18 April 2017
TO: Bishoprics and all other members of Ward Priesthood Executive
Committees (PEC)
RE: Home Teaching – A Better Way?
Dear Brethren,
In October 2016, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland made an
impassioned plea to holders of the priesthood “to lift your vision of home
teaching. Please, in newer, better ways see yourselves as emissaries of
the Lord to His children. That means leaving behind the tradition of a frantic,
law of Moses-like, end-of-the-month (visit)”…and eliminate the countless “guilt
trips this subject has provided.” Rather, “establish an era of genuine,
gospel-oriented concern for the members.”
Drawing from Elder Holland’s message and Handbook 2, 7.4 –
7.4.4, we invite priesthood leaders to consider modifying the traditional approach
to home teaching with the following two objectives in mind:
·
Change the emphasis of home teaching from a monthly visit to providing
priesthood watch-care over assigned individuals and families—in short, to become care-centered instead of calendar-driven;
·
Utilize the priesthood “manpower” in each ward or branch to focus on
individuals and families with the greatest needs.
On the next page are suggestions the ward or branch
priesthood executive committee, under the direction of the key-holder bishop
or branch president, may want to consider in changing your approach to home
teaching. Please note that all changes are considered “temporary” (see Handbook
2; 7.4.3), as we continue to explore and test “better ways” to enhance home
teaching effectiveness in our stake.
We hope these suggestions are helpful in formulating your
own approach.
Home Teaching – A Better Way?
Mount Hood Stake • April 2017
Objectives:
• Place the emphasis
of home teaching on priesthood watch-care, not a monthly visit.
• Organize home
teaching around individuals and families with the greatest needs.
Frequency
of Visits
• Consider
assigning home teaching companionships to no more than 3-4 families to
visit
monthly with a gospel message. Those needing monthly
visits may include:
•
New members •
Those who are lonely or ill
•
Progressing investigators •
Single-parent families
•
Less-active members •
Part-member families
•
Families with children in the home •
Elderly
• Active families,
especially those with no children at home, may receive less-frequent visits.
Expectations
·
Rather than an emphasis on teaching in the home,
home teachers may be asked to account for their frequency and consistency of
making regular contacts (including phone calls, text messages, emails, etc.) with
those they are assigned.
·
Home teachers can be expected to observe if
their assigned individuals or families attend church services each Sunday—if so,
did they greet and check on them at church? if not, did they follow up with a phone
call to say “we missed you” and to ask if there are needs or concerns in the
home?
Accountability
·
Quorum leaders continue to seek a monthly
accounting of home teaching (7.4.4), remembering Elder Holland’s declaration as
to what should count — “…every good thing you do ‘counts’ so report it all!”
·
Home teachers are still expected to visit homes with
a gospel message (7.4.1). Other types of contacts, including phone calls, text
messages, emails, etc., could be considered valid ways to “watch over…and be
with and strengthen them.” (D&C 20:53)
·
When asking for a report, instead of a quorum
leader asking, “Did you do your home teaching this month?” he may more
appropriately ask…
…“Do you feel you provided adequate watch-care for those you’re assigned?”
…“How did you provide watch-care of your assigned families and how did they
respond?”
…“What are the temporal and spiritual needs in the home?”
Recording
·
While quorum leaders still conduct monthly
accounting of home teaching, the actual recording of home teaching is quarterly—
emphasizing the overall watch-care approach to home teaching and not whether a visit
was made each month.
·
As per the frequency of the ward or branch
Quarterly Report, recording months are March, June, September and December.
- 2 -
Q&A: Home Teaching - A Better Way?
Is
the stake presidency insisting that wards change their home teaching?
No. We simply want it known that we support all efforts by ward or branch
Priesthood Executive Committees to respond to Elder Holland’s call to change
the emphasis of home teaching. We feel his message was a call to action, not
just a message of encouragement.
Why
is the stake presidency addressing this now?
We have pondered for some time Elder Holland’s address. We believe he
was trying to move us away from the pharisaical or strict-observance traditions
of home teaching that have evolved over generations. Instead, he asks us to
focus on priesthood service that is centered on watch-care activities not on trying
to meet a once-a-month performance standard.
What
does watch-care mean?
It is a hybrid term drawn from two key priesthood duties, repeated
multiple times in the scriptures, to “watch over the church” (Alma 6:1-2, D&C
20:42; 46:27; 84:111) and to care for the needy (D&C 38:35; 44:6; 81:5).
What
is the doctrinal foundation of home teaching? Does this create a conflict?
The doctrine of home teaching is rooted in the scriptural truths that
God loves His children and therefore we are compelled by His love, even
commanded, to love one another (John 13:15, 34-35). Moreover, when we serve our
fellow man we serve God (Matthew 25:40; Mosiah 2:17, D&C 42:31). Furthermore
in D&C 20:47-53, the Lord charges those who hold the priesthood, “to visit
the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and
attend to all family duties…(and) to watch over the church always, and be with
and strengthen them.” Elder Holland, in his address, challenged us to change
the emphasis of home teaching to reflect the scriptural mandate to “watch over
and strengthen,” and to move away from a calendar-driven program that can cause
discouragement and guilt feelings among priesthood holders.
Will
this lower the standard for home teaching?
We feel Elder Holland was suggesting that tradition has become the
standard. Another example: Why did the Brethren raise the bar (or standard) for
missionary worthiness, but seemingly lower the standard by replacing “scripture
mastery” with “doctrinal mastery” for those future missionaries in Seminary? It’s
fair to assume the Brethren concluded that personal worthiness was essential to
missionary success, but scripture memorization, which can cause discouragement—even
guilt—among students, is not as crucial to a missionary’s success. In other
words, learning and applying doctrinal truths is more imperative than
memorization. So, instead of focusing on whether or not a visit is made each
month (the traditional standard that can lead to discouragement and guilt), we
believe Elder Holland is asking priesthood leaders to appreciate—even
celebrate—every effort by a priesthood holder to “watch over…and strengthen”
those he is assigned.
- 3 -
Is
accountability and reporting still needed?
Yes, but not as a tool to discourage those who fail to get into every
home each month. The Quarterly Report monitors the home teaching percentage
(our stake usually achieves 40% - 60% each month), but it fails to identify the
needs of individuals and families. Furthermore, the home teaching percentage is
not listed on the Quarterly Report as one of the nine key “Indicators of Conversion and Church Growth.” In other words,
the number is helpful in monitoring performance of a priesthood duty, but it
really does not tell us if we are meeting the needs of those we are assigned to
serve—a much more important factor of our service.
Why
do you propose less-frequent visits to those who are active in the
church?
Active members live very busy lives, especially in meeting children’s
schedules. We suggest the ward or branch Priesthood Executive Committee
consults with active members (especially parents) as to how often they want
home teachers to visit them. And then make home teaching assignments
accordingly with the objective of assigning more regular visits to homes with the
greatest needs, such as to those who are: new converts; new in the ward or
branch; less-active; lonely or ill; or struggling with temporal or spiritual
needs. It doesn’t mean that active members should not be visited, but maybe with
less-frequent visits or via other means of contact.
Recognizing
that active families are more inclined to allow home teachers to visit, will monthly
home teaching percentages begin to drop?
Possibly. We believe, in time, they will
rise, even though this is not the underlying purpose of the recommendation. Remember,
every watch-care activity or effort will be counted, not just personal visits. As
Elder Holland declared, “…every good thing you do ‘counts’ so report it all!” History
of visiting teaching may be a valid indicator as to what to expect. Years ago
the Relief Society changed what “counted” from personal visits to a variety of
ways of making watch-care contacts, similar to what Elder Holland suggests. Today
home teaching in our stake usually ranges from 40% to 60%. Visiting teaching consistently
ranges from 60% to 75%. Ultimately, we hope an emphasis on numbers will
diminish while an emphasis on true gospel ministering will gain the greatest
attention.
Will
some families, such as those who are active, get overlooked?
We certainly hope not. The intent of this document is to encourage
ward or branch priesthood leaders
to shift the focus on who gets special attention—such as personal visits—from
active to less-active members. Home teachers should still be assigned active members
to whom they will be expected to minister via other watch-care efforts as time
and schedules allow. In short, we hope the greatest effort and time will be expended
on those with the greatest needs.
- 4 -
