- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
dande48 wrote:
Reading through Nibbler’s post, I just came up with a
GRANDidea. What if we conscript those reliant on fast offerings (within reason) for activities such as chapel cleaning, setting up for activities, church groundswork, etc? That way, it’s not feeling like a handout; the families are “taking responsibility” for their finances, even though they’d be getting a substantial “hourly wage”. And it removes the burden from the members who pay tithing/fast offerings. Unfortunately this is a big can of worms from an employment perspective. I personally am convinced that the reason we did away with hired janitors has mostly to do with employment related concerns. When you have someone getting compensated for their work there are a host of things to consider. (This can be a consideration even when someone is just performing work in exchange for a food order) Does it meet the Fair Labor Standards Act – such things as min. wage and overtime? What about Occupational Safety and Health Administration? Are all bottles properly labels, all workers using universal precautions, and MSDS sheets up to date for every chemical? What about if a worker gets hurt? Workman’s compensation? Since a ward Janitor often works alone there might not be any witnesses to the injury. You would have to go by their word. Where they trained to use the equipment? Does this open up the church to legal liability?
By performing these duties with “volunteers” that receive no compensation these issues largely disappear.
Many great ideas shared. I believe that ultimately things boil down to pay. Some of the jobs in the church are so hard or so time consuming that you would not find much interest in doing it if it was not paid (thinking specifically of Bishop/SP type assignments). To start paying these individuals would require a big change in our LDS mindset (as well as dealing with the legalities of the employee/employer relationship as discussed above). Therefore, I believe that we double down on the conscription model as the way to fill holes in local church administration and get things done.
Roy wrote:
dande48 wrote:Reading through Nibbler’s post, I just came up with a
GRANDidea. What if we conscript those reliant on fast offerings (within reason) for activities such as chapel cleaning, setting up for activities, church groundswork, etc? That way, it’s not feeling like a handout; the families are “taking responsibility” for their finances, even though they’d be getting a substantial “hourly wage”. And it removes the burden from the members who pay tithing/fast offerings. Unfortunately this is a big can of worms from an employment perspective. I personally am convinced that the reason we did away with hired janitors has mostly to do with employment related concerns. When you have someone getting compensated for their work there are a host of things to consider. (This can be a consideration even when someone is just performing work in exchange for a food order) Does it meet the Fair Labor Standards Act – such things as min. wage and overtime? What about Occupational Safety and Health Administration? Are all bottles properly labels, all workers using universal precautions, and MSDS sheets up to date for every chemical? What about if a worker gets hurt? Workman’s compensation? Since a ward Janitor often works alone there might not be any witnesses to the injury. You would have to go by their word. Where they trained to use the equipment? Does this open up the church to legal liability?
By performing these duties with “volunteers” that receive no compensation these issues largely disappear.
Many great ideas shared. I believe that ultimately things boil down to pay. Some of the jobs in the church are so hard or so time consuming that you would not find much interest in doing it if it was not paid (thinking specifically of Bishop/SP type assignments). To start paying these individuals would require a big change in our LDS mindset. Therefore, I believe that we double down on the conscription model as the way to fill holes in local church administration and get things done.
Roy makes excellent points about all the legalities associated with it. Also, it seems really harsh that someone who has paid $100,000 in tithing over their lifetime, which conceivably could have weathered them through a financial rough spot, has to start cleaning toilets, or taking on undesireable callings as payback for receiving welfare assistance. That is just awful to me.
Also, it’s a double standard. We give our tithes and offerings freely, and I think we have seen how hard it is to hold the church accountable for what they do with that money. How then, can the church demand certain services from members solely because these members are receiving welfare assistance? It reeks in my view. No accountability for the church when resources flow in their direction, with strong accoutability and payback required from members when the funds flow in the direction of the members. Smells awful and would reinforce my perception that the church is great at giving spiritual reasons for doing things when it serves organizational interests, but when its on the church to give, there can be a tendency to act like any other temporal organization.
Now, I recognize that the church gives millions in aid, subsidizes college education, etcetera, but I think they need to be VERY CAREFUL that they don’t come across as too self-serving on issues like these given all they demand from members.
So, I would not require the people on welfare to do callings they don’t want — that is simply a harsher version of the conscription model. I think the best alternative to the conscription model is softer management approaches, identifying those members who are a good fit for certain callings, and realistic expectations.
nibbler wrote:
I think callings are fulfilling for many members but at the same time I think church programs are on autopilot. Church is the way it is because that’s the way it has always been. I think there could be a period of reevaluation, a sit down where we figure out how to meet the needs of members in 2017, but instead it feels like programs came about in an era before I was born and in an environment where everyone in the ward lives within walking distance of each other and they’re going to stay that way… because that’s what we do at church.I believe people need social interactions and community but the way people interact with one another has changed drastically since the days the programs were first written on stone tablets long ago.
Primary is my pet peeve. Mostly because we are expecting children to conform to our teaching style rather than adjusting our teaching style to better suit their learning style. And yet, I believe that PPs feel powerless to change the curriculum. Can you imagine a PP saying that they will not be teaching/reviewing/or asking the kids to memorize the A of F? Or that they will not be teaching the new songs or
😮 *gasp*😮 doing the “primary program” in SM? Ok. Enough said. It is just one area where I feel that so much could be done to improve the experience and nobody feels empowered to be able to do anything about it.Roy wrote:It is just one area where I feel that so much could be done to improve the experience and nobody feels empowered to be able to do anything about it.
See, I understand that large organizations have the power of scale, and need consistency — like McDonalds. It means that standardization across branches can be used for continuous improvement. You find out, through standardization, what works and what doesn’t on a large scale. Improvements have a very massive effect throughout the organization given its size.
But I don’t see our church, with all its emphasis on standardization is measuring and constantly improving. And unlike McDonalds, the local people aren’t paid. So, there is an empowerment/motivational issue that needs to be addressed. Volunteers want empowerment, freedom to make decisions, etcetera, and they don’t get that when you have to follow the manual every step of the way, or do a fully prescribed program.
SilentDawning wrote:
I think the best alternative to the conscription model is softer management approaches, identifying those members who are a good fit for certain callings, and realistic expectations.
I like this in part because it is something that could be implemented today in a branch or ward. The bishop could start surveying his membership on their interests and strengths and move accordingly. It would be unorthodox but not so outside the box as to get shut down by top leadership.
So, in my ward it’s the 10 who do everything, which is one of my problems. Are there some threads here on the 12 who do everything? I tried to search but I think this forum search engine is not the best for that type of wordy search. Willhewonder wrote:
So, in my ward it’s the 10 who do everything, which is one of my problems. Are there some threads here on the 12 who do everything? I tried to search but I think this forum search engine is not the best for that type of wordy search.
I was in a Ward where there were 25 people who were like the same 10 people in most Wards. It was AMAZING to be in that Ward. Every Sunday was a spiritual experience. Programs ran like a clock, and you could see the results in people. It was awe inspiring.
One thing I like about community service is that I have the ENTIRE WORLD to invite to be part of the experience we provide for volunteers. We are not limited by our membership records….
I would like to add one strategy that I think could be adapted to the volunteer problem we have in the church. Clayton Christianson is a famous LDS Business Author. He gave a talk with his daughter at a fireside about non-standard ways of doing missionary work. He suggested that you take non-members with you to serve ward members. For example, that single mother that needs a fridge moved into the basement, for example, or that elderly person who needs yard work.
Certain jobs, like helping with a social activity, helping someone move (YUCK), helping someone with pure service, can be done by non-members who want to serve for its own sake. That expands the pool of available people while helping them see the brighter side of the LDS experience…
SilentDawning wrote:
So, I would not require the people on welfare to do callings they don’t want — that is simply a harsher version of the conscription model. I think the best alternative to the conscription model is softer management approaches, identifying those members who are a good fit for certain callings, and realistic expectations.
The trouble with this is, who would you call “fit” to clean toilets? If the welfare-dependent members feel cleaning toilets is “beneath” them, then who is fit for the task? There are jobs no one wants to do.
I don’t think it would be too difficult for the Church to hire out janitors. Even with the legalities, they’ve already hired thousands. It’s just a matter of crossing your t’s and dotting your i’s. We pay tithing; if tithing isn’t allocated to the upkeep of the Church, what’s it being used for?
Quote:
The trouble with this is, who would you call “fit” to clean toilets? If the welfare-dependent members feel cleaning toilets is “beneath” them, then who is fit for the task? There are jobs no one wants to do.The people who are fit to clean toilets are the people who volunteer to clean the toilets. I don’t really consider it a matter of “fitness” though, I consider it a matter of fairness. Again, the church requires a lot of money from us to be in good standing, with no accountability to us in return. Yet, requires people receiving assistance in times of need to do janitorial services? I find that double standard pretty distasteful. Now, someone who puts nothing into the church, never wants to make changes in their lives to improve their lot, and is constantly on assistance, I might require something from them, but a full tithe payer or someone who has served with their might for decades, no way…!
Quote:I don’t think it would be too difficult for the Church to hire out janitors. Even with the legalities, they’ve already hired thousands. It’s just a matter of crossing your t’s and dotting your i’s. We pay tithing; if tithing isn’t allocated to the upkeep of the Church, what’s it being used for?
Agreed. but there are lots of expenses they can turn to — utilities, maintenance — we had one building that was structurall compromised by termites that had to be rebuilt, taxes, etcetera. In the absence of the financials, we don’t really know what all the money is used for….Ask anyone why something costs so much and you’ll always get a thorough answer!!!!
I don’t know. I think there’s something to be said for giving with no expectation whatsoever of receiving. On the other hand sometimes at church I don’t feel like I’m giving, I feel like I’m complying with demands. It can be tough sometimes.
nibbler wrote:
I don’t know. I think there’s something to be said for giving with no expectation whatsoever of receiving. On the other hand sometimes at church I don’t feel like I’m giving, I feel like I’m complying with demands.It can be tough sometimes.
I think that’s the whole of the issue. Most of us love the joy of service and contributing to the community. But when no one volunteers, there are only so many options. You can coerce people into serving, you can pay someone to do it, or you can leave it undone. Lately, I have felt like the Church coerces my wife into service, while letting most of the service that my wife needs undone (she was in tears over it, just tonight).
dande48 wrote:
nibbler wrote:
I don’t know. I think there’s something to be said for giving with no expectation whatsoever of receiving. On the other hand sometimes at church I don’t feel like I’m giving, I feel like I’m complying with demands.It can be tough sometimes.
I think that’s the whole of the issue. Most of us love the joy of service and contributing to the community. But when no one volunteers, there are only so many options. You can coerce people into serving, you can pay someone to do it, or you can leave it undone. Lately, I have felt like the Church coerces my wife into service, while letting most of the service that my wife needs undone (she was in tears over it, just tonight).
I think our church, more than any volunteer organization in which I’ve been involved, treats us like employees. They do not show appreciation for the hard work we do. We don’t act for reward, but basic humanity and relationships calls for respect for people’s time and agency. More than once, leaders get angry when you ask to be released, buy a home outside the Ward, or have needs that eclipse the goals they are trying to achieve in their Ward or STake. This has happened repatedly. They also refuse to acknowledge service outside the church as valid, and tend to ostracize you, or be really judgmental if you are a HP, returned missionary, or active member of the church and decide NOT to go full tilt.
The phrase “we are a church of assignments” epitomizes this attitude, and I reject it. I concede that organizations outside the church have people who are generally less concerned about relationships than members of the church in general. But they are FAR more respectful of a person’s free will and time than church leaders are in general.
The church also needs to recognize that among some of us, they compete for our service hours. In my situation, I learned in a job interview for a management position, that my 20 years of service, most in leadership in the LDS church meant nothing. Nothing at all. As someone who has been largely in the same position in the same company for over two decades, I HAD to get out into the local business community and do leadership there, even if volunteer. The church leadership experience held no credence in the eyes of industry leaders as preparation for leadership experiences in industry.
Yet they don’t seem to care about that. When they wanted me to a Bishop in one stake, they got mad when I made the decision to buy a home in a remote area so we could live on one income with a new child in the family. They only cared about their own organizational imperatives, and saw me as a workhorse to suit the church’s interests. One Bishop was clearly frustrated and irritated when I refused to accept a calling at one point. Yet another called me “stubborn” when he tried to get me involved, even though I mentioned I was pursuing a PhD. And that a lapse in our ability to attend our own Ward had left us unable to hold callings in our bootleg Ward; I had filled my life up with secular service and hand little time for the church for the time being.
I reject all that thinking on the part of leaders — that it’s all about the church. It’s time for church leaders to be judicious about what we ask our members to do, to be appreciative of the service they do give, and to show more consideration for the free agency of members. These attitudes are sorely lacking in many leaders who tend to put the cart before the horse — the church before what is good for the membership.
I honestly wish they would look hard at programs like home teaching, and recognize that so few members do it because the program is flawed. But they are too fixated on the idea everything is so inspired and “revealed” they can’t look objectively at it, and break with tradition when necessary.
I remember reading a letter that someone scanned and posted on the internet. It was a series of letters from a sociologist in the Carribean to the FP who was asking about the potential for missionary work there. It had many racist undertones, such as asking for the availability of non-Negro males to provide leadership if the church expanded there. The sociologist objected to injecting the area with such racism, at which point the FP responded with a rebuke that it was doctrine that blacks should not have the priesthood and not to be fooled by the philosophies of men, or similar.
They just couldn’t see the flaws in that “doctrine” and years of tradition blinded them to what the sociologist was seeing. Fast forward to modern times, and now they are tucking away a repudiation of such “doctrine”, claiming they don’t know where it came from and claiming it was never doctrine, but a reflection of the time.
And so, we must simply assert ourselves when asked to do outlandish things that do not produce short term or long term happiness. You have to be comfortable in your own skin. I find that after I get past the social taboo of not holding a TR, there is very little the church can do to me if I don’t want to play ball. And its liberating.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.