Correction in the church

[Fether]

On my mission, the rules and expectations were rather clear and we upheld them. But in the few occasions when a missionary (or missionaries) where to become lax or disobedient, leaders would do surprise morning wake-up calls or exchanges and provide individualized correction, trainings or chastisements depending in the missionary and situation.

Now that I'm home, I'm curious if it still works that way. I don't mean to suggest that the quorum president sneak into a member's home at 6:30am and chastise them for not doing home/visiting teaching, but when home/visiting teaching is not being accomplished or when a duty is not being fulfilled, what are the appropriate actions of the president and his/her councilors? Is there ever strong correction? Or do they just have to give a quorum lesson on it and hope people repent?

[Guest]

We have to be careful about strong correction.  

Yes, in very certain and special circumstances it is OK (e.g., in a heated discussion between a bishop and ward member where the ward member has committed major sin but refuses to repent and the bishop is trying to get the ward member to see they need to repent), but over little stuff strong correction drives people away from the Church, especially when people are already giving their time and effort up and the "strong correction" is intended for people to give more, or in other cases where the person has not done something serious.  I think "strong correction" is absolutely the wrong way to go about enforcing home teaching, and an EQ president who employs such correction may find that their entire quorum has grown most defiant.  

I would also like to add that strong correction is generally the kind of manipulative, controlling behavior we see in cults.  The Church, which emphasizes charity and respects freedom of thought and free agency, is certainly not a cult, and we are not cultists.  So please, let's not start acting like a bunch of cultists.

Christ generally works through patience and invitation.  I think it is most advisable we do the same.  You can invite people to do home teaching, maybe even individually, but I would be very, very careful about letting it go into "strong correction".

Edited June 22, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[Edspringer]

Good Question!

As years go by, I become more and more aware of the following things:

1) The Prophet Joseph Smith once said that he taught good principles to his people and let them act by themselves. This has been a core principle for me when it comes to assign or delegate something to someone in the Church. It will often include an assignment the person will be able to do, regardless of any difficulty he may have. It’s like the parable of the talents. The three men mentioned in the parable received a certain number of talents according to their capacity, so we should do the same.

2) I see leaders getting frustrated quite often because they don’t give precise or enough instructions on how people should perform their duty, so such leaders end up expecting too much from people. Training and ministering are fundamental, in my view.

I believe that any effort is worth it and acceptable. We must understand that those who labor in the Lord’s vineyard are acting by themselves, freely. So we should be glad with any results they produce.

Now, when it comes to correction, I can’t think of anything else but the scripture in D&C 121:41-43, which says: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy”.

So, I would say that before correcting someone, it is always good to check the reasons first. As I said, sometimes we expect too much from people, when their capacity to do what we think they should do is limited.

As an Elders’ quorum president, for example, I never tried to correct a brother because he didn’t visit all his assigned families that month. Rather, I would often say: “Thank you for your service to the Lord”. Then the next month I would help that brother to fulfill his assignment by training him and giving him precise instructions on his duties, offering him support.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, Fether said:

On my mission, the rules and expectations were rather clear and we upheld them. But in the few occasions when a missionary (or missionaries) where to become lax or disobedient, leaders would do surprise morning wake-up calls or exchanges and provide individualized correction, trainings or chastisements depending in the missionary and situation.

Now that I'm home, I'm curious if it still works that way. I don't mean to suggest that the quorum president sneak into a member's home at 6:30am and chastise them for not doing home/visiting teaching, but when home/visiting teaching is not being accomplished or when a duty is not being fulfilled, what are the appropriate actions of the president and his/her councilors? Is there ever strong correction? Or do they just have to give a quorum lesson on it and hope people repent?

I think PPIs are appropriate venues for leaders to address these matters, as well as presidency councils, sometimes ward-level councils. Decisions to give quorum lessons are sometimes in order if it is a common problem. Strong individual correction needs to be based on an equally strong relationship with equally strong love for the person (D&C 121:43).

[Guest]

A mission pres is dealing with people whom he knows much about.  He knows exactly what they're supposed to be ding.  Missionaries have no other priorities to juggle.  There are no other demand on their time.  There isn't much in the way of guesswork.

A Bishop is dealing with people at all different levels of progress in the gospel.  They all have jobs, families and other commitments that requires judgment to determine which will take priority.

There is much more room for error on the bishop's part than the mission pres.