Stake Conference — like every talk — was on ministering. The concept is quickly expanding. Not only are home teaching and visiting teaching repackaged as ministering, but so is fellowshipping, being friends, doing missionary work, even teaching your children. Hug your kid, it’s ministering. Talk to a neighbor, it’s ministering. A youth temple trip is now ministering to the dead. This is going to get old fast.
1. As a program this has potential. It’s nice to see home and visiting teaching simply retired and the whole reporting system dropped. This ministering program has the potential to be better than what it replaced. But the plan as announced is only the initial step. Execution matters, and evolution of a program as it plays out matters as well. Remember the missionary age change? As announced, the idea was that young men would serve at 18 if the young man and his parents, as well as the bishop, thought he was prepared and mature enough to go at 18. Within weeks, that requirement of careful reflection was a dead letter. Eighteen became the new nineteen, period.
2. “Ministering” is an awfully broad term. Remember “the Rescue”? At least that was a fairly circumscribed concept. Teaching a lesson or raising your kids didn’t become part of that discussion. But ministering is such a broad concept that it invites the sort of pious exaggeration that Mormons are good at. Expect a Primary song about ministering soon. Maybe ministering added as a Young Womens value as well. The five-fold mission of the Church: perfect the Saints, proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, care for the poor and needy, and minister to everyone.
3. As a Mormon title, “Minister” is problematic. Mormons are good at repurposing words, usually in a way that does violence to the original term and confuses or even offends outsiders. Mormon teens are priests; younger boys are deacons. Even most Mormons can’t explain where the term “MIA Maid” comes from. Google “ministering” and 9 out of 10 results are recent Mormon posts. Are we going to call men and women who receive assignments to go visit persons and families ministers? Is the bishop going to ask a sister, “who is your minister?” Are young men and young women who accompany these adults going to call themselves “youth ministers”? Imagine a twenty-something Presbyterian fellow who got a four-year degree in religious studies and, feeling called to the work and having passed background checks, is employed part-time at the local megachurch running their youth program. He introduces himself as “a youth minister.” A nearby Mormon teen chimes in: “I’m a youth minister too! Brother Bradshaw and I visit a retired couple down the street once a month.”
There is nevertheless one good thing about this new title: It applies to men and women, boys and girls. It is a priesthood-like office that young women can claim. It’s a sneaky step towards extending the priesthood to all worthy Mormons instead of just all worthy men. Thousands of LDS young women will soon proudly think of themselves as ministers, and that’s real progress. I’m happy for them, even if I’m not happy about the title and how we’re going to use it.
The visiting Seventy who ran our Stake Conference threw out questions to the congregation and called on several people to stand and participate. One of the questions was something like: “How will you make young women in the ward feel included in and engaged with the activities in the ward and the gospel, including ministering?” My answer would have been: “That’s easy. Give them the priesthood.” I doubt senior leaders intended this, but the new ministering program quietly brings us one step closer to that moment. I guess the Lord works in mysterious ways.
Wheat & Tares 
Ponderize ministering!
“That’s easy. Give [women] the priesthood”
I do think the recent changes move the Church in that direction. Replacing the High Priest Group/Elder’s Quorum construct with one Elder’s quorum to match the Relief Society sets up the organizational structure. One construct would have women priesthood holders, as ordained HP and Elders, attend RS Quorum. Men would attend Elders Quorum. Stake presidencies, Bishoprics, and High Councilors would be called out of either the RS or E Quorums and be part of the High Priest Quorum together when serving in those callings.
Another construct is to have only one quorum in the ward, but my wife tells me it would be important to still have a women’s only meeting, hence the first construct above. Another option is to have combined RS/E Quorum meetings once or twice a month.
Unifying the visiting teaching and home teaching programs into a single ministering concept also puts men and women on the same page.
1) I am sick of the word already.
2) Adding the young women is going to make it hard to “minister” to grown women who are going to be very reluctant to share personal details and struggles with teenage girls. A sign to me that we are not really serious about the service aspect of this program.
3) Ironically, my family is currently in a crisis/emergency/serious problem situation right now. . . and I don’t perceive my ward as ministering to us at all. So much for the new program. We like to talk, and do nothing.
Specifically those with ministering assignments will NOT be called ministers, but ministering brothers and ministering sisters. Perhaps because of the confusion with ministers in other faiths. There’s a ministering FAQ somewhere on the church website that addresses a number of questions, but I can’t link it from this device.
Hedgehog, the FAQ on LDS ministering is here:
https://www.lds.org/mycalling/ministering-faq?lang=eng
The paragraph on “What are those who minister called?” reads as follows:
I have to admit I don’t know what to do when it comes to “ministering.” On the one hand, I’m glad I don’t have to give a message or visit per se, on the other hand, I don’t know what to do. I was in the temple recently with my home teachee, and said, “Does this count as home teaching?”
He chuckled and said, “We don’t have home teaching anymore.”
Last week, I attended a PPI with our new Elders’ Quorum 2nd counselor (old HP group leader.) I still have the same families as before, and he asked about them. One family is in the bishopric, other family is very active (I just mentioned them). Third family is super inactive, and somebody told me when they moved in the ward, they claimed not to be Mormon. This family doesn’t live close to me at all. I met them once at Pack Meeting (Scouts) and they were really nice. I went to their house, and they didn’t invite me in, but were friendly. I have dropped off goodies for 6 months (they’re never home when I drop by.) I really don’t know what to do with them. It just feels like a forced friendship, and I recommended one of the neighbors become their minister, because it really is a forced friendship. So, I expect someone else will be their minister. Still, I’m not really sure what to do with the other 2 families. I was super busy in April, so I didn’t visit them either (except for the temple visit where we both happened to be there.) Normally I try to visit every month, but was just too busy in April. At least I didn’t have to feel guilty this month for not visiting.
My dad died recently, so I have been focusing on helping my mom who lives 3.5 hours away. She needs my help. I’m her minister, and I feel I’ve been helping her most when she needs it. She has been my focus. I’m happy to help others, but honestly, what am I supposed to do? (Funny thing is I have been to her ward more than mine this year.)
I think you’re doing the right thing, MH. I know a couple in the ward that takes off after sacrament every week to go visit with and help an ailing parent. It’s the right thing to do.
You said, “I expect someone else will be their minister.” I just don’t think the terms “ministering brother” and “ministering sister” are going to take root. However much they try to discourage “minister,” I suspect that will be the term that is commonly used. Just like they tell journalists to use the full name of the church, but LDS Church and Mormon Church are still often used in news stories.
Isn’t what they’re describing just, essentially, being a Christian? Nope, gotta institutionalize it, make a program for it, assign it out, and interrogate people about it. Oh, and don’t forget to call it a revelation, too.
They’re trying hard not to call it a program. But cultural inertia will make it a program. It’s the nature of the business.
If they’re making assignments, doing trainings, and reporting results, it’s definitely a program.
Maybe it is going to be like the new Coke. Before long we are pleading for Home Teaching to be reinstated. OK, maybe not.
When I helped run the VT program, I had to override my dislike of assigned Christian service. I adapted and came to a conclusion that Christian fellowship and service is essential and though lovely when spontaneous, there’s nothing wrong with being organized about it, which means making assignments. Without organizing and making assignments, there would be many who would never give or receive a serendipitous gift of service, and many more who wouldn’t remember to be regular about it. Just because it’s your assignment need not mean you aren’t capable of doing it with the right spirit.
There are some wonderful people who are quite unlike me or were just in different places at church that I never would have become friends with if I hadn’t been assigned. I think I might be a bit of an odd duck, though, because in social situations, whether the situation was arranged for me doesn’t tend to affect my attitudes much.
Lily, I’ve heard several women indicate their discomfort with being open about struggles in front of a teenager or that young women may feel uncomfortable visiting an adult sister face-to-face; however, we’ve had young men as home teaching companions for decades. Is it really that different? What stops the senior companion from reaching out to the struggling sister when the junior companion isn’t present?
Studies of the Good Samaritan Parable show that actually training people makes it much more likely that they will help someone in need than general preaching about it. So unless you want to glorify failure, I don’t see training as a bad thing.
MDearest — you are right. At least in a world where people value reality. I appreciate the desire to have some sort of black and white “purity” to the extent that people would rather no one was helped (or many were not) in some sort of esthetic superiority that results in glorified failure rather than those in need being helped, but I’m on the same page with you.
You may recall circa 1995 when class names were eliminated from the Primary. All the label heirs to Stars, Targeteers, Blazers, and Merry Misses were sticken. Months later, I saw one ward mark class doors with “The Sixes,” “The Sevens,” etc.; the childrens’ ages became class names. That lasted a year or so, and then Sunbeams, CTRs, and Valiants were brought back.
We’re in an Isaiah 1st chapter stage with a prophet telling us that our new moons and feasts and sabbaths, which had been appointed by command, are really lousy and the Lord is sick of them. It’s a time to be loose and not have a codified name for everything, to be followed at some point with attempts, spontaneous or directed, to organize whatever the loose times are leaving undone or confused.
I’m afraid that ministering will join tender mercies as catch phrase lingo that will make me cringe. Not from the concept of either one but from the vain repetitions.
Lily, I’m so sorry you are having a hard time right now. I would love to minister to you if possible!!
I will add your name to the temple prayer roll Xoxo
People want to make this more than it is. We are all still “assigned” to people but the reporting is more of “what are some ways you reached out?” Instead of sharing a message by the 30th of the month.
Now we don’t have to feel like it’s a chore, just be a friend and let them know you are there for them.
This new program is wonderful!
The way I hear/read people discussing ministering, I get the sense that we’re missing the point. Maybe I misunderstood in the first place? I’m with Cody and Dave B… I thought the whole point was to make our outreach less programmatic and more individualized, and to allow us to find meaningful, creative ways to be there for our neighbors. The way we discuss it, it seems to me that we want a new name for the old routine—same tasks, same people, same places. Meaningful, novel service is really hard to do, and sometimes it goes against the prevailing trend of obedient following.
And, Blended Hope, can you fit me in too? My sick daughter has barely seen a soul from church since she became ill 21 years ago. I wonder if anything might change, particularly as I’ve specifically asked that she be ‘ministered’ to.
My charitable self is able to say that some things are just too hard to bear…
My JW friend just stopped by, and this reminded me that she has done more “ministering” to me this month, than the entire past two years from my ward members.
What Cody Hatch, April 30, 2018 at 5:17 pm, said.
In the church we are all about the “culture” of processes/programs/procedures. Regardless of the several times (as contrasted with constant times) we are reminded/urged to be “Christ-like” in our concern for one another, inertia will win out. The word minister/ministering itself is foreign (if not largely off-putting). Something connected to being a “friend” would have been much more helpful.
In our stake, I guess as an effort to reinforce the difference from the past, “assignment slips” are not to be used when making assignments/changes. In fact, email had been the method of communicating this information for the past several years. I guess we have to rely on the ministers’ memory, or them taking notes?
But, my jibes not withstanding, it is a good change. Let’s revisit it in a year or two and see how much it still looks and feels like Home/Visiting Teaching.
A few weeks ago I really needed to talk to my VT. She ended up scheduling a group visit plus she had a new companuon so I kept my mouth shut. I literally have no one else to talk to. My VT is very busy and I haven’t been able to catch her alone since.
The above is why YW should not accompany adult women on these visits. If I feel I need to censor myself in front of other adults I will certainly not be comfortable talking in front of YW. And my VT should not have to take time from her own life to see me twice.
The whole thing is a hot mess. It is just as successful as inviting 8 year old girls to women’s meeting at conference. I’m an adult and my needs are different from those of a child and teenager.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Cody (a ways up the page) said: “If they’re making assignments, doing trainings, and reporting results, it’s definitely a program.” Yes it is hard to deny it’s a program. How “programmed” it becomes will depend on how it is actually executed at the local level among the thousands of wards. Without HT and VT results and concerns to kick around, what will everyone talk about in Sunday morning meetings?
Nope, I think the inclusion of YW is more for their benefit than for the benefit of those who are being visited or served. Recall that part of the explanation of the new program was to take some pressure off the bishop so he could spend more time working with the youth. It’s like the senior leadership has decided we adults are on our own (they have sort of given up on us) and they’re going to focus on the next generation.
I’m not active and I don’t want to me ministered to. I live along the Wasatch Front, and my HT (who were also my neighbors) would stop by once a month and give a short message. They would stay exactly 30 minutes and then move on. That was fine. But I don’t want to be someone’s project. And I don’t need forced friendship; I’m a bit of an introvert.
In a patriarchy, VT is important. And should be done by adult women. Otherwise “ministering” is difficult.
This is a good time to mention the issue of the need privacy and discretion. I generally have no interest in sharing my personal issues or problems with my neighbors or bishop or stake president. I don’t sense in the Church there is the needed discretion. There is a need for training if the Church leadership is going to get serious about “ministering.”
Great post. It addresses many of my concerns when the term was introduced. I’m trying to stay optimistic and “not murmur,” but I’m already seeing the lack of monthly accountability for VT and HT (now “ministering”) start to manifest itself. Hopefully it is just a pendulum swing and, as we settle into the spirit of the term as Pres. Nelson intends, things will improve. One helpful thought I cling to is that Church leaders are usually very aware of issues that need to be addressed. If “ministering” doesn’t have the desired effect, it will be replaced with something else. The rough spot for me was the amount of changes all at once. New curriculum for RS and Priesthood, Ministering, the merging of EQ and HP, and we had a massive stake boundary change on top of it all. It’s been a lot! The dust is slowly settling, but it has not been easy. The best I can do is try not to complain and sustain our leaders, knowing all changes are for our growth and our good. Like Pres. Hinckley said, “it will all work out.”
I should add that some of us have letter routes for VT, including myself. Out of 9 ladies, I’ve only met 3. Most have been inactive for many years and are only a step away from removing their names from the Church records. I’ve had to interpret Ministering to be flexible in these circumstances and, in this way, I’m kind of glad not to have a monthly message. I feel like what I write is now based on prayer and inspiration, instead of tailoring a monthly message to ladies I don’t know.