Temple Recommend Condundrum

[Elgama]

I appreciate thats your concern I just think people and the church can get more creative. Maybe once/twice a month have a home and visiting teaching night at the chapel, everyone bring food, provide a creche, and then pair off and go HT/VT concerntrate on inactives and you could do your own HT/VT with active people whilst there. Also solves the problem if one person in the companionship doesn't show you can find a new one

Or encourage people to motivate their HT/VT. My post wasn't aimed at you specifically just worded badly, I just think instead of complaining about figures we could get more creative about overcoming difficulties and lack of motivations.

With my children I always find if I step back and look, think and pray there is a better way to inspire than punitive discipline. Doesn't mean there isn't discipline just means its been achived differently

[Guest mormonmusic]

I appreciate thats your concern I just think people and the church can get more creative. Maybe once/twice a month have a home and visiting teaching night at the chapel, everyone bring food, provide a creche, and then pair off and go HT/VT concerntrate on inactives and you could do your own HT/VT with active people whilst there. Also solves the problem if one person in the companionship doesn't show you can find a new one

The only time this worked was when we planned a blitz every 6 months or so. And then, only the Same Ten People (STP) showed up to go -- the most committed members of the Ward who already do their home teaching and are already stretched --- would show up. The reluctant brethren avoided it like the plague.

Anyway, after reading what others have to say, I think people who are involved in Priesthood leadership/hometeaching administration for long periods of time like Palerider, and one other EQ president who posted here know of the frustrations. Their responses are similar to my internal ones in many or some respects.

Others who are not involved in years upon years of rather frustrating administration of the program have alternate views. They have some merit, but lack the umff that comes from years of trying to make it work.

My plan is to keep on doing my home teaching while shutting out all the junk surrounding the program. Fade out when they start chastising us and say it doesn't apply to me anymore. I may even leave priesthood meeting to support the Primary when the subject turns to trying to motivate everyone to do home teaching for long periods of time -- I'm already motivated and such meetings only present a challenge to that motivation.

Time to focus on other things that are more uplifting at Church.....

[WillowTheWhisp]

The only time this worked was when we planned a blitz every 6 months or so. And then, only the Same Ten People (STP) showed up to go -- the most committed members of the Ward who already do their home teaching and are already stretched --- would show up. The reluctant brethren avoided it like the plague.

...................................................

.......................................................... I'm already motivated and such meetings only present a challenge to that motivation.

It's pretty much the same in our Ward with Visiting Teaching. We had a "gee 'em up" meeting last Sunday evening and even though we tried not to give clues about what it was about only the 'STP' (well maybe 15) showed up. People I would have liked to have seen just weren't there. I felt we were preaching to the converted and personally when I keep getting the same thing over and over again it's offputting. The year has barely started and we sisters have already had 3 lessons on 'sustaining the priesthood' and Bishop wants us to have one of those non-homemaking evenings next month on the same subject because 'the priesthood in our Ward are rubbish'(to quote the Bishop) - I personally feel the sisters are sick ofhearing how it's up to them to motivate their brethren/sons/husbands/fathers/neighbours/chap on the pew in front and maybe it needs to come from the Bishopric and EQP etc instead.

[Guest mormonmusic]

It's pretty much the same in our Ward with Visiting Teaching. We had a "gee 'em up" meeting last Sunday evening and even though we tried not to give clues about what it was about only the 'STP' (well maybe 15) showed up. People I would have liked to have seen just weren't there. I felt we were preaching to the converted and personally when I keep getting the same thing over and over again it's offputting. The year has barely started and we sisters have already had 3 lessons on 'sustaining the priesthood' and Bishop wants us to have one of those non-homemaking evenings next month on the same subject because 'the priesthood in our Ward are rubbish'(to quote the Bishop) - I personally feel the sisters are sick ofhearing how it's up to them to motivate their brethren/sons/husbands/fathers/neighbours/chap on the pew in front and maybe it needs to come from the Bishopric and EQP etc instead.

Personally, I think it's time for more granular reporting on home teaching for the priesthood, and possibly even Relief Society. If people don't want ot see you, you count it if you've met the highest level of contact they are willing to shoulder.

I think one reason so many people don't want to to do it is because it's frustrating, and in many cases, unachievable. And its outright WRONG to pester people who don't want to be seen.

So, strict definitions of what constitutes a visit, as well as often "over-enthusiastic" reprimands and follow-ups from leaders above (like Stake leaders) actually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where people who already don't want to do it, end up disliking it even more.

[Misshalfway]

Personally, I think it's time for more granular reporting on home teaching for the priesthood, and possibly even Relief Society. If people don't want ot see you, you count it if you've met the highest level of contact they are willing to shoulder.

I think one reason so many people don't want to to do it is because it's frustrating, and in many cases, unachievable. And its outright WRONG to pester people who don't want to be seen.

So, strict definitions of what constitutes a visit, as well as often "over-enthusiastic" reprimands and follow-ups from leaders above (like Stake leaders) actually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where people who already don't want to do it, end up disliking it even more.

I think at the end of the day, all we can do is teach with the spirit and invite.

The Lord says the same thing. "How oft I would have gathered you, but you would not."

I suppose that if moved upon by the spirit, a reprimand might be appropriate. Usually those cases are infused with the spirit and those in tune hear the proper message. But some take the truth to be hard. What can you do?

I think that I am glad when the spirit is present to help me discern if that reproving person is moved upon by the holy spirit OR the their own impatient indignation. Maybe that is what serving in the church is about. Dealing with each others weakness while we try for the best things. Its' a very challenging thing.

[SMCOO7]

I think its pathetic not do a TR just because of home teaching and callings. If he's doing good at home, paying 10%, and attending church meetings then isnt that all they require. Second would you of given a stranger a recommend in the same situation. Or is it just because its your brother. I bet you would of given the stranger a TR. Third why did you come on to a forum shouldn you have gone to your leader above you and asked him or your counselors isnt that what they are there for.

[Wingnut]

It's not his brother, and he's not the bishop. It's a happened-years-ago hypothetical situation.

[Maureen]

...why did you come on to a forum shouldn you have gone to your leader above you and asked him or your counselors isnt that what they are there for.

Forums are great sounding boards. It can be very helpful to get other's thoughts and ideas on a subject that they are familiar with. You've never gone to a forum to ask for advice before SMCOO7?

M.

[mikbone]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I couldnt resist.

[Wingnut]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but I couldnt resist.

It has been, but elsewhere.

http://www.lds.net/forums/youtube-com-videos/33716-tom-cruise-actor-home-teaching.html

[rubondfan2]

We can't legislate the gospel. The church is only a tool to help us get closer to God. We can't forget that each one of us has individual curriculums and challenges. We must allow each person to be evaluated individually according to their desires. To do anything less would be turning us all into a bunch of robotic human doings.

I am glad the TR questions are not a check off list. They need to be flexible. I am grateful they are flexible. We can invite. We can help people grow in commitment and capacity. But we should never force. There must be breathing room and freedom to choose. Let's remember which side we are rooting for here.

Misshalfway finally said this in the way I've been trying to figure out how to say it since I started reading this thread. "We can't legislate the Gospel". That pretty much sums up what I've been thinking about with respect to the OP's query.

Along these same lines, I have had first hand experience with more than one Bishop who used the temple recommend as a manipulation tool get members to do what THEY were really passionate about. Just because stake leaders "put the screws" to the lower local leaders over home teaching does not give those same local leaders the right to start wielding the sword of justice with a generous interpretation of the recommend questions.

"Do you support (I thought the word was "sustain"... but it doesn't really matter so much) your local leaders?"... That is one seriously slipperly slope in my opinion if you start deciding in your head as a Bishop what that really means. You could go down a deep rabbit hole with that one question and then reach a point where you feel that you have righteously denied a temple recommend to a member who called the Stake President to ask a question without first talking to the Bishop. (I actually had this happen to me once and my Bishop then got much more than he bargained for in the way of "open dialogue" when he called me into his office and threatened to take away my recommend.) I will defend and sustain my local leadership to a greater degree than most; having served around many leaders in my years of membership and service... and I have great respect for the role that they, (Bishops especially) have to steward over an entire geographic area filled with all kind of diversities. But I will restate again, there is a line between "being a faithful steward" and "using the recommend as a manipulation tool".

I suggest a great degree of caution in seeking out the denial of recommends to people who may not rise to our own personal standard of worthiness. After all... it is THEY who will be held accountable for attending unworthily, if that is indeed what they are doing. Remember, the final question is "do YOU consider YOURSELF worthy to enter the temple" and the most important signature on the recommend is not the Bishop's or the Stake President's... but the temple recommend holder him or herself.

Edited November 1, 2010 by rubondfan2

[threepercent]

what utter filth.

at least some of the last few posters have stated a bit of truth.

....or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

no where in this entire thread was there expressed agony of spirt for your beloved brethern, only selfish concern with HT NUMBERS.

EVERYTHING about the approach taken here has been to compel obedience, nowhere was there any mention of : long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure knowledge, inviting to come, follow the Savior.

this is a gospel of great joy and light. this thread is darkness.