No Home Teaching = No Temple Recommend

[DrumNFeather]

On Sunday in PEC, our new EQP (whom I've posted about before) when discussing the struggles we're having with home teaching suggested that bretheren who don't do their home teaching have their temple recommends revoked for a few weeks/months until the numbers go up.

Thoughts?

[wuapinmon]

We discussed this awhile back.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=3661

In my recommend interview with my stake president four weeks ago, when he mentioned this (no recommend for no home teaching) to me as it related to our temple covenants, I asked him if we were under the Law of Consecration. He said, "no, not temporally, but we are spiritually." I answered that if we were under the Law then I had claim back on the Church for my sustenance, and that I didn't agree with his interpretation that you could divide the Law into temporal and spiritual parts. We had a fifteen minute conversation in which I specifically pointed out that the Law of Consecration is not in force, and we are only covenanted to keep it until we are asked to do so by the Lord (not the capriciousness of Area Authorities who want to get their numbers up). I left there with a current recommend, and I haven't been home teaching in months, mostly because my families won't let me come by when I try and make appointments, but a little because I could really give a damn about home teaching and only try every once in awhile.

In two years in Hartsville, we have been home taught once, our first month.

[byu71]

We discussed this awhile back.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=3661

In my recommend interview with my stake president four weeks ago, when he mentioned this (no recommend for no home teaching) to me as it related to our temple covenants, I asked him if we were under the Law of Consecration. He said, "no, not temporally, but we are spiritually." I answered that if we were under the Law then I had claim back on the Church for my sustenance, and that I didn't agree with his interpretation that you could divide the Law into temporal and spiritual parts. We had a fifteen minute conversation in which I specifically pointed out that the Law of Consecration is not in force, and we are only covenanted to keep it until we are asked to do so by the Lord (not the capriciousness of Area Authorities who want to get their numbers up). I left there with a current recommend, and I haven't been home teaching in months, mostly because my families won't let me come by when I try and make appointments, but a little because I could really give a damn about home teaching and only try every once in awhile.

In two years in Hartsville, we have been home taught once, our first month.

That is pretty unusual to have all of your families refusing to let you come by. Do you have a reputation for staying way to long during your visits.

[doctorcoug]

We discussed this awhile back.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=3661

In my recommend interview with my stake president four weeks ago, when he mentioned this (no recommend for no home teaching) to me as it related to our temple covenants, I asked him if we were under the Law of Consecration. He said, "no, not temporally, but we are spiritually." I answered that if we were under the Law then I had claim back on the Church for my sustenance, and that I didn't agree with his interpretation that you could divide the Law into temporal and spiritual parts. We had a fifteen minute conversation in which I specifically pointed out that the Law of Consecration is not in force, and we are only covenanted to keep it until we are asked to do so by the Lord (not the capriciousness of Area Authorities who want to get their numbers up). I left there with a current recommend, and I haven't been home teaching in months, mostly because my families won't let me come by when I try and make appointments, but a little because I could really give a damn about home teaching and only try every once in awhile.

In two years in Hartsville, we have been home taught once, our first month.

That is impressive. Numbers, numbers, numbers...

[wuapinmon]

That is pretty unusual to have all of your families refusing to let you come by. Do you have a reputation for staying way to long during your visits.

One is a painpill addict/OCD person whose house is "never presentable."

One calls Sunday "family day" and the husband is gone all week and doesn't want anyone over unless he's there.....he has anger issues, apparently.

One tells us to come over and is never there when we get there.

One works for the Parks Dept and is always doing something for a softball tournament in the evening or on Sundays....they come to Church for Sacrament meeting once a month....at best.

One lives 25 miles away, her husband is a truck driver, and they're never there. It's always "I'll call you when I'm ready for home teachers."

And yes, I'm quite chatty, but they wouldn't know this. The second one, I tried taking them vegetables after a farmer's market trip....they weren't there; we left them by the door with a note. They never said anything. I asked a few weeks later if they had gotten them, the response; "We don't eat squash, so I gave them to a neighbor."

Never said "thanks" or "die in a fire." Nothing. I hate hometeaching. When I had 60 families after Hurricane Katrina, the branch clerk and I would eat lunch at the chapel and then go and be gone until around 9PM.

[byu71]

One is a painpill addict/OCD person whose house is "never presentable."

One calls Sunday "family day" and the husband is gone all week and doesn't want anyone over unless he's there.....he has anger issues, apparently.

One tells us to come over and is never there when we get there.

One works for the Parks Dept and is always doing something for a softball tournament in the evening or on Sundays....they come to Church for Sacrament meeting once a month....at best.

One lives 25 miles away, her husband is a truck driver, and they're never there. It's always "I'll call you when I'm ready for home teachers."

And yes, I'm quite chatty, but they wouldn't know this. The second one, I tried taking them vegetables after a farmer's market trip....they weren't there; we left them by the door with a note. They never said anything. I asked a few weeks later if they had gotten them, the response; "We don't eat squash, so I gave them to a neighbor."

Never said "thanks" or "die in a fire." Nothing. I hate hometeaching. When I had 60 families after Hurricane Katrina, the branch clerk and I would eat lunch at the chapel and then go and be gone until around 9PM.

I am not one who would judge someone else's effort in home teaching. I am one who saw a chance to take a shot at you and took it.

[wuapinmon]

I am not one who would judge someone else's effort in home teaching. I am one who saw a chance to take a shot at you and took it.

[KillerDog]

On Sunday in PEC, our new EQP (whom I've posted about before) when discussing the struggles we're having with home teaching suggested that bretheren who don't do their home teaching have their temple recommends revoked for a few weeks/months until the numbers go up.

Thoughts?

I suspect that won't wash up the chain of command. I know a Stake President who wouldn't allow temple recommends to members who drank caffeinated beverages. A member of the Q of the 12 personally censured him because he was adding to the recommend questions and told the membership in Stake Conference that the practice was over. I also know a mission president who was taking temple recommends from Elders who weren't keeping the mission rules. A member of the Q of the 12 talked to him about the situation and told him to stop the practice.

I don't see the difference between a home teaching requirement and the above examples. The HT requirement is an extrapolation of an individuals understanding of the questions but those extrapolations do not seem to be binding. Further, and probably more importantly, an EQP is completely out of line threatening in that manner since he isn't involved in the Temple Recommend process. Sounds like he is overzealous to a fault.

I wonder what the legal ramifications would be if this was church wide. For example, could the Church be sued more readily for the acts of a home teacher if you were required to home teach in order to get a temple recommend? That is an interesting question which I think may be relevant. It seems to me that if home teaching were an actual calling, then the home teachers are agents of the Church and their acts are the acts of the Church. If they are not actually called to HT, then they aren't agents. Not allowing temple recommends to non-home teachers sounds to me like an argument that home teachers are agents of the Church.

On a side note, can you refuse to be named as a home teacher and keep your recommend, according to your EQP?

[DrumNFeather]

On a side note, can you refuse to be named as a home teacher and keep your recommend, according to your EQP?

I hadn't thought of that, but I think that would be what several bretheren would attempt to do...just not accept the calling and keep their recommends. At the end of the day, I don't think the bishop will go for it, but it caused quite a stir in the room.

[SteelBlue]

I suspect that won't wash up the chain of command. I know a Stake President who wouldn't allow temple recommends to members who drank caffeinated beverages. A member of the Q of the 12 personally censured him because he was adding to the recommend questions and told the membership in Stake Conference that the practice was over. I also know a mission president who was taking temple recommends from Elders who weren't keeping the mission rules. A member of the Q of the 12 talked to him about the situation and told him to stop the practice.

I don't see the difference between a home teaching requirement and the above examples. The HT requirement is an extrapolation of an individuals understanding of the questions but those extrapolations do not seem to be binding. Further, and probably more importantly, an EQP is completely out of line threatening in that manner since he isn't involved in the Temple Recommend process. Sounds like he is overzealous to a fault.

I wonder what the legal ramifications would be if this was church wide. For example, could the Church be sued more readily for the acts of a home teacher if you were required to home teach in order to get a temple recommend? That is an interesting question which I think may be relevant. It seems to me that if home teaching were an actual calling, then the home teachers are agents of the Church and their acts are the acts of the Church. If they are not actually called to HT, then they aren't agents. Not allowing temple recommends to non-home teachers sounds to me like an argument that home teachers are agents of the Church.

On a side note, can you refuse to be named as a home teacher and keep your recommend, according to your EQP?

If you look at the thread waupinmon linked to you'll see a story from me about a Stake Conference several years back. We had a GA tell us that they were instituting a 3 strikes program in which a home teacher who missed 3 straight months of home teaching would have a mandatory meeting with the SP and get a "warning". Three such warnings and the yanking of the temple recommend would result. I never heard of the program actually being used and do not know anybody who was ever called in and given even one warning. I do know several people who haven't done their home teaching for months and months.

[smokymountainrain]

I hadn't thought of that, but I think that would be what several bretheren would attempt to do...just not accept the calling and keep their recommends.

Not possible. Essentially, to not accept the assignment (it is not a calling) is to not accept holding the priesthood as home teaching is a priesthood responsibility.

It would be silly for a Bishop to revoke recommends based on a guy not doing his home teaching (since it is not one of the recommend questions he has no basis for doing so), but personally, I don't understand how a person could avoid this priesthood responsibility yet still feel worthy to attend the temple.

[Sleeping in EQ]

As an aside, I don't think the "do it because I say so," line and coming up with new threats (such as taking away a TR) will be an effective leadership strategy in the long term.

Sometimes a program fails because it isn't meeting people's needs. Although some find great satisfaction in Home Teaching, many Home Teachers and Home Teachees feel like their time could be better spent doing something else. Leaders throwing tantrums won't change their minds. It might get a few to brown nose them, or to do it out of drudgery. A few get an obscene thrill out of doing something odious (this tendency can be seen in the people who like Sacrament Meeting being dull, as they feel like they can give themselves more "credit" for enduring it).

Threatening to take away a temple recommend says alot. It's a form of social pressure in the Church. A few people *must* have a TR so they can attend their sister's sealing or whatever. Still, it seems like a bad idea if only because not enough Mormons are finding their spiritual needs met in attending the temple anyway (when leaders approach temple attendance with a "don't fall asleep strategy," they've lost before they've even begun).

Threatening people to do something that they don't enjoy doing on the basis of taking away something else they don't enjoy doing won't work.

Well, it might work if they put up a board of shame with the names of people who had their recommends confiscated for not going Home Teaching. That would thin the heard, and then there would be fewer people in the ward--period.

[KillerDog]

If you look at the thread waupinmon linked to you'll see a story from me about a Stake Conference several years back. We had a GA tell us that they were instituting a 3 strikes program in which a home teacher who missed 3 straight months of home teaching would have a mandatory meeting with the SP and get a "warning". Three such warnings and the yanking of the temple recommend would result. I never heard of the program actually being used and do not know anybody who was ever called in and given even one warning. I do know several people who haven't done their home teaching for months and months.

Interesting. I wonder if it was a pilot program or something made up by a GA. I've seen a few programs made up by GAs and haven't been impressed by them all (21 Day Promise).

[RC Vikings]

Instead of tightening the rules to have a recommend perhaps they should loosen them a little. Other then the hot night club or a very fine restaurant their are not to many places that figure they can up their numbers by making it harder to get in.

[byu71]

Interesting. I wonder if it was a pilot program or something made up by a GA. I've seen a few programs made up by GAs and haven't been impressed by them all (21 Day Promise).

I don't quite get the threat of no Temple Recommend to someone who doesn't attempt to do hometeaching.

Is it because then you can't baptize or confirm your kid. You can't be with the family at siblings weddings. When I hear things like this for me, it cheapens the recommend. It is like a Country Club Card. If a guy doesn't want to do his home teaching, wouldn't he also like to be relieved of being pressured into attending Temple night.