by

A friend received a letter from their mission announcing new policies specific to that particular mission (which mission is unimportant for purposes of this post; I want to use the letter as a springboard to think about best mission practices generally). I wanted to share a few thoughts about these proposed policies. First, the relevant extract from the letter:

Recent changes in the XYZ Mission have included the following standards and rules set forth for full-time missionaries and members within their respective wards and areas. Working With Members (FT = Full time) 1. (FT) Missionaries are not to visit Active members in their homes unless a non-member is present to be taught or a meeting is being held at the Members home. (i.e. Ward Mission Correlation) 2. (FT) Missionaries are not allowed to eat meals with members after 6pm. The only exception to a meal would be to have a non-member present and being taught before or after the meal. 3. (FT) Missionaries may assist ward efforts in retention by visiting inactive and part member families only with a ministering brother or sister present. This way the member may preferably be the one to invite and fellowship the individual(s) to be taught the gospel lessons of conversion and return to activity. 4. (FT) Missionaries are to refuse service projects unless spontaneous and the effort will not take more than 10-15 minutes. It is not appropriate to serve Active Members. 5. (FT) Missionaries may only attend Thanksgiving and Christmas Ward Socials or Parties. Other activities or gatherings are not permitted. In the event of non-members being present, missionaries may introduce themselves, gather any offered items to leave with, and exit quickly to get back to work. 6. Members are to not have the missionaries address (i.e. no dropping off dinners). In case of emergencies, the Bishop and Ward Mission Leader should be the only individuals to have it. 7. (FT) Missionaries should allow Leaders and Ministers of assigned Members to give any sort of blessing. They may participate but not administer the ordinance. I wanted to apprise you of these changes, so that you will understand when the missionaries have to turn down a request or offer from any of us that is inconsistent with the new rules.

First, I was curious about the genesis of these changes. I can think of three possibilities:

A. These policies could have been a suggestion from up the priesthood chain (IE either an AA70, a 70 or an Apostle). It’s also possible that this was done under the rubric of the “Unwritten Order of Things.” A friend was a missionary under Boyd K. Packer and he remembers President Packer had rules like this, so perhaps some of his acolytes in leadership are pushing for these kinds of things.

B. This may be a new MP with his own ideas about how things should be done and anxious to put them into effect.

C. This could be a(n over?) reaction to something that happened involving one or more missionaries in the mission. Or maybe there’s some other reason for these changes. There’s no way for us to know for sure.

Anyway, below are my quick, off the cuff thoughts on each of the mission’s new policies:

The first new rule provides that FT missionaries may not visit Active members in their homes unless it is to teach a non-member or to participate in a necessary meeting. It is certainly his right to make this call if he so chooses. I personally find it a little bit surprising, because on my mission to Colorado in the late seventies our whole schtick was working closely with and through members. (My first MP didn’t believe in tracting; my second MP generally followed the program of his predecessor, but did ask us to tract an hour a day, I suppose to build character.) Admittedly this kind of an approach might not be practicable in areas where there are fewer members than in a place like Colorado. But that approach worked well for us. Utah was always the leader in baptisms among domestic missions, but we usually found ourselves neck and neck with Washington for second place. In my mission the average missionary baptized 24, but the best missionaries could crack 100. So it’s his call of course, but because of my experience I think cutting members out of the process is a mistake. At first I was confused by rule 2, because rule 1 had indicated only two circumstances in which FT missionaries could visit a member’s home, but then rule 2 comments on a third such circumstance (a dinner appointment). To clear this up I would add a parenthetical to rule 1, something like “(other than as described in rule 2 below).” I get the reason for this, as 6:00 pm and later is considered prime tracting time, and in general I don’t have a problem with it, provided that the MP understands that DAs will now become quite rare, and provided further that the missionary allowances are increased to compensate for the lack of DAs. The reason DAs will become a thing of the past is that members, just like nonmembers, tend not to get home before 6:00 pm, and even if there is a wife at home she cannot host the elders by herself. Certainly in any metropolitan area it will be a rare family that is able to sit down together for dinner at 5:00. So if he wants his troops out tracting promptly at 6:00 pm, that’s a fair call provided he takes into account the predictable impact this rule will have on DAs. FT missionaries may only visit inactive or part-member families if a ministering brother or sister is present. There is a well intentioned reason for this, as described in the second sentence. And in an ideal world that might be the way this should work. But we don’t live in an ideal world. The presumption that most active members are actively seeking out their inactive member ministering assignments is quaint, but not very realistic. Our missionaries are the tip of the spear in this effort, and they report and coordinate with our Ward Council on people they’ve visited, needs they’ve encountered, and help families could use. Every Saturday night they give a detailed report to our Ward Council for consideration at our Sunday morning meeting, and I must say I’ve been very, very impressed by their work with these folks. Further, these are also prime contacts for missionary purposes. A really active member tends to live her life in a bit of a Mormon bubble, but an inactive member does not, and has family and friends that are not already members of the Church. My bias is showing, but I think helping one of these families for an hour is going to be way more productive than knocking doors for that same hour. This one was so poorly written I wasn’t sure exactly what it meant. Is the first sentence an absolute rule and the second a throw-away comment on one reason for the rule? Or does the second sentence govern the interpretation of the first, and service is only so limited for active members? If this prohibits all but the most negligible service, I have to admit I’m very surprised by that. In our Area for years we’ve been trying to work with the missions to increase the amount of service work FT missionaries do, in particular through the Just Serve program. Also, it seems to me this rule is missing a bet with so many missionaries going home early, because getting away from the incessant demands of proselyting and spending some time serving one’s fellow man is simply good for the soul and may help some of those young people stay with it. My first thought on this one is that I don’t recall ever attending a Ward Thanksgiving party; that’s usually strictly a family celebration. So the only activity the FT missionaries can attend is a Christmas party, unless non-members are present, in which event they can make a brief appearance, grab some food, and then “get back to work,” which presumably means tracting. Again, I think this is short-sighted. A year ago I blogged about an event my Stake put on called International Night; we just recently held the second iteration of this party, and yes, our missionaries were there for the whole thing. In my opinion it would have been missionary malpractice for them not to be there. A substantial plurality of the people attending were non-members. There was music blaring, displays and taste portions of food representing numerous countries from around the world, then entertainment with lots of colorful folk dances and demonstrations. It was an event without the hard sell where friends and neighbors could feel comfortable and enjoy themselves in a low-stakes setting. This was an ideal time for the missionaries to meet these people and gain a comfort level with them without the high stakes salesmanship of showing up on their doorstep. If the missionaries cannot have dinner appointments after 6:00, I’m not sure what’s so bad about someone dropping off a dinner earlier. But that’s not something I’ve ever done, and I didn’t even realize it was a thing, so I have no problem with this rule. I am a little concerned that only the bishop and WML will know their address for emergency purposes; it’s not unusual for both to be out of town during the week at the same time. At the very least I would extend this to the full bishopric. I understand the rationale behind not having the missionaries give blessings or perform ordinances, and I’ve seen that rule in a few different places over the years. The missionaries are only there for a short time, and involving a member in those things may help to cement the new convert’s relationship with the ward. Personally, rather than an absolute rule I would like to see this stated as a preference, because we really need to take the wishes of the new member in mind. They might have a strong relationship with the missionary and not with the member, and if he or she really wants one of the missionaries to perform an ordinance, I think her wishes should control.

So what do you think about these policies? Agree, disagree, have tweaks to suggest? What if you were the AA70 and were given this as a draft by the MP for your review; what comments would you make?