Alternative structures for the ministering program

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Sacrilege Alert:

Do away with the program as we know it. Faithful established families don't need visiting. Instead "assign" faithful families to new families of like demographics until the new families feel like part of the Ward family. 

Inactive or part member families should only be visited by those who have been carefully selected by a Bishopric/RS/EQ counsel after thoughtful deliberation.

I like the idea of ministering as a family. 

There are a lot of single men and women in the church though so just doing it by family wouldn't always make sense, and many active members who do need visiting and a lot of help.  And many single men and women who are more than happy to serve in that capacity as well and should be utilized even though they are not in a family unit.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Sacrilege Alert:

Do away with the program as we know it. Faithful established families don't need visiting. Instead "assign" faithful families to new families of like demographics until the new families feel like part of the Ward family. 

Inactive or part member families should only be visited by those who have been carefully selected by a Bishopric/RS/EQ counsel after thoughtful deliberation.

Well yes, and no.

THAT is actually the system the way it is SUPPOSED to work,but when you have a list of a hundred people who NO ONE KNOWS, nor even knows they existed.   For them they are random folks-names out of the "phone book" (Do those still exist? )

And we are pretty well established in our ward (  ! ) but still like to see our "home teacher" to at least stop by (and bring us some home-grown grapefruit as he always does!)

But yeah, that would be the ideal if it could be achieved.  And I think in certain wards perhaps it can be.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like the idea of ministering as a family. 

There are a lot of single men and women in the church though so just doing it by family wouldn't always make sense, and many active members who do need visiting and a lot of help.  And many single men and women who are more than happy to serve in that capacity as well and should be utilized even though they are not in a family unit.

Yeahbut:

Who wants a whole family to show up in a home that is not kid-proofed etc?  And of course it has to be in perfect "order" at all times....   but of course it always is anyway...

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I like the idea of ministering as a family. 

There are a lot of single men and women in the church though so just doing it by family wouldn't always make sense, and many active members who do need visiting and a lot of help.  And many single men and women who are more than happy to serve in that capacity as well and should be utilized even though they are not in a family unit.

That is what I meant with "of like demographics"- I should've been clearer. Good catch.

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

[If] you are thinking of ministering groups (4-8 women/families that all get together) then you might think otherwise. I've heard of several places that have tried that and it seemed to be going well, but when it was found out they were definitely told no.

They have this setup in other churches. They refer to them as "Small Groups," which basically amount to being something akin to an extended family home evening group - though with maybe a bit more of an emphasis on the social aspect.

In an LDS context, something like that seems like a splinter group just waiting to happen, so I can see why the Church might not be too keen on implementing something similar.

 

[bluebell]

We're trying to improve ministering interviews right now in hopes that helping sisters feel loved, supported, and also responsible for another might help them want to share that love with those they have agreed to minister to.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

They have this setup in other churches. They refer to them as "Small Groups," which basically amount to being something akin to an extended family home evening group - though with maybe a bit more of an emphasis on the social aspect.

Yes.  They have it in other churches with refugees as well.  Not in welcoming a new member, but in welcoming a new person to the US.  Granted it's focused on the one refugee family instead of all for each other, but a similar concept.

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

In an LDS context, something like that seems like a splinter group just waiting to happen, so I can see why the Church might not be too keen on implementing something similar.

 

I don't know why it would be more likely for the church than any other church.  Also, there are family home evening groups at colleges and they don't worry about those being a splinter group.

Edited May 22, 2024 by Rain

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, Rain said:

Also, there are family home evening groups at colleges

Those are short term though.

Maybe if ministering groups were shuffled at least every two years that would relieve any anxiety of leaders?  Though the chance of splinter groups seems so low if people are assigned to ministering groups rather than volunteer to go as in someone in the ward saying we are having FHE at our house, anyone who wants to go is welcomed to come to begin with, the group gets going and then a core develops, invitations are no longer broadcasted, but made to promising individuals, they have their pet topics, etc….

 

Edited May 22, 2024 by Calm

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I don't know why it would be more likely for the church than any other church.  Also, there are family home evening groups at colleges and they don't worry about those being a splinter group.

I guess I'm just thinking of all those break-off groups from early church history. Still, while possibly unlikely, I could maybe see some like-minded families (say, like Ammon Bundy) potentially go off the rails.

In practice, the more common harm would probably just be people forming clicks within their groups and then having people feel like outsiders at church. And since our congregations are geographically bound there's less of an opportunity for people to just start attending another congregation at will.

 

[Vanguard]

Though you didn't ask this, I think the whole program is doomed to continue being lackluster. Sure, there are those stories where some ward somewhere was able to manage 100% over numerous months though these in my experience are few and far between. I have never been in a ward (and I've been in numerous) where 'the numbers' approached anything close to 50% without dumbing down what is considered 'a visit'. I understand the concept behind the command, I just recognize the reality falls so woefully short of the mark. The fact of the matter IMO is that people generally will not associate in such a personal way with whom they don't feel comfortable/familiar. And if you assigned the ministering based on that comfort/familiarity level alone, almost everyone would count the football game they watched with their ministering assignment as the visit.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Though you didn't ask this, I think the whole program is doomed to continue being lackluster. Sure, there are those stories where some ward somewhere was able to manage 100% over numerous months though these in my experience are few and far between. I have never been in a ward (and I've been in numerous) where 'the numbers' approached anything close to 50% without dumbing down what is considered 'a visit'. I understand the concept behind the command, I just recognize the reality falls so woefully short of the mark. The fact of the matter IMO is that people generally will not associate in such a personal way with whom they don't feel comfortable/familiar. And if you assigned the ministering based on that comfort/familiarity level alone, almost everyone would count the football game they watched with their ministering assignment as the visit.

There is no way to track visits anymore (and visits are no longer necessary to legitimately count as ministering).  Are you thinking of the old visiting teaching/home teaching program?

The only thing that is tracked now are ministering interviews.  Every person in the ward that is a minister is supposed to be "interviewed" every three months to see how their people are doing and how they are doing.  This is tracked through the Tools app and many wards do shoot for 100% on that metric.  

[manol]

Disclaimer:  I've been out of the loop for a long time, so I'm going by recollections that are decades old.

It seems to me that as long as a visit is an imposition on either the visitor or the visited, there's going to be some inherent reluctance.  As the visitor (presumably the lens through which most here are looking at this), I disliked imposing on people who really didn't want or need a visit.  I also disliked the unspoken but inevitable monthly guilt-tripping of asking quorum members for their stats (and I understand that the "ministering" program has eased up on such).  I disliked ambushing people in the hallway to get a quick report.  I was pretty much numb to my own preferences as far as my time being taken for largely unwanted visits, but after our marriage ended my wife told me that she had been very unhappy with how much time I spent on such church duties compared with how much time I spent doing things with her and the kids.  I was blissfully ignorant of her unhappiness, thinking I was doing such a great job, and had no idea that I was "that guy". 

So here's my thought:  Would it be feasible for visits to transition from something that the visitors request, to something that the visited request?  I think that if someone actually wanted me to come over, that would make a huge difference in how we both felt about it. 

I'm sure there would be details to be worked out which are beyond the scope of this post, especially since I'm so far out of the loop.  The basic idea is, that in general requests for a visit be initiated by the person visited rather than by the visitor, such that it's actually something the visited person desires.   

Edited May 22, 2024 by manol

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, manol said:

 So here's my thought:  Would it be feasible for visits to transition from something that the visitors request, to something that the visited request?  I think that if someone actually wanted me to come over, that would make a huge difference in how we both felt about it.   

This is how it's supposed to be now. 

Visits are not necessary and what ministering looks like should be greatly dictated by the person being ministered to.  Also, everyone should be asked if they want to be a minister and if they would like ministers assigned to them.

[MustardSeed]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

and if they would like ministers assigned to them

Important-  I’ve never been asked that!  Would be nice. 
I always suggest to the coordinator that they assign someone to me who never follows through.  I’m good at getting connections going and it improves the stats.  Plus I can be in control then- I don’t like the enthusiastic very attentive minister for me.  

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Important-  I’ve never been asked that!  Would be nice. 
I always suggest to the coordinator that they assign someone to me who never follows through.  I’m good at getting connections going and it improves the stats.  Plus I can be in control then- I don’t like the enthusiastic very attentive minister for me.  

I hope they listened to you. Being ministered to shouldn't feel like something that's happening against our will that makes our life harder and more stressful.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Disclaimer:  I've been out of the loop for a long time, so I'm going by recollections that are decades old.

It seems to me that as long as a visit is an imposition on either the visitor or the visited, there's going to be some inherent reluctance.  As the visitor (presumably the lens through which most here are looking at this), I disliked imposing on people who really didn't want or need a visit.  I also disliked the unspoken but inevitable monthly guilt-tripping of asking quorum members for their stats (and I understand that the "ministering" program has eased up on such).  I disliked ambushing people in the hallway to get a quick report.  I was pretty much numb to my own preferences as far as my time being taken for largely unwanted visits, but after our marriage ended my wife told me that she had been very unhappy with how much time I spent on such church duties compared with how much time I spent doing things with her and the kids.  I was blissfully ignorant of her unhappiness, thinking I was doing such a great job, and had no idea that I was "that guy". 

So here's my thought:  Would it be feasible for visits to transition from something that the visitors request, to something that the visited request?  I think that if someone actually wanted me to come over, that would make a huge difference in how we both felt about it. 

I'm sure there would be details to be worked out which are beyond the scope of this post, especially since I'm so far out of the loop.  The basic idea is, that in general requests for a visit be initiated by the person visited rather than by the visitor, such that it's actually something the visited person desires.   

I don't know if it would change much or not.  I've asked 2 things of my ministering sisters since the change and I heard...crickets. One set asked if there was anything I needed. When I texted them back in our group text I never heard a thing from them again.

A few months back the RSP sent out a survey and I said I would love to have visits, but understood that since I no longer was willing to minister I understood not getting a visit.  Again heard nothing back - one of my ministering sisters is the RSP and she has never contacted me for ministering before or after I asked to not minister anymore. 

So if the RSP, who is my ministering sister and know I would like a visit doesn't minister then I don't know how much requesting to be visited helps.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is how it's supposed to be now. 

Visits are not necessary and what ministering looks like should be greatly dictated by the person being ministered to.  Also, everyone should be asked if they want to be a minister and if they would like ministers assigned to them.

Interesting.  I've never been asked.   

My assumption for the men is they don't get that option as it is a "priesthood duty".

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

Interesting.  I've never been asked.   

My assumption for the men is they don't get that option as it is a "priesthood duty".

That's probably correct, but at the same time it wouldn't make any sense to be assigning less active men to minister to others so I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sense of finding out who will accept the assignment before giving it, even among ordained men.

But for active men (and women) I think the assumption is that they will serve in that way since we believe that is one of the things that we covenanted to do when we are baptized (when we are able, of course).

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't know if it would change much or not.  I've asked 2 things of my ministering sisters since the change and I heard...crickets. One set asked if there was anything I needed. When I texted them back in our group text I never heard a thing from them again.

A few months back the RSP sent out a survey and I said I would love to have visits, but understood that since I no longer was willing to minister I understood not getting a visit.  Again heard nothing back - one of my ministering sisters is the RSP and she has never contacted me for ministering before or after I asked to not minister anymore. 

So if the RSP, who is my ministering sister and know I would like a visit doesn't minister then I don't know how much requesting to be visited helps.

That's hard to understand.  People fall through the cracks and everyone has lives and their own issues, even RSPs, but to just not ever respond is hard to explain away.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Disclaimer:  I've been out of the loop for a long time, so I'm going by recollections that are decades old.

It seems to me that as long as a visit is an imposition on either the visitor or the visited, there's going to be some inherent reluctance.  As the visitor (presumably the lens through which most here are looking at this), I disliked imposing on people who really didn't want or need a visit.  I also disliked the unspoken but inevitable monthly guilt-tripping of asking quorum members for their stats (and I understand that the "ministering" program has eased up on such).  I disliked ambushing people in the hallway to get a quick report.  I was pretty much numb to my own preferences as far as my time being taken for largely unwanted visits, but after our marriage ended my wife told me that she had been very unhappy with how much time I spent on such church duties compared with how much time I spent doing things with her and the kids.  I was blissfully ignorant of her unhappiness, thinking I was doing such a great job, and had no idea that I was "that guy". 

So here's my thought:  Would it be feasible for visits to transition from something that the visitors request, to something that the visited request?  I think that if someone actually wanted me to come over, that would make a huge difference in how we both felt about it. 

I'm sure there would be details to be worked out which are beyond the scope of this post, especially since I'm so far out of the loop.  The basic idea is, that in general requests for a visit be initiated by the person visited rather than by the visitor, such that it's actually something the visited person desires.   

This!!!

I dislike when the ministering sisters do drop offs. I hate for the ladies to have to spend their money. I've even said I didn't need ministering sisters and to take me off the list. At one time it was a ministering husband/wife that came and they did drop offs too. I'd just love a phone call or text. And to go talk on the lawn or go on walks. But even when I've mentioned it, it still doesn't happen. 

I remember the old days of visiting teaching/home teaching. I was the one that loved both programs and had some great people in my life from it. But then in the last few years, it became like I felt I was a burden when trying to get my partner to go with me, or for me to get visits at homes too. In the old days maybe people had more time, and now it's busy, busy, busy. 

[2BizE]

I feel your frustration Stormin Mormon. I was EQ President for 5 years in a very are with 200+ perspective elders. Frequent changes to the home teaching assignments drive me insane. I finally realized that home teachers could not be assigned to more than two families to be at all effective. 
Here are some ideas: Assign a husband and wife and kids to minister to the families if possible,  or just the brethren. Multiple birds, one stone. Don’t change the assignments often. Let them develop friendships over a long time. Not everyone will be assigned a minister. It just won’t work effectively. Focus on assignments that matter and are important to those receiving the visits and friendship.

[Malc]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's probably correct, but at the same time it wouldn't make any sense to be assigning less active men to minister to others so I wouldn't be surprised if there's some sense of finding out who will accept the assignment before giving it, even among ordained men.

But for active men (and women) I think the assumption is that they will serve in that way since we believe that is one of the things that we covenanted to do when we are baptized (when we are able, of course).

For some inactive men it may not be a bad idea, but, as you say, you would want to choose carefully. 

I've been an inactive non-believer for many years, and I've generally let my church leaders, wherever I've lived, know what my status is.

Can you imagine my surprise a few years ago to receive a message from my Branch President to ask if I would accept a Ministering assignment. He and I had discussed church topics from time to time, so he knew that I was not just failing to attend.

I replied with a question: "In conversation about church doctrine, would you expect me to tell the truth, or to lie about what I believe?" Naturally I didn't receive an assignment.

[Amulek]

On 5/21/2024 at 12:46 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

I was called into my ward's Elder's Quorum presidency last year and my biggest frustration has been how much time we spend as a presidency in balancing and re-balancing ministering assignments.  Every time a new family moves in or an old one moves out, multiple companionships have to be adjusted to accommodate for the change, often times rippling through other ministering assignments.  Further, I feel that because the companionship-and-route structure is the same as the previous home and visiting teaching programs, most members see the ministering program as nothing more than a rebranding with less accountability built into it.  Our presidency spends so much effort on just the administrative backdrop of the program, that we barely have time to advance our other priorities.    

Yup. And in my opinion - though I know I'm probably not supposed to feel this way - the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

Quote

 

So, my 2-part question is:

1. How much latitude does the handbook provide in allowing wards or quorums to experiment with the structure of the ministering program and try new ways of implementing it?

2. Do any of you know of any wards or stakes that tried something other than a companionship-and-route structure for ministering?  How'd it turn out?  

 

1. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "structure." So long as each household has at least two ministering brothers assigned, you should be fine.

2. Everything I've ever seen has been a variation on the companionship-and-assignment form.

 

Quote

I've got some ideas I'd like to propose to the EQ president, but I don't want to float something that would be non-viable (either because of policy or because it's already been tried and found wanting).  

Every implementation, including the current one, is non-viable to some degree. If your ward is at the point of 'hey, it can't really get any worse,' then what's the harm in trying to mix things up a bit?

 

[Amulek]

On 5/21/2024 at 12:46 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

I've got some ideas I'd like to propose to the EQ president, but I don't want to float something that would be non-viable (either because of policy or because it's already been tried and found wanting).  

Looking forward to you circling back and sharing your ideas. One thing I forgot to mention before that we have considered on occasion, but that the system won't allow for, is to have ministers assigned to each other (i.e., Brothers A and B minister to Families X and Y; and then assign Brother X and Y minister to Families A and B; that's apparently cheating or something).

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Looking forward to you circling back and sharing your ideas. One thing I forgot to mention before that we have considered on occasion, but that the system won't allow for, is to have ministers assigned to each other (i.e., Brothers A and B minister to Families X and Y; and then assign Brother X and Y minister to Families A and B; that's apparently cheating or something).

 

Would have circled back sooner, but it was a rather busy weekend (my birthday and all that).  

The first idea I toyed with was a "ministering circle" kind of deal.  Members within each circle would minister to each other equally.  The scriptural paradigm would draw more from Brigham Young's organization of the pioneer companies in D&C 136, and less from the two-by-two paradigm of the New Testament.  A couple of advantages to Ministering Circles would be the ease with which new members could be added to a circle without disrupting any other ministering assignments (and conversely the ease with which a move-out could be removed).  Ministering Circles could also allow for class time to be set aside once a month or once a quarter for the circle to meet together (something that is much more difficult when ministering relationships are asymmetrical).  

The challenge here (and it may be bigger than I had initially thought) is the potential for insularity and clannishness.  Then too, it sounds like the software itself wouldn't be able to handle such a novel overhaul to the old structure.  Further, it sounds like at least some areas or stakes have a policy against symmetrical ministering assignments, which makes this particular idea even more of a non-starter.   

At this point, improving the quality of ministering is a secondary consideration for me (though such improvements wouldn't be unwelcome).  I just want to find a way to administer the program more efficiently, so that our presidency meetings can do more than move names around on a computer screen.