You’re Less Active: How Would You LIke to Be Treated?

[Anonymous]

I was wondering this the other day — when you are in the midst of your trial of faith, or less active, or semi-active, how would you like to be treated during that period? What are the BEST THINGS that Ward members could do to strengthen you, if anything? What should they NOT do?

[Anonymous]

I would want to be treated with respect. If I say I need some time or space, respect that. If I say I need to talk some things out, listen to me before telling me what I need to do.

In short, be a friend to me.

[Anonymous]

I would like to be welcomed and appreciated on whatever level I was at. Just don’t make it a huge deal, and be a real friend without an agenda. I think it would be great if the bulk of active members could really and truly become comfortable with the flaws we ALL have. The opposite is being awkward and needing to put people into a limited number of categories with labels.

I think most people at church have really good hearts and the best of intentions. Seriously, some of the best people I know are active members of the church. They would be super people regardless of their religious affiliation. It just translates awkwardly at times because of the need to keep up a certain show that all is well in Zion, or that they just were never given the social tools to related to people outside “the box.”

Reactivation efforts and member missionary work stick out sorely and highlight this weakness. I cringe every time I hear leaders asking members to pray about giving a random person in their life a Book of Mormon, or inviting them to hear the missionary discussions. There’s nothing wrong with it I guess, but in order for the whole thing to not be totally weird and awkward, it has to be a natural part of their relationship with these people. You have to be FRIENDS first, and continue that friendship outside of these efforts. Not walk up to someone out of the blue that barely knows your name, pretend to be nice, and then disappear when some miracle conversion/reactivation doesn’t happen in a few hours or a day.

[Anonymous]

Brian Johnston wrote:

I would like to be welcomed and appreciated on whatever level I was at. Just don’t make it a huge deal, and be a real friend without an agenda. I think it would be great if the bulk of active members could really and truly become comfortable with the flaws we ALL have. The opposite is being awkward and needing to put people into a limited number of categories with labels.

I think most people at church have really good hearts and the best of intentions. Seriously, some of the best people I know are active members of the church. They would be super people regardless of their religious affiliation. It just translates awkwardly at times because of the need to keep up a certain show that all is well in Zion, or that they just were never given the social tools to related to people outside “the box.”

Reactivation efforts and member missionary work stick out sorely and highlight this weakness. I cringe every time I hear leaders asking members to pray about giving a random person in their life a Book of Mormon, or inviting them to hear the missionary discussions. There’s nothing wrong with it I guess, but in order for the whole thing to not be totally weird and awkward, it has to be a natural part of their relationship with these people. You have to be FRIENDS first, and continue that friendship outside of these efforts. Not walk up to someone out of the blue that barely knows your name, pretend to be nice, and then disappear when some miracle conversion/reactivation doesn’t happen in a few hours or a day.

I think this whole post is totally correct and echoes my thoughts better than I could express them myself. The lack of an agenda is part of the reason this forum works — there is no agenda. No one here feels this pressure to “get someone out to Church” and there IS acceptance of each persons unique set of warts. There are not reports or accounting to Stake Leaders, for example. People relate to each other out of personal interest, concern for their welfare, and for the subject matter’s own sake — not for some externally motivated reason.

I also feel a bit of guilt when I read the part about the hit and run attempts at activation. That was my preferred style of activation and missionary work until about a year or two ago. A new family moved into our ward –non-members (outside Utah). I went over there with the missionaries, welcomed them to the neighbourhood, produced a book of Mormon, and gave them Church times etcetera., and, in retrospect, was really pushy about them coming to Church — and they didn’t even know me!!! After a polite rejection, the missionaries were pleased that a member actually DID SOMETHING, but they commented that part of the reason the woman didn’t accept the invitation was because of “how forward the approach was”.

I believe now that hit and run activation efforts are really just an easy way of checking the box. There is no long-term commitment to the person — if the “miraculous conversion” doesn’t happen, you just move on with no further effort required as you say. Really investing in a person takes time and energy.

But this leads me to another question — is it really sustainable to be activating a lot of people all at once? With the level of friendship required to truly have a positive influence on a person, I can’t see that I have a lot of time to do that. Callings at Church, work, going to school, and then responding to the needs of my wife and children leave room for maybe one really good friend in whom I might invest a couple hours a week…..

And the other question — shouldn’t there be a natural interest in building a relationship with the person due to common interests? I have been exposed to less-active people in the past, and at Ward socials have tried to relate to some of them in a meaningful way. I tried to talk about their profession but find they do something foreign to me so my questions aren’t really meaningful or engaging to them. Often their job is very basic so there there is little to talk about. Or if I ask certain questions to open up conversation, I’m met with short answers that keep stalling the conversation. So, I find there are usually few people who I truly have common interests or a natural spark that allows me to put the necessary time into truly becoming a friend.

Not sure what the solution is — just knowing that anyone who’s really had a big impact on my thinking has invested heavily in me by talking about those things that really matter.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I believe now that hit and run activation efforts are really just an easy way of checking the box. There is no long-term commitment to the person — if the “miraculous conversion” doesn’t happen, you just move on with no further effort required as you say. Really investing in a person takes time and energy.

Yup. Check the box. I did what I was asked. I don’t have to put any of my soul into it (which means it also did absolutely nothing for me spiritually). It’s God’s problem now, not mine…

SilentDawning wrote:

But this leads me to another question — is it really sustainable to be activating a lot of people all at once? With the level of friendship required to truly have a positive influence on a person, I can’t see that I have a lot of time to do that. Callings at Church, work, going to school, and then responding to the needs of my wife and children leave room for maybe one really good friend in whom I might invest a couple hours a week…..

Two quick answers:

No. It can’t be done in a corporate, cookie-cutter, assembly-line mass production fashion. Funny how that is, isn’t it? You actually have to care about people and connect with them spiritually, or you don’t get the food pellet reward. It’s almost like it was designed that way by a higher being that wants us to evolve and become enlightened.

Missionary work and reactivation seem pretty important. I think the Church needs to really grow up, act like grown ups, and stop overspending their human budget. If people are too busy being busy … perhaps we really should plan to do LESS so we can actually use the efforts of all the awesome people in the church to produce real results. Stop checking boxes and start changing the world, even if it is one small, insignificant human being at a time.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

But this leads me to another question — is it really sustainable to be activating a lot of people all at once?

In a way, I would kind of say Yes…meaning you can’t specifically target one person and say “I’m gonna go after them and really be their friend and not give up until they are activated…and then I’ll go after straying member number 2.” Such plans are too focused, I think.

I think you should just be open to all people, kind to everyone you meet…but then when the connection is made, when the person voices a need for more contact, more friendship, more guidance from a leader, more desire for spirituality in their life…then the effort is focused because they are ready to be helped and you were seeking those who wish to be helped, which you may not have been able to do if you weren’t looking broadly.

In other words…you never know where the opportunity to help someone will come from…so the approach needs to be love in your heart for “a lot of people all at once”. Then, let things happen and continue to look for ways to love and support as you go…even if there is no detailed plan.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

But this leads me to another question — is it really sustainable to be activating a lot of people all at once?

In a way, I would kind of say Yes…meaning you can’t specifically target one person and say “I’m gonna go after them and really be their friend and not give up until they are activated…and then I’ll go after straying member number 2.” Such plans are too focused, I think.

I think you should just be open to all people, kind to everyone you meet…but then when the connection is made, when the person voices a need for more contact, more friendship, more guidance from a leader, more desire for spirituality in their life…then the effort is focused because they are ready to be helped and you were seeking those who wish to be helped, which you may not have been able to do if you weren’t looking broadly.

In other words…you never know where the opportunity to help someone will come from…so the approach needs to be love in your heart for “a lot of people all at once”. Then, let things happen and continue to look for ways to love and support as you go…even if there is no detailed plan.

Wow Heber, this is a huge “revelation” for me. I never looked at it this way before. I was always on the missile-target program where I decide who I think has the best chance of activation, and then go there, seeking short-range results. If they didn’t come, then I quit.

But from what you are saying, the key is to cast a wider net, blanketing everyone with warmth, and see who responds. After they respond THEN you can focus your efforts — and if I may add — with no expectation that they respond in a specific way — just support them until their inner engine ignites.

Whew~ I feel like I’ve finally found a new plateau for activation efforts with yours and Brian’s posts.

What I like about this is that it totally relieves the “activator” of frustration that has typified my life in the Church as a leader.

And really it’s the parable of the sower in action. Because you can’t detect fertile ground for activation very easily, cast your seeds widely, and when they hit fertile ground, step up the watering and fertilizing schedule, with no expectation that the plant will necessarily grow — do it because that’s what you are — a waterer and a sower.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I was wondering this the other day — when you are in the midst of your trial of faith, or less active, or semi-active, how would you like to be treated during that period? What are the BEST THINGS that Ward members could do to strengthen you, if anything? What should they NOT do?

Personally, I would just prefer to be left alone.

I suppose it would not be offensive to me to get invitations to church social events, but even now I really don’t like church members meddling in my life anymore than is absolutely necessary. I don’t want hometeachers, or leadership coming over and interrogating me and making me a “project” etc etc. That’s just going to tick me off and cause my shields to get thicker. Just leave me alone – if the church really wanted/wants me to come back to full fellowship in the ranks some day, including getting TR etc, doing NOTHING would be the best thing to get me reactivated.

I’m really not a “people person” and in my celestial kingdom, we will probably have a bloggernacle church/ward like SD suggested a couple of weeks ago.

[Anonymous]

I would like them to buy me some exercise equipment or give me a gym membership. I hate the term less active. It’s like all you are doing is sitting on your butt on Sunday watching tv, eating Bon Bons and getting FAT, instead of sitting on your butt at church getting fat.

Who technically is MORE active?

[Anonymous]

I have let my bishop, his wife, and our home teachers know several times how I would like to be treated. I had sent them the link to John Delhins utube, “Why Members leave.” It was excellent in explaining how we should be treated. Our bishop had come over that one time last October to see where we stood and he said he would email me to apologize for how he treated me when we first tried to move into the ward. He has never written me or apologized. I had written him and his wife how much it hurts to be treated like you are bad or unworthy people for have doubts or questions about the church. How different things might have been if right in the beginning this bishop had had some empathy and said, “it must be difficult to be the only active member and we would like to set a good example to your family. And why don’t we set up an appointment and talk about why you have doubts and concerns and then be very understanding.” Instead he treated me and our family like we were really screwed up people for having doubts. Everyone has left us alone like we were a plaque they could catch since then. I just feel like people must be really insecure in their own faiths that they can’t even talk about ones doubts with them. Sometimes, I wish they could feel a crisis of faith just to understand how we feel.

[Anonymous]

The Golden Rule, as I interpret it’s pure message, is how I would like to be treated – as long as the person doing unto me isn’t a masochist.

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

I have let my bishop, his wife, and our home teachers know several times how I would like to be treated. I had sent them the link to John Delhins utube, “Why Members leave.” It was excellent in explaining how we should be treated. Our bishop had come over that one time last October to see where we stood and he said he would email me to apologize for how he treated me when we first tried to move into the ward. He has never written me or apologized. I had written him and his wife how much it hurts to be treated like you are bad or unworthy people for have doubts or questions about the church. How different things might have been if right in the beginning this bishop had had some empathy and said, “it must be difficult to be the only active member and we would like to set a good example to your family. And why don’t we set up an appointment and talk about why you have doubts and concerns and then be very understanding.” Instead he treated me and our family like we were really screwed up people for having doubts. Everyone has left us alone like we were a plaque they could catch since then. I just feel like people must be really insecure in their own faiths that they can’t even talk about ones doubts with them. Sometimes, I wish they could feel a crisis of faith just to understand how we feel.

BN How did sending the link to “Why Membes leave” work out for you? I sent the link out to many members in my stake, that I know well, under another name to see their response. One possibility is that many members have heard a few of the historical truths that caused them to have doubts. They have had to do a “Patch job” of faith to cover those doubts and it was so disturbing to them that they can’t bear to go back.

How would I like to be treated? Not like so many are treated! Like they are apostate, sinners, unfaithful, weak etc..

f4h1

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Sometimes, I wish they could feel a crisis of faith just to understand how we feel.

I don’t.

I know what you mean, bridget, and I truly sympathize with the emotion – but I wouldn’t wish a faith crises on anyone, since there is no guarantee how they will emerge from it. I wish everyone was more charitable, but until I’m there fully I can’t criticize others for not being there – and when I’m there fully, I have a sneaking suspicion that I won’t want to criticize them. Ironic, I know.

[Anonymous]

Ray, I really don’t wish anyone this kind of pain or crisis of faith either. I just wish they would be more understanding as you said. f4h1…I got one reply from an old bishop and a friend back who thought it was good and would use it to help those in their ward struggling. That was the only positive one and these guys are strong converts and more secure in their testimonies. My brother and sister in law looked at it but would not discuss it. My present bishop and home teacher never responded and haven’t heard from them since. I thought the video was so rational and good. But, I think you are right that it is just too scary for most to handle and don’t want to be shaken. It is alot like deciding whether you really want to know if your mate has cheated on you. I guess people like our group would rather know the truth than live in a fantasy world. But, sometimes I do miss the fantasy world.

[Anonymous]

By the way, my husband spend the day with the President of the university he works at Friday. It was the first time he got to know him as they drove to St. Petersburg together to discuss Chiropractic research with some doctors. Come to find out this President and his family used to be very active Mormons like us. They left the church about 10 years ago because they felt it was too much like a corporation rather than a spiritual church. Our families seem to have alot in common and my husband made a great administrative connection as well. The President said that no one from the church bothered to check on why they left the church. My husband was always surprised no one from the high council bothered to check on him after he left too. Too scary I guess.

[Author]

Posts