How far do you take agency?

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, rchorse said:

In my experience, those who cry the most loudly that no one ever tried to reach out or visit or rescue them were always those we had tried the hardest to help. As bishop, I would often hear that someone had complained to his/her neighbor/home/visiting teacher that no one ever came by or cared or offered to help. That was typically from people that we as a bishopric had visited fairly recently and had either not even let us in the door or told us that they wanted no contact.

While some people definitely do slip through the cracks, and some leaders / members don't reach out the way they should, I'm inclined to take most of these types of stories with more than a grain of salt.

That said, though, I agree that the best approach for everyone is to love them without any ulterior motives of reactivation, etc.

I disagree that reactivation is an ulterior motive in the same way I do not view conversion as a something dirty I am trying to pull on someone for my own gain or glorification. I am guessing this is not what you specifically meant but I have seen so many ashamed of the gospel saying similar things as if not sharing the gospel is some kind of superior ethical stance.

[rchorse]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree that reactivation is an ulterior motive in the same way I do not view conversion as a something dirty I am trying to pull on someone for my own gain or glorification. I am guessing this is not what you specifically meant but I have seen so many ashamed of the gospel saying similar things as if not sharing the gospel is some kind of superior ethical stance.

I was referring more to conditional friendship and love based on whether they come back to church or not. I think it's extremely counter-productive when people think the only reason you want to talk to or spend time with them is to have another conversion/reactivation notch in your belt. Sincere love doesn't drop someone if they don't want to hear about the church.

I agree that we shouldn't be ashamed of or afraid to talk about the gospel. Especially when, as is often the case, it is the best solution to someone's problems.

Edited May 24, 2019 by rchorse

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

In my experience, those who cry the most loudly that no one ever tried to reach out or visit or rescue them were always those we had tried the hardest to help. As bishop, I would often hear that someone had complained to his/her neighbor/home/visiting teacher that no one ever came by or cared or offered to help. That was typically from people that we as a bishopric had visited fairly recently and had either not even let us in the door or told us that they wanted no contact. ... [Bold and ellipses added by Kenngo1969]

I mean neither disrespect toward anyone nor to make light of a serious, often-delicate situation, but it is kinda hard to hug a porcupine, innit?  Whaddayagonnado?    

[SouthernMo]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A cute story?

Yeah - a nice parable that didn’t happen that sounds deep and insightful to share, but lacks specifics, nuance, and most Christians I know don’t or haven’t left any group to go rescue someone.

But, stick with the point. How does that parable apply here?  How do you apply that parable to respecting someone else’s agency when they don’t want to be “reactivated?” 

[Kenngo1969]

Posted by Don Bernardo:

Quote

Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’

Interesting.  What translation is that from, Don Bernardo?

[Calm]

8 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

nice parable that didn’t happen tha

Are you suggesting there have never been shepherds that have left their sheep in a corral after counting them and finding one short who went out looking for the lost one?

Or that Jesus might not have been aware of some shepherds who worked that way?

Edited May 24, 2019 by Calm

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe this far?

Quote

Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’

 

As SouthernMo has noted, there are some that may not wish to return, and that is where one aspect of the ministering program comes into play. We must adapt our ministering efforts to the circumstances of those to whom we minister. Whatever the reason for not wishing to return, most people will welcome a person who sincerely wants to be a friend.

Glenn

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting there have never been shepherds that have left their sheep in a corral after counting them and finding one short who went out looking for the lost one?

Or that Jesus might have been aware of some shepherds who worked that way?

Wow. It’s really hard to prove that something has never happened. So... no I’m not claiming that no shepherd has EVER left 99 sheep to find one.

In the New Testament context Jesus offers this story in, its pretty clear he’s using a metaphor to teach a principle. I’m only asking how this parable can be specifically applied to this situation in the OP. 

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

I think we constantly invite and respect their choice, which hopefully won't be as consistent as we are... To be able to constantly invite, we need to stay friendly.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

If a member says that they want no contact we must respect that. 

But hopefully they will allow someone to be their friend on a personal basis even though they are a Church member.

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

As a Bishopric, we always try to keep the communication open with those who are inactive (or less active) and instruct the auxiliary leaders to try to do the same (visits and invites to activities, etc.).  But once a person has requested that they no longer be contacted and want to be left alone, we do respect that.  It's tricky at that point because you want them to know they are missed and that we still care about them, but we don't want to push them away or upset them by not honoring their request.  Sometimes there have been active members who are still in contact or good friends with them and they can stay in touch which is good to see.

The main thing is to make sure they know they are welcome back at any time and loved and missed.....while still respecting their wishes.  Sometimes that's a difficult balance and each has to be handled on an individual basis, IMO.

Edited May 24, 2019 by ALarson

[Maidservant]

I have almost always attended at least Sacrament Meeting (although I haven't attended Sunday School more than 10 times or so in the last 5+ years).  I attend the temple.  I accept callings and ministering assignments.  I try to pray, read my Book of Mormon, pay tithing.  Etc.  I was born in the church and have ancestors from it.  So I guess to most people I look like "the church."

However, when I was younger, people terrified me, period.  I was terrified of anger, of emotions, of loss, of people's hurt, of different thinking, of if someone would like me, terrified of talking about the Church to someone.  People of any kind, of any church.  I was raised in a lower class, white, Mormon neighborhood and hadn't seen much beyond.  I can honestly say I am no longer terrified of approaching and talking to people and listening to them without any judgment and I even think I have more calm and courage than most would, of approaching all kinds of people with compassion and respect.  But when did I stop being terrified?  Was it when I was 22?  When I was 34?  39?  It's not necessarily a quantum.  The ability to reach out comes somewhat gradually over time from experiences of being terrified.  That ability doesn't come from "being a member of the church" or "having a testimony" (which I'm not sure I'd describe myself as having at this point).

Once when I had a Cub Scout calling, I dropped the ball and probably angered and hurt people about what the Church a la Cub Scouting was supposed to be like, feel like, look like.  I'm sure they have 'a member of the Church did this' stories about me.  But what none of them knew was that I was pretty much on the floor with depression and complete physical inertia for a solid two months (NOT the 'sadness' depression, the chemical depression that causes your body not to move).  I'm sure I've had many instances where I dropped the ball and hurt people; I'm just giving one concrete example.  People often say they won't/can't attend church anymore because of some offense given, but I have literally been faced with the decision that perhaps it was better if I didn't go to church because of the danger, the high probability, I would be offending people by my presence etc, and that my gift to them would be my absence so that they could feel safe and come back to church.

I don't tell people things about me STILL because I Don't Care anymore if anyone notices me; because I know that they can't.  They literally can't.  They are in their own story, their own pain, EVERYONE is.  And I find that to be a relief actually.  As one poster above said--I no longer have to expect anything from anyone.  Except myself.  To keep helping myself and reaching out when I'm strong enough--which won't be all the time.  I'm NOT 'the church'.  I'm a human being too.  And there is so much I am going to fail at.  But I have stopped worrying about who is going to show up except for one person and that is myself--I show up for myself, and ask myself who I can show up for, although for any one thing I do for someone, I'm sure there were 50 opportunities I didn't do.

It's a heavy, scary thing to think that someone makes decisions based on my behavior and I BEG EVERYONE NOT TO DO THAT EVER! Don't go by me at all!  If you see me at Church or at WalMart--don't make decisions about who you are and what you may do based on ME!  Because I will disappoint you; I will let you down.

That's who the members of the Church are that didn't show up.  They are probably praying for someone too.

[Kenngo1969]

I have very little doubt that my very existence offends some people.

I like that.  

Is that wrong?  

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Duncan said:

Recently one of our Stake Presidency members made an observation that I hadn't considered before, he said in essence if someone goes inactive then we need to respect their right to choose that, even if it wouldn't be our choice. I was thinking too if someone is inactive should we just leave them be and not bother trying to reactivate them by respecting their choice to be inactive? how far do you take the idea of respecting someone's agency?

Here's my take.  Leaving them be and not trying to reactivate them are two different things.  I think most members tend to follow the injunction of Heber Kimball--the whole "well, it never has worked, but if it did they would be bad members who'd leave again anyway, God's wrong on this front".  

Everyone should certainly learn to respect each other's rights to choose what they do.  That should go without saying.  But that hardly means we should stop engaging with each other.  If people are leaving the Church and the Church is God's Church members should certainly be in the business of trying to get them back.  The problem is members often can't engage with some who leave because they simply aren't informed....that's a big problem.  Also, members can't engage because even if informed the reasoning tends to be flawed and the engaging doesn't work--which ultimately may be another problem of ill-informed but ill-informed while thinking they are well-informed.  it leads to the Heber Kimball attitude--"well I did my best and lost every single time...it must be everyone else who is bad".  As I recall looking back on my days heavily engaged in Church that was it.  members were most often really negative about the people they were trying to engage, were often inflexible and not willing to hear.  The substance of the discussion was most often lost on the members because they were too busy trying to find something wrong with the people who didn't want Church.  There was a dusting of the feet, in an unofficial way, as the member often pronounced some judgment on the other person, and the level of effort and engagement with the other dropped, or was postponed.  What often happens, though, is people ask to not be contacted for one particular reason.  Each time they were contacted they saw the hollowness of the members who were doing the contacting.  There was no real effort to engage, there was no real effort to care.  it gets tiring in this world when relationships transparently are shallow and pretend.  Members dont' get that's what's happening often, and quite often react with a "they're angry...they're really bad antis..." or other such dismissing of the people---which really only confirms the whole issue the person who requested to not be contacted had.    

I think the church will continue to lose because members tend to be like Heber Kimball.  The Church will lose as long as members refuse to engage, refuse to see others as somehow worth engaging with.  And most of all the Church will continue to lose the less inflexible it gets, or the less inflexible it makes its members.  

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

As SouthernMo has noted, there are some that may not wish to return, and that is where one aspect of the ministering program comes into play. We must adapt our ministering efforts to the circumstances of those to whom we minister. Whatever the reason for not wishing to return, most people will welcome a person who sincerely wants to be a friend.

Glenn

Of course. However, one can seek for the missing sheep with compassion, respect, and restraint. In our ward, we ask those who request no personal contact from the Church if they would accept periodic letters. For five years now, my companion and I have been sending monthly letters with a message, information, and an offer of service to 30-50 of those who are willing. One inactive sister called and asked for a blessing before surgery. About 5-10 others have indicated they don’t want even a letter. We respect their request.

Furthermore, I have always thought members’ requests to have their names removed should be verified and then honored promptly. I have done this as a bishop and as a member of three other bishoprics. Two of my own children have done that.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. However, one can seek for the missing sheep with compassion, respect, and restraint. In our ward, we ask those who request no personal contact from the Church if they would accept periodic letters. For five years now, my companion and I have been sending monthly letters with a message, information, and an offer of service to 30-50 of those who are willing. One inactive sister called and asked for a blessing before surgery. About 5-10 others have indicated they don’t want even a letter. We respect their request.

On the other hand, I have always thought members’ requests to have their name removed should be verified and then honored. I have done this as a bishop and member of three other bishoprics. Including two of my own children.

Your effort to send letters to members who request no contact is commendable.  I'd like a letter keeping me up to date in our ward.  

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Posted by Don Bernardo:

Interesting.  What translation is that from, Don Bernardo?

NIV.

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I watched a couple complain that the church did not help them when their baby had health problems........after they refused the bishop entrance to the hospital when he came by to see i they were okay, refused to come to the door for their assigned ministers, and ignored texts from over a dozen people trying to reach out. That level of self-deception has always impressed me in a sad way.

During his excommunication, the fellow who subsequently became the local leader of Ex-Mormons for Jesus stated that one reason he and his wife were leaving the Church was because we had ignored his aging parents. Hmmmm. Their home teachers, the RS President, and I visited them, we paid their rent and utilities, and provided food from the Bishop’s Storehouse. None of us ever ran into him during visits. We had declined buying dog food for their pooch. Maybe that’s why he was put out.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

15 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Your effort to send letters to members who request no contact is commendable.  I'd like a letter keeping me up to date in our ward.  

Thanks. Maybe you could pass that on to your bishop?

[stemelbow]

50 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Maybe you could pass that on to your bishop?

If i'm on a do not contact list I'd be surprised.  I've never requested as much, even though, largely, I"m not contacted.  The bishop was brand new when wife and I packed up and left, but the whole ward knew us pretty well, so he has some idea about us, I'm sure, as the gossipy lines trickled to his ears.  I'm not sure such a suggestion would do anything though.  We haven't really been visited in the past couple of years by anyone, so I doubt anyone is all that eager to write a letter to the lessers like us.  Not a bad idea to make the request though.  There is the good change that I'm unique amongst us non-goers in thinking a letter would be nice.  Wife seems pretty caught up with her social media fixing, and I in turn get some news through her.  I wouldn't doubt that many others who are curious keep abreast in the same way as she.  But I do appreciate your moxie on this and thought it worth noting.  

[let’s roll]

I’ve never interacted with anyone with the idea of activating or reactivating them in the Church.  My affinity for the Church is a byproduct of my quest to better know God and Jesus Christ.  

The purest form of love we can show to our brothers and sisters is to invite them to know their Father and elder brother and assist them in their efforts to do so.  

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course. However, one can seek for the missing sheep with compassion, respect, and restraint. In our ward, we ask those who request no personal contact from the Church if they would accept periodic letters. For five years now, my companion and I have been sending monthly letters with a message, information, and an offer of service to 30-50 of those who are willing. One inactive sister called and asked for a blessing before surgery. About 5-10 others have indicated they don’t want even a letter. We respect their request.

Furthermore, I have always thought members’ requests to have their names removed should be verified and then honored promptly. I have done this as a bishop and as a member of three other bishoprics. Two of my own children have done that.

One of the most inspiring and revelatory talks that I have ever heard concerning sheep and shepherding was in a conference talk in April of 1988 by Elder John R. Lasater of the Seventy. I have heard a lot of talks in my time and have learned a lot and have been inspired greatly by them, but this is the one that has stayed with me for all these many years. It basically lets us know that we all all are supposed to be shepherds under the one master Shepherd. The story of how sheep are still tended in lands like Morocco was especially enlightening.

And I was wondering about sheep. Are they the dumb, follow the crowd creatures that are the stuff of legend and jokes. A quick Google search (what else) helped to allay that stereotype.

Basically, what I take away from all of this is that I need to keep asking myself am I doing all I can as one of Christ's shepherds and is there anything I can do better to help some of the sheep that are reticent but not really opposed to contact? The idea of writing letters that one poster suggested is one possibility I think I need to pray about.

Glenn

[Calm]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Wow. It’s really hard to prove that something has never happened. So... no I’m not claiming that no shepherd has EVER left 99 sheep to find one.

In the New Testament context Jesus offers this story in, its pretty clear he’s using a metaphor to teach a principle. I’m only asking how this parable can be specifically applied to this situation in the OP. 

I am not claiming the exact details had to happen.  I think the 100 vs. 1 is symbolic to make a point, but the impact of the parable is it is something we should very much be able to relate too and understand because it is very real, imo.

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Here's my take.  Leaving them be and not trying to reactivate them are two different things.  I think most members tend to follow the injunction of Heber Kimball--the whole "well, it never has worked, but if it did they would be bad members who'd leave again anyway, God's wrong on this front".  

Everyone should certainly learn to respect each other's rights to choose what they do.  That should go without saying.  But that hardly means we should stop engaging with each other.  If people are leaving the Church and the Church is God's Church members should certainly be in the business of trying to get them back.  The problem is members often can't engage with some who leave because they simply aren't informed....that's a big problem.  Also, members can't engage because even if informed the reasoning tends to be flawed and the engaging doesn't work--which ultimately may be another problem of ill-informed but ill-informed while thinking they are well-informed.  it leads to the Heber Kimball attitude--"well I did my best and lost every single time...it must be everyone else who is bad".  As I recall looking back on my days heavily engaged in Church that was it.  members were most often really negative about the people they were trying to engage, were often inflexible and not willing to hear.  The substance of the discussion was most often lost on the members because they were too busy trying to find something wrong with the people who didn't want Church.  There was a dusting of the feet, in an unofficial way, as the member often pronounced some judgment on the other person, and the level of effort and engagement with the other dropped, or was postponed.  What often happens, though, is people ask to not be contacted for one particular reason.  Each time they were contacted they saw the hollowness of the members who were doing the contacting.  There was no real effort to engage, there was no real effort to care.  it gets tiring in this world when relationships transparently are shallow and pretend.  Members dont' get that's what's happening often, and quite often react with a "they're angry...they're really bad antis..." or other such dismissing of the people---which really only confirms the whole issue the person who requested to not be contacted had.    

I think the church will continue to lose because members tend to be like Heber Kimball.  The Church will lose as long as members refuse to engage, refuse to see others as somehow worth engaging with.  And most of all the Church will continue to lose the less inflexible it gets, or the less inflexible it makes its members.  

as always, well put!

[SouthernMo]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not claiming the exact details had to happen.  I think the 100 vs. 1 is symbolic to make a point, but the impact of the parable is it is something we should very much be able to relate too and understand because it is very real, imo.

OK.  How does one apply that parable to the situation at hand: respecting the agency of those who are members of the church, but choose to be less active?