No Home Teaching = No Temple Recommend

[KillerDog]

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.

I categorically disagree. Home teaching is a nuts and bolts application of a priesthood responsibility. The responsibility is to teach and care for others. Home teaching is a program that facilitates caring for others. Resultingly, refusing to accept a home teaching assignment is not tantamount to refusing to hold the priesthood. Fully half the wards I've been in have certain callings where the individual serving in those callings have no home teaching responsibilities. Consistently, those callings are Stake Presidency, Bishopric, and other callings with substantial opportunities for service. How can you explain that with your understanding of the Home Teaching Program.

[KillerDog]

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.

I think it is an empty threat to try and show the seriousness of the Program. The best way to increase home teaching numbers is to have your file leadership conduct regular PPIs with the home teachers. In fact, when Home Teaching was a pilot program in one of the greater Denver area Stakes, the key to the program was famously introduced as being PPIs. The General Authority presenting the pilot program came to the meeting with a 4 foot long wooden key with PPI written on it.

[DrumNFeather]

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.

The relief society gets it right: A card, a phone call, an email, a treat, a stop by. That's it. That counts. 100%.

My buddy and I home teach each other. Our approach is that we see each other so much that we are well aware of each other's needs...which is really what the most important thing is, isn't it?

As long as I am aware of the needs of the family and they know they can call on me whenever they need help or assistance, I'm not sure how much more an "in home" visit will help.

[Sleeping in EQ]

When a program is not meeting the needs of the people, you shouldn't punish the people for not supporting it.

Instead, you should work on designing a program (if, indeed, their must be a program) that will meet their needs.

Having someone come to the house and read aloud the First Presidency Message from the Ensign does not meet many people's needs. Teaching exactly what's in the manual provides exactly zero personal satisfaction for most people, and has many bored to tears. This month's Ensign has two articles advocating adult use of the For the Strength of Use pamphlet. One even calls it "For the Strength of You!"

I appreciate that trying to lead a bunch of Mormons is like trying to herd cats, but the Church is overcorrelated. One of the most obvious symptoms of this is how many ways have been found for you to infantilize yourself.

[smokymountainrain]

I categorically disagree. Home teaching is a nuts and bolts application of a priesthood responsibility. The responsibility is to teach and care for others. Home teaching is a program that facilitates caring for others. Resultingly, refusing to accept a home teaching assignment is not tantamount to refusing to hold the priesthood. Fully half the wards I've been in have certain callings where the individual serving in those callings have no home teaching responsibilities. Consistently, those callings are Stake Presidency, Bishopric, and other callings with substantial opportunities for service. How can you explain that with your understanding of the Home Teaching Program.

First, I couldn't agree more with BYU71's response above. It's what I really wanted to say but couldn't think of how to say it.

Second, that part in bold...I have never heard of a SP or Bishop who doesn't have the responsibility of being a HTer. If you've been in wards where that is the case, I have to question their understanding of priesthood responsibility. To be sure, The Church HOI states that "Home Teaching is a priesthood responsibility of Elders and HPs". Last I heard SPs and Bishops are High Priests.

[wuapinmon]

When a program is not meeting the needs of the people, you shouldn't punish the people for not supporting it.

Instead, you should work on designing a program (if, indeed, their must be a program) that will meet their needs.

Having someone come to the house and read aloud the First Presidency Message from the Ensign does not meet many people's needs. Teaching exactly what's in the manual provides exactly zero personal satisfaction for most people, and has many bored to tears. This month's Ensign has two articles advocating adult use of the For the Strength of Use pamphlet. One even calls it "For the Strength of You!"

I appreciate that trying to lead a bunch of Mormons is like trying to herd cats, but the Church is overcorrelated. One of the most obvious symptoms of this is how many ways have been found for you to infantilize yourself.

I look forward to your posts like a new copy of the Atlantic Monthly. You have a way with words.

[I.J. Reilly]

I look forward to your posts like a new copy of the Atlantic Monthly. You have a way with words.

Atlantic Monthly? I would take Harpers or New Yorker any day over that old rag.

[Jarid in Cedar]

When a program is not meeting the needs of the people, you shouldn't punish the people for not supporting it.

Instead, you should work on designing a program (if, indeed, their must be a program) that will meet their needs.

Having someone come to the house and read aloud the First Presidency Message from the Ensign does not meet many people's needs. Teaching exactly what's in the manual provides exactly zero personal satisfaction for most people, and has many bored to tears. This month's Ensign has two articles advocating adult use of the For the Strength of Use pamphlet. One even calls it "For the Strength of You!"

I appreciate that trying to lead a bunch of Mormons is like trying to herd cats, but the Church is overcorrelated. One of the most obvious symptoms of this is how many ways have been found for you to infantilize yourself.

This is one of the best posts yet. People tend to buck against the system when they do not see the direct benefits for those who are being served or those who are providing the service.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is one of the best posts yet. People tend to buck against the system when they do not see the direct benefits for those who are being served or those who are providing the service.

And people have been bucking that system for a loooooooong time.

Home teaching has some undeniable benefits in certain situations. However, what's the point of the bishop and his family having home teachers? Again, the church just absolutely hates to make exceptions.

The biggest benefit of the program it seems is for the upward mobility in church leadership for over zealous a-holes who love to harp on it almost every week. As I've stated before, nearly every EQP I had at BYU was some home teaching hounder. One guy sat there for literally a whole hour ripping on the entire quorum and telling everyone he was ashamed of them and everyone should be ashamed of themselves. I didn't go to priesthood again in that ward for probably two months, I figured there were better things to do with my time than have some a-hole telling me that I had to go hometeach other completely active male recently returned missionaries.

[smokymountainrain]

When a program is not meeting the needs of the people, you shouldn't punish the people for not supporting it.

FTR, I have yet to be punished for not doing my home teaching.

And if you are just addressing DnF's rogue EQP who doesn't want to follow church policy, I think you may have just wasted 5-10 valuable minutes of your life typing that out. That said, reading your post, it sure seems like you were implying this is a common occurrence in the church, hence my initial comment.

[KillerDog]

First, I couldn't agree more with BYU71's response above. It's what I really wanted to say but couldn't think of how to say it.

Second, that part in bold...I have never heard of a SP or Bishop who doesn't have the responsibility of being a HTer. If you've been in wards where that is the case, I have to question their understanding of priesthood responsibility. To be sure, The Church HOI states that "Home Teaching is a priesthood responsibility of Elders and HPs". Last I heard SPs and Bishops are High Priests.

In one particular example, the Stake President in question was also a member of the second quorum of the Seventy. The High Priest Group Leader determined that the Stake President had enough people to visit with and meet with on a regular basis and removed him from the Home Teaching roles. This Stake President/Seventy did not object to that in the slightest. More recently, a former Mission President/Temple President/Stake President was the HPGL and would not assign HT families to any member of the Bishopric or Stake Presidency because he thought they were sufficiently fulfilling their responsibility for home teaching in an administrative capacity. One of the members of the Bishopric objected citing the GHOI and he told them to take it up with the Stake President if they didn't agree. After speaking with the Stake President, the counselor never came back to the HPGL to become a home teacher.

I suppose it all depends on how you read the GHOI on the subject. If someone does PPIs, are they participating in home teaching? In addition, just because it is the responsibility of that group does not mean everyone in that group has a responsibility to participate. There is no logic in that extrapolation.

[cougjunkie]

We only have 1 family right now and we didnt go this month, mainly because I see the family every day they live two doors down and I know how they are doing.

[smokymountainrain]

In one particular example, the Stake President in question was also a member of the second quorum of the Seventy. The High Priest Group Leader determined that the Stake President had enough people to visit with and meet with on a regular basis and removed him from the Home Teaching roles. This Stake President/Seventy did not object to that in the slightest. More recently, a former Mission President/Temple President/Stake President was the HPGL and would not assign HT families to any member of the Bishopric or Stake Presidency because he thought they were sufficiently fulfilling their responsibility for home teaching in an administrative capacity. One of the members of the Bishopric objected citing the GHOI and he told them to take it up with the Stake President if they didn't agree. After speaking with the Stake President, the counselor never came back to the HPGL to become a home teacher.

I suppose it all depends on how you read the GHOI on the subject. If someone does PPIs, are they participating in home teaching? In addition, just because it is the responsibility of that group does not mean everyone in that group has a responsibility to participate. There is no logic in that extrapolation.

Fair enough.

If that is the case, K-Dog, I'm not going to criticize their understanding of the HOI, but I know my current Bishop and SP and every other Bishop and SP I've ever had, were HTers.

[smokymountainrain]

We only have 1 family right now and we didnt go this month, mainly because I see the family every day they live two doors down and I know how they are doing.

I home teach one of the financial clerks who I see and have lengthy conversations with at least once a week - I don't always make it to his house for the same reason.

[KillerDog]

Fair enough.

If that is the case, K-Dog, I'm not going to criticize their understanding of the HOI, but I know my current Bishop and SP and every other Bishop and SP I've ever had, were HTers.

I think there is flexibility in interpreting the HOI on the subject and have seen it interpreted with both meanings. As a result, I don't buy the argument that there is a requirement that all priesthood holders home teach. I do accept your statement that home teaching is GENERALLY considered a minimum requirement for activity in the Church.