So I hear there’s a new Church Handbook of Instructions arriving shortly in the hands of those who matter.
Anyone care to share some of the changes in policies and procedures?
There’s been plenty of speculation, I’d like to know what is actually being implemented.
Finally.
I’m still waiting for the last one…
Well, they will probably remove the Stake Missionary section and replace it with ward mission information.
Probably update it with the content delivered and the World Wide Leadership Training Broadcasts.
Who knows, we might get lucky and see a re-vamp of some of our favorite but ineffective programs like Home / Visiting Teaching and Young Mens / Young womens.
JM
I don’t think visiting teaching is always ineffective. I have a friend who credits her visiitng teacher with being the catalyst for bringing her and her mother back into activity in the church. YM/YW well….I think it’s alright, but where else would we put the youth?? And home teaching, well same as VT. Sometimes it’s fine, sometimes not.
JM’s referring specifically to the programmes, not on whether people are actually effective HT/VT.
Yes, but I was saying they (the programmes) aren’t always ineffective.
The programme is either effective or it is not. The programme does not change. How people participate in the programme or administer it may change.
HT is the most effective tool I am familiar with for accomplishing the missions of the church.
tortodog
Well I can’t quite agree, when people don’t DO their hometeaching and when stats are more important than the people. Are your leaders more interested in how many people were visited or in how the people who are (or who are not) visited are actually doing, and what their needs are? Does your Stake President ask you why Bro and Sis so and so are struggling because Bro so and so lost his job? Or does he ask you what your numbers were, what the percentage of families visited are? In home teaching it is more often the numbers that are more important than the actual lives.
You mentioned eleswhere how you came looking for ways to increase spiritualiy among your brethren. This tells me that you either anticipate a problem or there is a problem. Do your brethren visit their families every month (and I mean all of them). Do they come to you with reports about how a family is faring? Or do they give you the report “I visited 2 of my families this month?”
Like I said, when numbers are more important than people, a programme is not effective. If hometeaching was so effective there would be less inactivity in the church and less apathy within the membership.
Tortdog,
I’m interested to hear your experiences of how it is so effective. Can you share some examples?
Yes, tortdog, I apologise, I didn’t mean to discount when you said the programmes you are familiar with are done effectively. If you have experiences to share where the hometeaching programme has been effective I would also be interested in hearing them. Perhaps they could be implemented elsewhere.
“Does your Stake President ask you why Bro and Sis so and so are struggling because Bro so and so lost his job? Or does he ask you what your numbers were, what the percentage of families visited are?”
When I was EQ pres, the Stake Presidency was concerned about individuals, not numbers. They would ask about specific families and home teachers to see how each were doing. They never once asked me about numbers or percentages. They wanted to know which (inactive) families we were concentrating on, what goals had been set with those families, who was working with them, and how the families were doing (physically and spiritually). For active families, we had an opt-out option where they could receive a phone call instead of a visit if they preferred (subject to approval by the Bishop).
Hopefully, the new CHI will concentrate on that aspect of HT.
I agree.. it’s about time… I can’t vouch for any of the PH programs and what is still pertinent according to the handbook but man the Primary section is so outdated. Most of the things aren’t even being done anymore and haven’t in years! I wonder if these manuals are coming out in snail mail or dog sleds to here??? 2007 presentation books were in the US wards 3 months before I got ours here.
“When I was EQ pres, the Stake Presidency was concerned about individuals, not numbers. They would ask about specific families and home teachers to see how each were doing. They never once asked me about numbers or percentages.”
That’s good. And this is the way HT and VT should be done. However it is not the norm.
Did you not have to submit reports on numbers either? That would be refreshing.
A former bishop of mine told us the programs of the church are to enrich and help us as families/individuals and not to lean on them so much. Our personal/family spirituality and testimony are more important. Family scripture reading, FHE, and family/individual prayer are the keystones.
That being said these programs are brought forward from the first presidency. I’m sure we can argue and debate the pros and cons of these programs till kingdom come!!
I think the membership of the church does itself a disservice by thinking they know better than the first presidency???!!
For example, the stake leaders in my stake (BC) gave up on scouting and many wards discontinued it, saying it was out of date, ineffective etc. Well, a general YM leader from SL came up and had a special fireside and chastised the leadership here and said scouting is the YM program and to use it!
Mary, what is your issue with the YW/YM program? I think it is even better than when I went through. Helping them to achieve goals, build important friendships, and have wholesome fun together. It was a sanctuary for me and what the world offered. Perhaps, the leaders weren’t doing what they should of been??
Just my two cents…hopefully not too harsh…
I don’t think the VT/HT should be condidered effective just because you bring somebody out of inactivity. When I go VT a less active member, my goal is not simply to get them active again. It is to be friends and let them know I care about them.
My mom VT a less active lady for years and became good friends with her. But the lady never came back to church. I still see this as a positive.My mom VT in the true spirit of the program but the less active lady had her free agency too.
Michelle
I don’t have an issue with the YM/YW programme (where did I say that? I certainly don’t think it, and can’t find where I said that here). That would be JM. What I said was that the programmes (all of them) AREN’T always INeffective. Often they are very effective.
I also am a fairly dedicated visiting teacher. However I haven’t seen my VT in about a year :)
When it comes to the programmes, any of them, I think they are fine, as long as people do them. However, as with HT/VT when the focus is more on statistics, that’s when I think they are not effective, but that has to do with implementation rather than the programme itself.
It’s about time we get the new manual… this one is so outdated when it comes to the PM program although I can not say about the other programs. I wonder if they are sending them out by snail mail or dog sled for out here?? The new 2007 presentation books were out in the US wards for 3 months before I finally got ours a couple of weeks ago.
Michelle what stake in BC are you in? I am in Surrey Stake.
YM/YW well….I think it’s alright, but where else would we put the youth??
Sorry Mary! Didn’t mean to ruffle feathers. But from above comment I thought you had an issue with YM/YW.
Yes, the “stats” of VT can overshadow the real reason but I believe we still need the stats in the end.
That being said I can tell which VT of mine are there to visit and care for me and the others who just want a check mark beside my name. I almost asked the RS president to change my VT one time because of this reason. My last one would take calls (cell) during our visit. Anyway, definitely people and their dedication make the programs.
Michelle
Oh don’t worry you didn’t ruffle any feathers! I wasn’t at all offended. :) I wasn’t referring to YM/YW, only VT/HT (what I was referencing). My personal experiences with the YW programme was fine, that’s the only basis I have go on, since our children aren’t yet there.
I know stats are needed, but often they become more important to leaders than the actual women. It’s sad, but well, that’s how it is right now.
Michelle said “For example, the stake leaders in my stake (BC) gave up on scouting and many wards discontinued it, saying it was out of date, ineffective etc. Well, a general YM leader from SL came up and had a special fireside and chastised the leadership here and said scouting is the YM program and to use it!”
Gosh Michelle -You must have an interesting SP if he stopped following SLC commands. Is he still the SP?
“You can’t have the latter with the former. That doesn’t make sense.”
Oh you can’t? Well if someone doesn’t do their hometeaching and the leaders are not happy about the numbers but don’t mention the people, then it makes sense to me at least. Not that they are worried about the people, just about the fact that people aren’t getting the numbers in. Does that make sense now?
“The problem is not that home teaching is an ineffective (or flawed) program. It is that some (too many) do not use it. Is that the fault of the program or the individual?”
If people aren’t implementing the programme, then perhaps it needs to be looked at to see how members can be motivated better.
“I’m not sure that I view a lack of spirituality is a “problem” in our Quorum.”
I didn’t assume this was the problem, I asked you if this was the reason. I also gave you suggestions, but perhaps you didn’t think they were enough (oh and perhaps you aren’t aware that those same suggestions come straight from the First Presidency).
You also misunderstand me. I am not saying the Hometeaching programme is completely ineffective, what I believe is that how it is IMPLEMENTED in many areas is ineffective. The programme itself works fine as LONG AS IT IS DONE. When it is not, it doesn’t work. This may be the fault of the members, the leaders or in some cases the programme, in how it is executed.
We haven’t had hometeachers come for many months. My husband alwaysdoes his hometeaching. I am blessed to say that my husband and myself bring a great deal of spirituality into our home.
Whether our hometeahcers come or not, we are very blessed. But not because we “get” hometeachers, but perhaps because we do our home and visiting teaching.
“I believe that you misunderstand the two sides of the reporting function.”
Explain it then. So far, what I have seen is the reports necessary are how many families were visited. Sometimes the Bishop or stake leaders want to know how the families are doing, however this is not reported in the computers, is it in yours?
tortdog
You also seem to miss where I am saying the programmes aren’t always ineffective. I personally have no problem with the programmes, it’s others who do. But you seem to think they are perfect completely. If they were, I would think they would show better results. And I don’t mean in crisis situations, but in the everyday, mundane situations. Perhaps if the programmes were executed in the way they were many years ago, instead of how they are now there would be more dedication, activation and compassion among the members.
Mary writes:
>Well if someone doesn’t do their hometeaching and the leaders are not happy about the numbers but don’t mention the people, then it makes sense to me at least. Not that they are worried about the people, just about the fact that people aren’t getting the numbers in. Does that make sense now?
No it doesn’t. I can’t imagine that the Stake President sees it important to get involved in the individual lives of all the familes in the entire stake. Rather, I understand that its the job of the bishops (and more particular the home teachers). The stake could not handle all that information any more than the prophet could handle details on how every family in the church was doing. It would be information overload. The Stake President knows that the HT program works when it is used. His job should be to see that the local leaders are using it. If they are, the families will be taken care of a the appropriate level (most at the local, some at the stake).
So, know, I don’t agree with your viewpoint one bit.
>If people aren’t implementing the programme, then perhaps it needs to be looked at to see how members can be motivated better.
We don’t need to reinvent a great program. We need to instruct and incentivize our members into upholding their covenants and remember that they agreed to “mourn with those that mourn” and “comfort those that stand in need of comfort.” The best way to do that is the home teaching program. Period. Bar none.
Disagree? Give me a better way to care for the flock. I can’t think of one. I wonder why God has not instructed the First Presidency that the HT program is not effective. Why would God allow the First Presidency to push through such an ineffective program when so much is at stake?
Odd, no?
>I didn’t assume this was the problem, I asked you if this was the reason.
Okay. My bad. No, that’s not the reason.
>I also gave you suggestions, but perhaps you didn’t think they were enough (oh and perhaps you aren’t aware that those same suggestions come straight from the First Presidency).
They were very good suggestions. Things to be practiced, to be sure. Not much on detail, though. I like details. I like experiencies of life. I learn from those. Good, no?
>I am not saying the Hometeaching programme is completely ineffective, what I believe is that how it is IMPLEMENTED in many areas is ineffective.
Oh, I do agree. We fail to implement an effective program. Great! We agree.
>The programme itself works fine as LONG AS IT IS DONE. When it is not, it doesn’t work. This may be the fault of the members, the leaders or in some cases the programme, in how it is executed.
Well, there we disagree again. It’s not the program’s fault. It’s the people.
>Whether our hometeahcers come or not, we are very blessed. But not because we “get” hometeachers, but perhaps because we do our home and visiting teaching.
And you would be MORE blessed if you the home teaching program reached your house, correct?
>So far, what I have seen is the reports necessary are how many families were visited. Sometimes the Bishop or stake leaders want to know how the families are doing, however this is not reported in the computers, is it in yours?
Have you ever been in a PEC? Welfare meeting? Anything like that? Almost all the information there originates from home and visiting teachers. When work needs to occur, almost always it’s via the home teachers.
“So, know, I don’t agree with your viewpoint one bit.”
The Bishops aren’t leaders? Ok, well it’s your prerogative to not agree with my viewpoint. I suppose you have statistics to show that hometeaching is perfectly effective worldwide?
“Well, there we disagree again. It’s not the program’s fault. It’s the people.”
A programme is just a programme until people do it. In places where the programme yields no results year after year, then it shows the programme is ineffective as well. Revamping isn’t a bad idea.
“And you would be MORE blessed if you the home teaching program reached your house, correct?”
Personally, I don’t see why. We have had two hometeaching visit in the last 3-4 years. It was enjoyable when they came. But otherwise, no I don’t see it making any difference one way or another. Maybe that’s just cynicism talking. But if they don’t care (and I refer to all the previous hometeachers who didn’t care enough to make the effort)then I don’t see the purpose in it.
“Have you ever been in a PEC? Welfare meeting? Anything like that? Almost all the information there originates from home and visiting teachers. When work needs to occur, almost always it’s via the home teachers.”
Actually, yes. Except for PEC (but that should be obvious in itself). I agree, WHEN THEY ACTUALLY REPORT. BUt if they aren’t going, they won’t know, they won’t report, they don’t care. It has to be actually done and used to make a difference. If it isn’t being used properly then no, it won’t make a difference.
Our RS President was in our PEC once.
You state that you do not see why your home would be MORE blessed by having home teaching visits.
WOW. Really. I don’t have much to say after that. I believe that President Hinckley’s home was blessed by enjoying regular home teaching.
>So, know, I don’t agree with your viewpoint one bit.
should be
>So, no, I don’t agree with your viewpoint one bit.
I have to correct that. Gives me shudders to think that I typed that.
“WOW. Really. I don’t have much to say after that. I believe that President Hinckley’s home was blessed by enjoying regular home teaching.”
We haven’t been “not blessed” by not having hometeachers. As I said, if they don’t care enough to come, then it doesn’t really matter. We are blessed by the spirit in our home already. We are blessed because we do our home and visiting teaching. Maybe we would be blessed to have home teachers regularly come (and perhaps with the new ones now, we will see them more regularly) but have not been missing out on spiritual blessings because of their lack. I feel more blessed to be able to visit my sisters.
Sisters are generally not invited to PEC.
“…all the information there originates from home and visiting teachers…”
I’ve always told my wife those people are just sent to spy on you, and sure enough I was right all along.
:P
You nailed it, Rick. However, the best way to trick these spies is telling them that everything is okay. In fact, if you REALLY want to lose them, attend church regularly. Then you can be just like Mary. She doesn’t have any spies.
I’ve already lost mine, and I didn’t even have to attend. Lucky me.
I have friends. I don’t need spies because I don’t have any physical or emotional or mental needs taken care of through the church. And I wouldn’t call them spies myself (but then I understand Rick’s sense of humour).
I have visiting teachers who have become wonderful friends. I have had home teachers who cared. I also had a hometeacher when I was a YSA many moons ago who felt it necessary to gossip maliciously about myself and my roommates to others. Not to the Bishop, however. He is now a Stake President so I am assuming he has mended his ways. Let’s hope so anyway.
I should clarify, I don’t have any of these needs taken care of through the visiting or home teaching programmes. I use my scriptures, prayers, priesthood blessings, personal reflection and friends (especially my best friend, my husband) to take care of these needs. We do have a wonderful, caring Bishop. He is someone I trust and respect.
Spies – what an interesting term for HT. I actually had a young fellow show up at my door last night and said he was my HT. I think this is a 1st in about 2 years.
I still have teenagers at home and I look younger than I am. I made a comment that when a man is around 50 the church leaders tend to not give him callings. This man (30 yrs old) said “Yes, they give them callings like janitor and geneology”. I thought to myself, yes, the very callings I have had lateley.
I told him that I am not interested in attending church, having HT or even being a HT. I realize I am a pew sitter, my family has been pew sitters for almost 100 years and I will only attend church meetings when I want to and I would not be going to Elders quorum.
I told him I consider the Bishop to be like a sheriff (collect taxes and enforce rules) and the Bishop has never spoken to me so what do I care he thinks.
I expect the spy was on his cell phone reporting me before his car left the driveway.
Any bets on what day this week I hear from the Bishop?
So what does the new CHI say to do with 50 year old men who realize they are pew sitters and not important any longer?
You could be me in 20 years.
“First, the home teaching program is right from the First Presidency. There’s no debate on that. Is there?”
When President Monson startd the home teaching programme in 1963 while serving on the Adult Correlation Committee (and later the Priesthood Home Teaching Committee), he was not a member of the First Presidency. In fact, it was only shortly after that when he was even called as an apostle.
Michelle said:
“these programs are brought forward from the first presidency”
More often than not, this is not the case. Many times the programs are developed at a local level and after being proved successful, they get brought to the attention of the FP and given a stamp of approcval.
I can think of foure such instances off the top of my head. I’m sure I could come up with more.
The church welfare program was developed at the stake level, then implemented church wide.
The last version of the Standard Missionary Discussions started as a stake program.
The changes to the Stake / Ward mission are the result of a very successful mission program developed by a bishop.
The scouting program used by the church was developed by a non-member.
You also said:
“For example, the stake leaders in my stake (BC) gave up on scouting and many wards discontinued it, saying it was out of date, ineffective etc. Well, a general YM leader from SL came up and had a special fireside and chastised the leadership here and said scouting is the YM program and to use it!â€
I find this strange. It also seems that this YM leader is out of line.
It may interest you to know that the church operates in areas of the world where there is no scouting program. In those areas, the YM program is run without scouts. There are other programs the church has developed that accomplish the same purposes. For instance, where there is no Cub Scout program, activity days is for both boys and girls.
What I find strange is that this YM Leader from SLC would chastise the stake for running a church approved program that is fully accepted in other parts of the world.
JM,
In North America, scouting is the approved program for YM.
The SP should be chastised for allowing it to drop. This represents a lack of leadership on that score. There is no other program available to YM to replace it.
Scout leaders should be called and properly trained, and the activities be challenging enough to these young men, that they gain some real life experience from it.
Kim. You give us a history of how home teaching started. It’s a little different than my undestanding, as I understood that it was a carryover from an earlier program that was similar in many respects, only not by quorum.
Regardless of how the idea for it originally started (I’d argue that Christ was the author with its basics outlined in ancient scripture), the question is whether the First Presidency has adopted the program.
Is it your position that the First Presidency has not adopted the Home Teaching program?
George:
>So what does the new CHI say to do with 50 year old men who realize they are pew sitters and not important any longer?
That a person who has accepted the baptismal covenant and agreed to the oath and covenant of the priesthood believes he has no importance is incomprehensible to me. There are so many places in the world that need the commitment of dedicated members to help fellow saints (and non-members) to grow. The prophet is practically begging for the efforts of the older members.
How can one believe that their effort is not needed? When did the promise to serve your fellow man stop at 50?
Larry,
I don’t see that as the case.
In one of the ‘recent’ world wide leadership training broadcasts that were given a few years ago, they specifically talked about local units implementing the programs the church comes up with.
It was specifically mentioned that a bishop or stake president was to use their best judgement and discernment when it came to implementing church programs. The message they gave was that even though the handbook and SLC come up with all sorts of programs for wards and stakes to use, we need to remember that the programs are for the people, not the people for the programs.
I believe specific mention was given to programs like YM / YW and Primary, saying that a local leader should not feel pressured to fully implement a program if they did not have the capacity to do so. As far as I can remember, they didn’t define ‘capacity’.
With the instruction given, I believe a bishop or SP could determin if implementing such a program was in their units best interest and decide if they were to go forth or not. As I recall, this gave local leadership quite a broad path when it came to what programs to implement (but not in their specific implementation).
But even if they were in the wrong, we’d just sit back and take it, right? ;-)
Here’s is what my limited research has turned up regarding whether the First Presidency has adopted home teaching:
>I feel impressed to speak to you about a priesthood program that has been inspired from its inception—a program that touches hearts, that changes lives, and that saves souls; a program that has the stamp of approval of our Father in Heaven; a program so vital that, if faithfully followed, it will help to spiritually renew the Church and exalt its individual members and families.
>I am speaking about priesthood home teaching. With all my heart, I pray that you will understand, by the Spirit, exactly my feelings about home teaching.
>Brethren, home teaching is not just another program. It is the priesthood way of watching over the Saints and accomplishing the mission of the Church. Home teaching is not just an assignment. It is a sacred calling.
>Home teaching is not to be undertaken casually. A home teaching call is to be accepted as if extended to you personally by the Lord Jesus Christ.
President Benson, 1987
Before this address, the First Presidency and the 12 were all over the program, and pushed it out worldwide. I’m not sure how a belief has come about that it’s optional. For those who argue that it’s ineffective, I wonder why President Benson declared it to be “inspired from its inception” and that our Father in Heaven has approved it.
http://tinyurl.com/9qk7t
tortdog
Keep in mind no one is saying the HT programme is not adopted officially. It’s how it was originated that prompted the discussion (this particular one). No one is in any doubt that it is a recognised church programme. Well Rick might be. :)
My response relating to the FIrst Presidency and Home Teaching was following a view that the HT program was not effective and should be looked at. Following my viewpoint that the HT program comes from the First Presidency, the history of the program was put forward as the brainchild of Monson when he was not a GA. This history did not include the consideration that the First Presidency adopted home teaching as the method to fulfill our covenants in baptism, nor a recognition that President Benson, while acting as the prophet, gave accolades to this program as being given to us by our Heavenly Father.
If Heavenly Father can’t get it right, then who can?
Oops…one last thing, Mary. You state that you don’t need home teaching in your house – that you do not see how you would be more blessed with it. Yet President Benson states, “Home teaching is not just an assignment. It is a sacred calling.”
IF President Benson is correct, then why would God waste sacred callings on something that did not provide man with blessings?
Is there a possibility of too many blessings?
I don’t need home teachers who don’t care enough to fulfill their calling, is what I am saying. If they do care enough to do it, then I would love them to come. But I don’t need them for ME or my family to grow and be blessed spiritually. Note the key word “need”.
I do strongly believe and feel home and visiting teaching are sacred callings. You seem to think I am slamming the entire programmes and don’t seem to see that both me and my husband are very diligent in fulfilling these callings. I am a dedicated visiting teacher. Perfect? No. But my sisters know they can rely on me. Likewise Kim. He is a very dedicated hometeacher. His families know implicitly that he cares about them. He is there constantly. They can call on him for help. Because they know him. He is there.
I am very blessed to be a visiting teacher. I am not blessed to have home teachers who don’t care about me or my family (and I do not refer to our current home teachers, I am referring to past ones).
>I don’t need home teachers who don’t care enough to fulfill their calling, is what I am saying.
Ahhh! That’s quite different. Again, I think the confusion comes from comments that fail to distinguish between an inspired program (one that Pres. Benson states came from our Heavenly Father) and people who fail to implement that inspired program.
JM said “But even if they were in the wrong, we’d just sit back and take it, right?”
Does that fall under the guise of the Lord would never let Church Leaders lead us astray even if they do it time and time again?
However, if, as in some areas, results are consistently poor, then the programme needs to be adjusted to yield better results.
JM,
No, I don’t think we would sit back and take it.
I am fortunate that my children are all grown now – my youngest is in Thailand nearing the end of his mission.
When they were younger, the attitude in the Stake was that scouting wasn’t important. A friend of mine who lived in their ward (my wife had kicked me out)had sons that were my sons age and who was an avid scouter over the years. He refused to accept the status quo and let it be known, was called, and implemented a superior scouting program that greatly benefited my youngest 2 sons.
We don’t have to say okay to bad programs. We can be activist. If leaders don’t respond appropriately there is nothing wrong with us as parents implementing programs apart from the Church that will benefit our children. It is, after all, our responsibility anyway.
My position is that we support our leaders in their callings.
If they lack in some areas then the responsibility is ours. In fact it should be ours in the first place, and the Church used as a resource, not as the principal provider.
George,
Your anger has gotten so hold of you that you don’t attend Church, allow home teachers, or anything else.
At what point do you humble yourself and take it to the Lord?
How much do you really care if you don’t look for answers, rather than just express anger and make broad statements that are clearly illogical.
I am at the point where I’m not sure that you are a member, but rather someone trying to create dissension.
There are a number of reasons for this.
You don’t understand priesthood,…callings,… or Church procedures.
You make blanket statements that are ridiculous. Let me give you an example that you might understand.
As a business owner you are part of the capitalist society. If I were to have a bad experience with a home builder, for example, using your rationale, I would conclude that all business owners are rip off artists who care nothing about quality control or their clients.
You could argue until you are blue in the face that I’m wrong, but you won’t ever convince me because of my experience with him. I can take it further to include his sub trades, even though I may never have met them, his suppliers, their employees etc. From this I would conclude that since he is licensed by the city and state, that all gov’t employees are on the take as well. Since they are appointed by people we elect, then all the voters are corrupt as well. In the end, the only honest one in the world is me, because I am the one who was offended by some inferior homebuilder.
You and I both know that my broad conclusion is outrageous. There are honest homebuilders who use quality sub trades and suppliers. The rest is obvious.
Take a look inside and reconsider the reasons you feel the way you do. I think you might have a life altering experience if you do it sincerely.
Hey Mary… I know it is in the middle of the night.. but was just reading this posted thread and at #14 you stated you were the EQ President.. how did you manage that??? LOL