration…just ride it out and let it show it doesn’t work and it goes away without you having to have difficult conversations. The leaders will have to take responsibility for it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.