What Is Your Local Church Doing to Engage Members?

[Rain]

On 4/20/2020 at 10:34 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

That is exactly the kind of leadership I expected to see in my area.

Sadly, I'm not seeing/experiencing any of that.

I believe that local leadership starts with the Bishopric which sets the tone. Sounds like you guys are working hard to keep people engaged instead of leaving members solely to their own devices. Nice job!

I have seen this on the stake president/bishop level with Just Serve.  Generally in the stakes where the stake presidents were very supportive of Just Serve the bishops were too.  When the the SP were not the bishops were not.  

[Rain]

On 4/23/2020 at 8:01 AM, alter idem said:

Thanks. I did make phonecalls and that was a good thing to do for those I called.  They clearly needed to talk and I needed the kick in the rear to call them. I made another observation about myself.  When I get off the phone from one of these calls, I feel drained. I think interactions are draining for me, but I wonder if for some people interactions with others are energizing. But maybe a 1 hour call is draining for anybody(though I don't like making phonecalls period). 

I'm trying to make a couple of calls every day. I don't think church leaders really want us all to be the same, but they do encourage us to put ourselves out there, be social, friendly, make an effort to interact with others, be active in church and the community which is not natural for some and it's  always been uncomfortable for me. It took awhile for me to figure out that it was an ingrained part of me, and as I get older I feel it more. Maybe I've lost some of the enthusiasm and misplaced confidence I had when I was younger.

My husband is very introverted.  I'm more of an ambivert. Two of my children lean towards extroversion.

I don't think that church wants to make us extroverts, but wants us to love as Christ loves.  

If you read the scriptures you can see that Christ wasn't exactly an extrovert either.  He did some big crowd things, some one on one things and some alone things.  He needed alone time just as we all do.  I think he wanted more than he got.

You can see the ways of Christ through different callings and different responsibilities.  A family history specialist will fit an introvert better because of the one on one time. A gospel doctrine teacher will fit an extrovert better because of the big group thing. 

I also think there must be something extra that is draining through phones for introverts somehow.  My husband hates the phone, but would be ok talking in person for a similar amount of time.  

So I think it all comes back to not really thinking of "this is an introvert/extrovert" kind of thing, but trying to love as Christ would.  Sometimes that means doing a zoom meeting, sometimes picking up the phone, sometimes writing an email and sometimes finding a quiet place to pray or recharge.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Rain said:

I also think there must be something extra that is draining through phones for introverts somehow.  My husband hates the phone, but would be ok talking in person for a similar amount of time.  

I hate the phone, I wonder if because I am unconsciously looking for body language to help me understand what the person is saying and not finding it obviously and that ups anxiety which wears me out.  There is also something about the sound that bothers me greatly.  I can't focus on the voice and exclude background noise, but even when a good connection there is something that bugs me.  Don't like using FaceTime as there is the visual and audio distortion.

[Duncan]

we had 2.5 HOUR long mtg tonite, the EQ and Rs Pres. and Stake Pres, some High Council, it could have been reduced to less than an hour but ya know with people. Topics were ministering, generating names for the Temple, bishop's storehouse-preventing abuses, self reliance and missionaries. Nothing really new but it is what it is

[alter idem]

20 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Something else I've noticed over the past couple of days:

In the past 2 days I've received emails from the Stake and from the bishop notifying of individuals who have been given callings. Both stated that since we aren't meeting together there can be no sustaining vote, so they issued the call and we will be asked to "ratify" the callings later once in-person meetings resume.

Although I'm well aware that "ratifying" isn't necessarily an uncommon practice it does strike me as an unusual one  

Does anyone know when this practice originated? It seems like a very letter-of-the-law kind of practice that misses the spirit of the law of common consent. For the stake, we were notified that 2 new high councilors had been called. In the ward, a new member of the bishopric. Both of these callings are fairly significant leadership callings. In the age of electronic communication which could include "YES/NOI, or SUSTAIN/NOT SUSTSAIN survey options, I wonder why a ratification after the fact would be preferable to an electronic sustaining process, especially for positions of leadership.

Any thoughts on that?

I agree with your concern over this, but I also realize that it may have been unavoidable if they had to make changes now rather than wait till we are meeting together again. I would hope they would think carefully about the importance of allowing the members to sustain leaders' decisions, and not treat it lightly, it's not supposed to be just a formality or tradition,  as I understand it.  My understanding of one reason for the sustain and oppose, common consent is for any who know of a reason the person should maybe not be called,  to make it known, so this information can be considered, before setting the person apart to the calling. Maybe in emailing they should have stated, if there are any opposed, please contact your Bishop-- or Stake Pres, if it's for a stake calling. I would feel more comfortable with it if they'd done that, then waited a couple of days for possible opposing votes to be made known before setting the person apart to the call. With our modern technology we can do that.

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

I agree with your concern over this, but I also realize that it may have been unavoidable if they had to make changes now rather than wait till we are meeting together again. I would hope they would think carefully about the importance of allowing the members to sustain leaders' decisions, and not treat it lightly, it's not supposed to be just a formality or tradition,  as I understand it.  My understanding of one reason for the sustain and oppose, common consent is for any who know of a reason the person should maybe not be called,  to make it known, so this information can be considered, before setting the person apart to the calling. Maybe in emailing they should have stated, if there are any opposed, please contact your Bishop-- or Stake Pres, if it's for a stake calling. I would feel more comfortable with it if they'd done that, then waited a couple of days for possible opposing votes to be made known before setting the person apart to the call. With our modern technology we can do that.

Email also makes it more likely that people with concerns (or who don't know whether it rises to the level of "concern" or not) might reply with their misgivings and reasons. Much, much more so than a public raising of hands --- especially when there is no advance notice and it's in real time of 2-3 seconds. By definition, email gives time to reflect and respond --- and gives the opportunity to "put away privily" if there are good reasons to withdraw the calling. 

I'm an old codger (figuratively), but I see a lot of advantages in this. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Email also makes it more likely that people with concerns (or who don't know whether it rises to the level of "concern" or not) might reply with their misgivings and reasons. Much, much more so than a public raising of hands --- especially when there is no advance notice and it's in real time of 2-3 seconds. By definition, email gives time to reflect and respond --- and gives the opportunity to "put away privily" if there are good reasons to withdraw the calling. 

I'm an old codger (figuratively), but I see a lot of advantages in this. 

It sounds like you're making a good case for why email should be used. People have more than 2-3 seconds to consider the individual being called and formulate in their minds whether someone should be opposed or sustained. Time for reflection and thoughtful response sounds like a good thing, doesn't it?

What are the disadvantages to thoughtful replies? The only possible disadvantage I can see is that leaders may need to deal with thoughtful opposition instead of expecting the rubber stamp.

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds like you're making a good case for why email should be used. People have more than 2-3 seconds to consider the individual being called and formulate in their minds whether someone should be opposed or sustained. Time for reflection and thoughtful response sounds like a good thing, doesn't it?

What are the disadvantages to thoughtful replies? The only possible disadvantage I can see is that leaders may need to deal with thoughtful opposition instead of expecting the rubber stamp.

Well, and you don't control the email chain; people could forward it around. Leaders would want to simply reply with, "Thank you for your input. May I visit with you to talk about this?" and leave it at that. A leader would not want to reply to or engage in the email the points brought up in the email.

[HappyJackWagon]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, and you don't control the email chain; people could forward it around. Leaders would want to simply reply with, "Thank you for your input. May I visit with you to talk about this?" and leave it at that. A leader would not want to reply to or engage in the email the points brought up in the email.

Agreed.

My stake uses surveys for events like Stake Conference, camps, youth activities etc to get feedback from members about the quality and impact. I think that is a good thing. It seems like these kinds of surveys could similarly be used to poll members for sustaining. In fact, back when I was on the high council email was used quite a bit to poll HC about prospective callings. It's not quite the same thing, but pretty close.