conference

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Wilford Woodruff said that he learned the gospel "through shoe leather." I think testimonies are strengthened more through missionary work (with all that entails, including rejection, miracles, mean people, wonderful experiences, and sometimes dry spells in finding) than through meetings all week (district meetings, district planning meetings, the entire mission going to headquarters for transfers --- not just those being transferred, and other ways sought to have the missionaries' time occupied not doing missionary work). I think this is also a contributing factor in missionaries being depressed on their missions and post mission.

I remember Duncan sharing that a missionary in his ward was frustrated that they had him do indexing. He said, "I could have stayed home and done this, and saved $10,000."

The problem is that tracking and street teaching grow less and less culturally acceptable in many areas of the world and we do not have a good finding replacement. Telling me to find people to teach for missionaries in my ward is difficult. Where I am wards are fairly small geographically. I do not know of anyone in my workplace that lives in my ward and most of my other hobbies through which I meet people are even less geographically centered.

At the same time morale from tracking is horrifically bad. On my mission I kind of liked being yelled at. Beats indifference which is more and more what missionaries get.

Attempts at member missionary programs are almost universally hated by members. We need you to pray to have someone to teach by this specific date with the idea that God has someone for them to introduce to the gospel and if we just pray hard enough that will bring success. I do not mean to discount prayer but if sincere prayer by missionaries doesn't guarantee baptisms and teaching experiences (and based on my mission it does not) then what makes member prayers so special?

I do not know what the solution is but we need new methods other then tracking and street meetings, the same tactics Wilford Woodruff used almost 200 years ago to bring in baptisms by the fisher's net. I served where that harvest took place. Either we were weak-faithed and failures or that level of success is just not possible using those methods in this day.

Calling missionaries coddled for not being asked to use techniques that grow less and less effective just smacks of ageist prejudice. That it worked better in the past does not mean it is the only way rugged manly men should do the work now and that the current generation is a gaggle of wimps.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

As more and more missionaries spend their 18months or two years without baptizing anyone and having few meaningful teaching experiences, people will start to question the value of the massive investment in time and money.

Over the short term, conversion rates in our ward have certainly declined. 2014: 11, 2015: 6, 2016: 3, 2017 (so far): 1. But, as ward mission leader, I haven't actually seen any decrease in 'meaningful teaching experiences'. We currently have one set of Elders in our ward, and we share a set of Sisters with the neighbouring ward. They all teach far more lessons than I ever taught as a fulltime missionary* and far more lessons than our missionaries used to teach just a few years ago. I was actually thinking about this fact just last night when I got home from two back-to-back lessons with the Elders, the second of which was with non-member friends of mine. Our missionaries are currently meeting and sharing with so many people who, so far, haven't embraced the Restoration. Will that mean something at some point in the future. I suspect it will, but I'm unsure at this point what.

-----

*As a missionary, I once went a full six months without teaching a single lesson to anyone. Three lessons in a week would have been stellar for us. Now our missionaries would most weeks teach between 10 and 20 lessons to non-members.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

The missionaries almost literally live at the church building in my area (by instruction), to the point where members have commented on it. It isn't their fault. They have super long district meetings and joint "planning" meetings, and play on their iPads trying to find people.

I know you've brought this up before several times, but I still find it odd. Our missionaries here are amazing when it comes to all they do everyday. They work like machines from morning till night, talking to people on the street, knocking doors, following up leads, etc. Many times I've dropped them home from an appointment, and instead of walking inside, they've sprinted off to the nearby bus interchange for a final 20 minutes of street contacting.

[Duncan]

Our ward has hit or exceeded baptism goals since like 2012, some have moved, gone inactive but I think we do okay

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

 

The story of Steve and Sarah reminds me of a loved one who went through quite a trauma. In the years following she has pushed, often shoved away every loved one in her life and had become very bitter about family and church. I love her, but she won't let me in because she feels I am toxic when I didn't take sides with her (or anyone) over a matter I knew very little about. I dearly hope Sarah recognizes she went through trauma and takes a year or so making no quick choices or judgments, turning her back on those who would most like to help.  It is painful to see my loved one go through this and I wish she would quit trying to burn bridges between us and let us help.

 

It is sad that the relationship with your loved one is blocked.

For me, I have not watched conference because, like Steve's banter, it represents a relationship (with the church) that is unhealthy to me. Fortunately, though, conference is not a person. Fortunately I can maintain my personal relationships with people in my life.  I hope that they will not desire to discontinue or severely alter our relationship when they learn about my changing relationship with the church. I have not yet disclosed this to loved ones outside my immediate family (excepting one brother and a few friends who have gone through the same ordeal) because I want to first allow myself to go through my own grief process before putting them through the grief process that this will inevitably cause them. There is no need to pit our grief against each other in a negative feedback loop, if that can be avoided!

Your reference to your loved one reminds me of one in my family as well.  An ex of a loved one accused him of rape during their marriage.  She insists that we take her word over his and allow ourselves to be guided by her in our relationship to him. He is my blood relation, and I tried to explain to her that I have to find my own way to relate to both of them given her allegations, to not necessarily follow her lead.  After I said this, she cut off all contact with me. It's too bad that this relationship as far as I know is ended, but I hope that ultimately she will use the space that this creates for her own healing. Maybe blocking off that part of her life is necessary for her.  If it's unnecessarily wasteful, that's too bad, but either way I am okay with it at the moment because I'd rather she engage where she can do so productively for her own well-being.

If I eventually have the opportunity to see her, I will try to be warm and loving!

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that tracking and street teaching grow less and less culturally acceptable in many areas of the world and we do not have a good finding replacement. Telling me to find people to teach for missionaries in my ward is difficult. Where I am wards are fairly small geographically. I do not know of anyone in my workplace that lives in my ward and most of my other hobbies through which I meet people are even less geographically centered.

At the same time morale from tracking is horrifically bad. On my mission I kind of liked being yelled at. Beats indifference which is more and more what missionaries get.

Attempts at member missionary programs are almost universally hated by members. We need you to pray to have someone to teach by this specific date with the idea that God has someone for them to introduce to the gospel and if we just pray hard enough that will bring success. I do not mean to discount prayer but if sincere prayer by missionaries doesn't guarantee baptisms and teaching experiences (and based on my mission it does not) then what makes member prayers so special?

I do not know what the solution is but we need new methods other then tracking and street meetings, the same tactics Wilford Woodruff used almost 200 years ago to bring in baptisms by the fisher's net. I served where that harvest took place. Either we were weak-faithed and failures or that level of success is just not possible using those methods in this day.

Calling missionaries coddled for not being asked to use techniques that grow less and less effective just smacks of ageist prejudice. That it worked better in the past does not mean it is the only way rugged manly men should do the work now and that the current generation is a gaggle of wimps.

The last ward council I attended, the missionaries proposed a program they'd used with encouraging success in a previous area: a member family matches up with a new convert family and develop a friendship, have them in their home, be part of their lives.  I thought it was a good concept, but the number of families who can pair up in our ward is limited. The bishop didn't seem to run with the idea and said we need to focus on prayer.

[gopher]

It's sad to hear missionaries are wasting time hanging out in church buildings.  We've had 9 baptisms in the past 2 years in our ward and 8 have come from knocking on doors by the missionaries.  We had a baptism two weeks ago of a 60 year old man who said he had been looking his entire life for what the missionaries taught him at his door.  Last week he received the Priesthood (which couldn't have happened 40 years ago).  I don't see missionaries getting coddled here.  I can't even make fun of the many missionaries we get from Utah for being soft and vulnerable from growing up in such a sheltered environment.  They are every bit as tough as the missionaries we send out.  I don't think we are doing them any favors by removing all the hardships.  But they are still kids and having a friendly and supportive ward makes a huge difference to their morale.

Last year (2016) the DC South mission set a goal of 300 baptisms - they ended up with 303.  I thought President Eyring's comments in Priesthood session were interesting when he admitted we don't always do things the most effective way in the church.  Maybe we could increase the number of baptisms if we only sent out older, more knowledgeable, and more experienced missionaries.  But that's not the only focus of our missionary program.

[rongo]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that tracking and street teaching grow less and less culturally acceptable in many areas of the world

I keep hearing this. I see no evidence that this is so. It has been "less culturally acceptable" all over the world for over a hundred years --- meaning that many people don't like it. There aren't any legal barriers to it in most places, nor is there momentum building for this, as far as I can tell. In my experience, what people mean when they say "tracting is becoming less culturally-acceptable" is "missionaries don't like doing it, and people can be annoyed at them."

and we do not have a good finding replacement.

Here's the thing. *When* the missionaries don't have a better option, why not do it then? As I, gopher, and others testify to, many people are found that way who wouldn't have been found any other way. If they don't have appointments, why not do it? It is not less-effective than "planning" all week at the church. And that's where a lot of their mission stories are actually going to come from. The resistance to it when there is nothing else to do boggles my mind. Those who beat the "it's not effective" drum don't even want them to do it when they have even less effective options.

At the same time morale from tracking is horrifically bad.

I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If missionaries and members think morale is going to be bad with it, then they're right. I know from experience that it can be a lot of fun, even if you're not teaching lessons all the time, get yelled at, etc. 

On my mission I kind of liked being yelled at. Beats indifference which is more and more what missionaries get.

Missionaries don't have any more "indifference" from people now than in the past. Even the distant past. That has always been the default setting of people to our message, with some notable exceptions (United Brethren, Campbellites, etc.). 

I do not know what the solution is but we need new methods other then tracking and street meetings, the same tactics Wilford Woodruff used almost 200 years ago to bring in baptisms by the fisher's net. I served where that harvest took place. Either we were weak-faithed and failures or that level of success is just not possible using those methods in this day.

I do think the 1830s missions to Europe were a special time, where the vanguard of the gathering of Ephraim took place --- and subsequent attempts are considerable less "efficient" and effective. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find the people who can still be found just because it's hard.

The hand-wringing over the falling converts to missionaries ratio, falling convert baptisms, etc. boggles my mind. We have missionaries trying to find people to teach less and less. Why are we surprised when they find and baptize less and less?

Calling missionaries coddled

I'm basing this on counsel from the Brethren in my area (don't have them find, shield them from all negative experiences, have them at the church "planning" if they don't have anything to do, etc.)

for not being asked to use techniques that grow less and less effective

how do we know it's less and less effective if we don't try it any more? It's easy to say it's less and less effective if you no longer do it --- that becomes circular (we do it because it's less effective, we know it's less effective because we don't do it any more). 

just smacks of ageist prejudice.

Using terms like "ageist prejudice" hurts your anti-coddling case.  

 

 

[rongo]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I know you've brought this up before several times, but I still find it odd. Our missionaries here are amazing when it comes to all they do everyday. They work like machines from morning till night, talking to people on the street, knocking doors, following up leads, etc. Many times I've dropped them home from an appointment, and instead of walking inside, they've sprinted off to the nearby bus interchange for a final 20 minutes of street contacting.

Our missionaries are amazing, too. I think they could be even more amazing if they were unshackled.  

Your situation is different, being in Oceania. I have also always been careful to differentiate between North American missions and foreign missions. Because of demographics and Church membership, foreign missions cannot coddle missionaries --- they are much too important as vital components of Church structure. My parents just returned from serving in Poland, and they are also unaware of many of my North American coddling complaints in their section of the vineyard. But missionaries serve as branch presidents and things like that over there. They are in the thick of things. 

[Gray]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that tracking and street teaching grow less and less culturally acceptable in many areas of the world and we do not have a good finding replacement. Telling me to find people to teach for missionaries in my ward is difficult. Where I am wards are fairly small geographically. I do not know of anyone in my workplace that lives in my ward and most of my other hobbies through which I meet people are even less geographically centered.

At the same time morale from tracking is horrifically bad. On my mission I kind of liked being yelled at. Beats indifference which is more and more what missionaries get.

Attempts at member missionary programs are almost universally hated by members. We need you to pray to have someone to teach by this specific date with the idea that God has someone for them to introduce to the gospel and if we just pray hard enough that will bring success. I do not mean to discount prayer but if sincere prayer by missionaries doesn't guarantee baptisms and teaching experiences (and based on my mission it does not) then what makes member prayers so special?

I do not know what the solution is but we need new methods other then tracking and street meetings, the same tactics Wilford Woodruff used almost 200 years ago to bring in baptisms by the fisher's net. I served where that harvest took place. Either we were weak-faithed and failures or that level of success is just not possible using those methods in this day.

Calling missionaries coddled for not being asked to use techniques that grow less and less effective just smacks of ageist prejudice. That it worked better in the past does not mean it is the only way rugged manly men should do the work now and that the current generation is a gaggle of wimps.

Yeah, just think about how you feel when some stranger shows up unannounced for any reason on your doorstep. It just doesn't work in the 21st century. 

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that tracking and street teaching grow less and less culturally acceptable in many areas of the world and we do not have a good finding replacement.

Yes, this is so. And while some have suggested it was always like that, that's simply not the case. It used to be door to door salesmen were ubiquitous. There's far less acceptance of it. And in many countries it's an outright social taboo.

Tracting was always draining in terms of morale. I remember tracting out an entire city on my mission. But depending upon the area it can be more effective than alternatives. I think though the church needs to think through its methods. In particular I think they need to customize teaching and finding for particular regions more.

Quote

Telling me to find people to teach for missionaries in my ward is difficult. Where I am wards are fairly small geographically. I do not know of anyone in my workplace that lives in my ward and most of my other hobbies through which I meet people are even less geographically centered.

Yes, I think it'd be useful for places like that to have more "free floating" missionaries. Of course there are difficulties with that - keeping missionaries so they don't cover the same people or so forth. But in places like Utah I think there would be benefits to it.

Quote

Attempts at member missionary programs are almost universally hated by members. We need you to pray to have someone to teach by this specific date with the idea that God has someone for them to introduce to the gospel and if we just pray hard enough that will bring success. I do not mean to discount prayer but if sincere prayer by missionaries doesn't guarantee baptisms and teaching experiences (and based on my mission it does not) then what makes member prayers so special?

Yup. By and large even though members are the most effective way of finding investigators members hate doing it. It first gets them out of their comfort zone and second they fear the effect on acquaintances. Then the members who like doing it are far less effective because they come off as pushy. Still I think it undeniable that members could and should do a lot more.

Quote

I do not know what the solution is but we need new methods other then tracking and street meetings, the same tactics Wilford Woodruff used almost 200 years ago to bring in baptisms by the fisher's net.

There was more acceptance to the methods then. Mormons weren't the only ones using it. Political and other activists used to do public speaking a lot in the 19th century. Now it's become stigmatized for various reasons. 

[Avatar4321]

about 10 years ago one of the wards in my former stake had hundreds of baptisms each year for several years. The missionaries achieved this by focusing on finding, which included alot of tracting and later referrals from those new members they tracted.

seems to me that if your heart is pure and you put in the work you will be blessed. Maybe that will be successful teaching and baptism or you will blessed.

I don't think you should ignore a method of finding if you've tried everything else just because the statistics aren't favorable. God will bless our faith, not our excuses to do nothing.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Avatar4321

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, this is so. And while some have suggested it was always like that, that's simply not the case. It used to be door to door salesmen were ubiquitous. There's far less acceptance of it.

Then why do we continue to find and baptize people through that method? And how would these people have been found without tracting?

And in many countries it's an outright social taboo.

Examples? I'm not counting local variants, like clapping at the gate in some Latin American countries.

Granted, tracting of all kinds is now forbidden in Russia.

Tracting was always draining in terms of morale. I remember tracting out an entire city on my mission.

It can be, but doesn't have to be. And a lot of this depends on expectations. Certainly, throwing the current North American group into 10 hours of tracting a day from not doing it would be jarring. 

But depending upon the area it can be more effective than alternatives.

This is primarily what I am arguing. *When* it is more effective than the alternatives, and it it is still forbidden, why not do it?

I think though the church needs to think through its methods. In particular I think they need to customize teaching and finding for particular regions more.

The Church just made this a worldwide change for all missions. Good missionaries were doing this the whole time, without the directive (effectively using their time and resources to match their circumstances). 

Yup. By and large even though members are the most effective way of finding investigators members hate doing it. It first gets them out of their comfort zone and second they fear the effect on acquaintances. Then the members who like doing it are far less effective because they come off as pushy. Still I think it undeniable that members could and should do a lot more.

I've always focused on removing the barriers for members (fear, concerns, etc.) and helping them be able to have more gospel conversations. One thing I did in Germany for members who wanted to be missionaries but were afraid to talk to people: I asked them to come to our street displays and just look at the books. No conversations necessary! We put Book of Mormons in exotic languages on a table (with picture displays, too), but most pedestrians were self-conscious about being the first/only ones to be looking at the Mormons' stuff. Many were very curious, but weren't going to be the first ones. With obvious native German people there looking at the books/pamphlets, like magic, it was suddenly okay for pedestrians to also look. It was wonderful, and many of these shy members ended up talking to people as they both looked at stuff. But, there was absolutely no pressure to, and it was okay if they didn't. Just being there helped us a lot. 

There was more acceptance to the methods then. Mormons weren't the only ones using it. Political and other activists used to do public speaking a lot in the 19th century. Now it's become stigmatized for various reasons.

Hyde Park soapbox speeches have been out for generations, but street displays are still pretty effective for those areas. Mostly, today, it's one-on-one street contacting. While I loved door-to-door and street displays, I hated bus or subway contacting. The missionaries who bounced around the transit like pinballs were off-putting, even to me. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 

There was more acceptance to the methods then. Mormons weren't the only ones using it. Political and other activists used to do public speaking a lot in the 19th century. Now it's become stigmatized for various reasons. 

Aside from any stigma, a multitude of changes can account for simply less "demand" for street speaking and impromptu visitors:

We now ave so many ways to communicate that those methods can feel redundant, for instance.

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

Then why do we continue to find and baptize people through that method? And how would these people have been found without tracting?

It's less effective and less socially accepted but that doesn't mean it won't find people you wouldn't find any other way. And for some areas where alternatives are lacking it's still the best method.

Quote

It can be, but doesn't have to be. And a lot of this depends on expectations. Certainly, throwing the current North American group into 10 hours of tracting a day from not doing it would be jarring. 

I think they should do it where allowed. But in terms of effectiveness it really is limited.

Quote

I've always focused on removing the barriers for members (fear, concerns, etc.) and helping them be able to have more gospel conversations. One thing I did in Germany for members who wanted to be missionaries but were afraid to talk to people: I asked them to come to our street displays and just look at the books. No conversations necessary! We put Book of Mormons in exotic languages on a table (with picture displays, too), but most pedestrians were self-conscious about being the first/only ones to be looking at the Mormons' stuff. Many were very curious, but weren't going to be the first ones. With obvious native German people there looking at the books/pamphlets, like magic, it was suddenly okay for pedestrians to also look. It was wonderful, and many of these shy members ended up talking to people as they both looked at stuff. But, there was absolutely no pressure to, and it was okay if they didn't. Just being there helped us a lot. 

Getting members on splits is a fantastic thing. It gets them ready, especially those who were already on missions. It also effectively doubles your numbers for a period. But it works best where you already have a teaching pool, which not everyone does.

And, as you note, there's a lot you need to adjust for local circumstances. I think we should look at what other religions are doing too. Most of the changes in our programs are really primarily rearranging deck chairs. i.e. the shift to the new lessons in the late 80s and then the shift to more freeform a decade or so ago. Yet if you look Seventh Day Adventists are rather successful, especially in Africa and Asia. Evangelicals are surprisingly successful in Asia as well. 

[Danzo]

I agree that tracting is limited in its effectiveness at actually finding people, However it is very effective at letting the Lord know that you want to find people. He then brings people to the missionaries.

I have found that the single most important ingredient to missionary work is desire to bring people to Christ, In my opinion its more important than obedience, or technique.  

Since I have been called as a ward missionary and ward mission leader, all of the success in finding has been coming from people the Lord brings to us.

One of my biggest challenges is the culture and bureaucracy of the church itself. Too many rules in the church and in the missions can sometimes be used as an excuse to avoid missionary work.

I get a kick out of every time a missionary says We can't do "that".  

I then tell them to ask their mission president for permission, they come back and always find out that they actually can do "that", as long as doing "That" brings people to Christ.

[Calm]

"When* it is more effective than the alternatives, and it it is still forbidden, why not do it?"

Did you mean "it is still allowed?"

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

"When* it is more effective than the alternatives, and it it is still forbidden, why not do it?"

Did you mean "it is still allowed?"

Yeah. Some missions forbid tracting (in an effort to get member to "do their job"). What I meant was, "then allow it where not allowed, if it is more effective than the alternatives."

[Calm]

My son was required to tract for so many hours a week (something between 4 and 10 iirc, lower likely than higher) on a Utah mission (for one mission president, not his other one).  It frustrated him greatly because they knew already in most areas who were and who weren't active members, so going door to door down the street gave them no new information.  Even more important, they had enough referrals and interested people, they could have filled their tracting time with appointments and instead because of tracting, had to delay appointments.  It would make sense, imo,to do tracting in most Utah areas only when scheduling other more useful activities was not an option and to do it not for the purpose of finding investigators, but to get to know people in the neighborhood.  We have not been able to have the missionaries once to dinner in the almost 15 years we have lived here where we had them over at least once every couple of months in Canada once we got in the habit.  On the very rare occasion missionaries come by my house these days, we say hi, exchange names and they disappear. If we were able to invite them in and they tell us of their current efforts, I think many Utahns would feel more connected to the local efforts, plus it could be better coordinated without overloading neighbours if word gets out someone is interested.  A limit of such efforts would probably be needed, but it sure would be nice to do something besides wave to missionaries as we drive by them and contribute to the missionary fund.

Maybe I will talk to my husband to see if setting up an appointment outside of dinner time is allowed for members who just want to get to know them in our mission (he gets to Church more than I do these days).

Edited April 3, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

My son was required to tract on a Utah mission.  It frustrated him greatly because they knew already in most areas who were and who weren't members, so going door to door down the street gave them no new information.  Even more important, they had enough referrals and interested people, they could have filled their tracting time with appointments and instead because of tracting, had to delay appointments.  It would make sense, imo,to do tracting in most Utah areas only when scheduling other more useful activities was not an option and to do it not for the purpose of finding investigators, but to get to know people in the neighborhood.  

That's the other side of the coin. My father-in-law was WML in his ward (a wealthy part of Sandy, Utah). Almost every house was an active LDS house, and the whole ward was one neighborhood block, give or take. There was simply nothing for the missionaries to do, and the reactivation list was also a "burned over district," with all inactives known --- and how receptive they were. It not only made no sense to tract there, it made no sense to have missionaries in the ward (ward missionaries could handle everything. If full-time elders were needed, then the nearest ones could do it). 

One problem with the surge was that there were rapidly a ton of missionaries and nowhere to put them. Duncan mentioned when he had six missionaries in his ward in Canada, and it was too much. Our mission president told us that he got calls from the Missionary Department every month asking if he could take 30 additional missionaries, because with the surge in numbers, they needed to go somewhere. This led to similar situations locally where missionaries were tripping over each other. That makes it hard to do any missionary work --- tracting, or otherwise --- and led to a lot of depression and feelings of not being needed. It was hard to keep them busy, even with service or other creative things. 

[pogi]

It really depends on the culture of the area you are serving.  I served in the Philippines.  I absolutely loved tracting!  Probably around 80% of my baptisms were from tracting.  To give you an idea of how effective it was over there, I had nearly 60 baptisms on my mission.  The people are so very hospitable in the Philippines and almost always invite you in, if for no other reason than out of curiosity at the Tagalog speaking white guy knocking at their door.  It was such a wonderful way to interact with the community and form strong relationships.  Even if they weren't baptized, we made good friends almost everywhere we tracted.  I recognize that not every area is as golden as the Philippines though. 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Yeah, just think about how you feel when some stranger shows up unannounced for any reason on your doorstep. It just doesn't work in the 21st century. 

On the bright side we got a tacit endorsement of sticking your foot in the door before they slam it in Conference yesterday.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Yeah, just think about how you feel when some stranger shows up unannounced for any reason on your doorstep. It just doesn't work in the 21st century. 

I don't mind at all. And if they ask, I always invite them in.

Except for the one day when I was streaking to the laundry just as the JWs knocked on the door...

[omni]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

Here's the thing. *When* the missionaries don't have a better option, why not do it then? As I, gopher, and others testify to, many people are found that way who wouldn't have been found any other way. If they don't have appointments, why not do it? It is not less-effective than "planning" all week at the church. And that's where a lot of their mission stories are actually going to come from. The resistance to it when there is nothing else to do boggles my mind. Those who beat the "it's not effective" drum don't even want them to do it when they have even less effective options.

I think this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If missionaries and members think morale is going to be bad with it, then they're right. I know from experience that it can be a lot of fun, even if you're not teaching lessons all the time, get yelled at, etc.  

I'm basing this on counsel from the Brethren in my area (don't have them find, shield them from all negative experiences, have them at the church "planning" if they don't have anything to do, etc.)

how do we know it's less and less effective if we don't try it any more? It's easy to say it's less and less effective if you no longer do it --- that becomes circular (we do it because it's less effective, we know it's less effective because we don't do it any more). 

I think this raises an interesting question, why do you believe God inspired Church leaders to change the proselytizing focus from door-to-door tracking to social media if it's less effective?

If you don't believe Church leaders were inspired to make the change (which was undoubtedly done so after much fasting and prayer), why hasn't God inspired them to make the change back to door-to-door tracking?

 

[Rain]

I'll invite women from other churches while I am home alone during the day.  I won't invite men in.  I actually answer the door though. I know of a number of people who won't even see who is at the door if they don't know someone is coming.