- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’d like to get some perspective on a incident that occurred in our ward recently. Our elders quorum president was talking to me and mentioned that the bishop had asked him to contact a family in our ward who had been on the “No Contact” list for a number of years. I don’t know their history except that they were attending and something occurred that offended them and since that time they have rebuffed most attempts to visit them. It was no different for our elders quorum president (a very nice guy as is our bishop) who dutifully attempted to set up a time to visit the family. Is this even a good idea? I can’t imagine that a phone call from a well-meaning but total stranger would have been too welcome to someone with long-held resentments. It seems to me to smack of “duty” not “charity.” But I could be offbase. Given that some of you have been there or perhaps are there, what would you want a ward to do for you, if anything? I try not to analyze or devalue someone else’s “inspiration”. I’ve seen too many instances where someone in such a situation responded – because they finally were ready to do so. However, having said that, I believe in honoring “No Contact” requests. I posted the following on my personal blog just this morning, not having read this post:
“Friendship and Fellowship Should Not Be Termporary Assignments”( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/10/friendship-and-fellowship-should-not-be.html I think this is a great question. I was a HPGL for several years. Our Ward records had not been looked after for a while, and so I had to go out and reach out to the less actives. This meant visiting people’s homes, and if they were there, seeing where they were at with the Church. If they were antagonistic, we were told to ask if they wanted their names removed!!! We would also see if they wanted visits, wanted a letter, or no contact. It was all about their relationship with the Church — not about THEM.
I now believe that little effort should be placed into going after people who are not showing interest. Instad, effort should be ramped up in supporting people who decide to go back to Church, and to creating caring communities in our Wards. This may mean saying “No” to Stake leaders who are focused on the reports such as “percent hometeaching”, “percent of endowed members with TR”. Without an underlying foundation of caring, community, and charity, these metrics are empty, and lead to policies that are short run, and not good for people.
Also, visiting new move-ins is a good idea, as I found this to really help people feel appreciated and welcomed.
MLS (the church’s database and record-keeping system) is ill-equipped to handle ‘do-not-contacts’ (or at least it was until a few years ago) so it becomes the job of someone in the bishopric, the EQP, HPGL, or one of the clerks to maintain some kind of ad-hoc record of who doesn’t want to be contacted. That kind of system is bound to break down from time to time, so some people who have asked not to be contacted willbe contacted, and of course they often won’t understand why that is. When it was my job to do so, I would try to explain that, yes, we’ll put you on the do-no-contact list, but the only way to guarantee that you won’t be contacted by the church is to resign your church membership. Even then the missionaries might come by from time to time. Some people are reasonable and willing to work with that, and some aren’t. doug wrote:MLS (the church’s database and record-keeping system) is ill-equipped to handle ‘do-not-contacts’ (or at least it was until a few years ago) so it becomes the job of someone in the bishopric, the EQP, HPGL, or one of the clerks to maintain some kind of ad-hoc record of who doesn’t want to be contacted. That kind of system is bound to break down from time to time, so some people who have asked not to be contacted
willbe contacted, and of course they often won’t understand why that is. When it was my job to do so, I would try to explain that, yes, we’ll put you on the do-no-contact list, but the only way to guarantee that you won’t be contacted by the church is to resign your church membership. Even then the missionaries might come by from time to time. Some people are reasonable and willing to work with that, and some aren’t. Why our systems incapable of handling Do Not Contact flags out of respect for the members who have desired no contact? And also, out of respect for the leaders’ time and possible frustration in contacting people who don’t want to be seen?
Again, things may have changed recently, but I always assumed that it was because it would have been considered bad form to build into your organization’s main piece of software a feature that implied that some of those once exposed to the ‘one true church’ would then choose not to have any contact with it. Quote:It seems to me to smack of “duty” not “charity.”
Wasn’t there a talk in GC that implied they were the same thing?🙂 Simple. If I ask the church to not contact me —- LEAVE ME ALONE. I would say if they have asked not to be contacted, don’t. I have been there for awhile now and my ward has done a good job at respecting my wishes. However I just recently contacted the bishop discussing possible return and ended up with the youth over tonight doing service. Related you think? Had a nice visit though. I have no problem with some kind of written message, sent out once a year, asking if anything has changed and if the person would like to have someone contact them. I have no problem with specific instances, as exceptions to the general rule, where a leader feels inspiration to reach out and ask. I know of too many cases that have been true inspiration to dismiss those exceptions. I believe in honoring the request to not contact as the general rule.
Just like most things, this isn’t a stark, black-and-white, either-or issue to me – but I prefer to err on the side of respecting others’ stated requests.
A long time ago, I did a calling that I think was fairly unique. I was the home teacher to the Do-Not-Contact list. It was something the EQP and I came up with. I think I was the EQ Sec at the time. Anyway, I had something like 32 families on my HT route. Every month, I would write out a short message. It was totally free form and up to my personal inspiration (i.e. not restricted to Ensign article or FP message, etc.). I wrote a nice, uplifting, generic, Christ-oriented message referencing the Bible and Book of Mormon. I made a mail-merge list to personalize it that also printed address labels. I signed each letter and put my phone number and email at the bottom with an invitation to contact me if they ever needed anything. Then I prayed for their welfare (non goal oriented) and dropped the letters in the mail.
I figured it was no more intrusive than the endless junk mail they received. If they didn’t want to read it, they could toss it in the trash with all the other junk.
I did this for around 2 years. Surprisingly, I got a phone call and a few “thank you” emails. There was one brother that even came to Church a few times before disappearing into the woodwork again. He was a little mentally disabled, and I am pretty sure it was his non-LDS family that requested no contact for him.
Anyway… that was just a nice little story about an experience I had.
I think we should respect people’s wishes who do not want contact. As long as they are still on the roster though and choose not to remove their name, I think there’s at least some small window of reasonable contact. IMO, it is reasonable to stop by or contact them every couple of years to see if anything has changed, and to let them know we still love them, and they are welcome to join us if/when they are interested. I think done in a respectful and polite way, especially maintaining proper social boundaries, and especially if initiated in a casual and non-aggressive way, it’s OK. Like I said though, perhaps a 5 minute in-person or telephone contact every three years. That’s the type of schedule I am thinking of.
cwald wrote:Simple. If I ask the church to not contact me —- LEAVE ME ALONE.
I agree with this, but I think it has to be pretty blatant. Although, someone going inactive is not necessarily the same as someone writing a note saying “leave me alone”. We have families who phase in and out of the church all the time, they definitely don’t fit into that category.
I just wish the church would take a long hard look at itself and find out EXACTLY why people go inactive, and not condemn the people for honest answers.
I agree with Sam Bee — and to add to that, stop this cultural norm that if someone is disaffected, it’s all THEIR fault. The Church and its leaders makes mistakes too…and they often contribute dramatically to the faith crises of others. Wouldn’t it be nice if, as a divine organization, we could just fess up to our mistakes and apologize, without feeling we are going to kill the faith of the members in the process? The very act of acting like any other self-protecting organization is what causes the faith crisis in some. Here it is… If I was brother Viles I’d say “Are you sure our faith can handle what we find? Mine included?” Ok, I’ll play along…if I was Bro Viles: Quote:What do you mean? Am i supposed to find out What the heck happened to the inactive members…or what the heck happened to our church?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.