Lots discussed in last night’s broadcast. Geoff has already discussed the social media efforts for full time missionaries, so I won’t discuss that here.

I will note two things.  First, did the camera guy really have to take a nice long shot at the sleeping man (presumably a high priest?) during Elder Nelson’s discourse?  That, for me, is a “how not to”.

Here, though, I would like to open up a discussion to help all of us on something Elder Nelson stated last night: we know the reason why, but we do not yet know the “how to.”  How does one do missionary work effectively as a member?  Obviously, tracting is now anathema, as was pronounced last night, while working with members is the correct manner.  So, how do we do effective member missionary work?

A couple of the videos shown give a hint of one “how to do” method, and added upon my experience (FTM, 9 years WML/Stake mission presidency, 2 year service mission), I will offer some thoughts. However, I really would like to hear others’ thoughts on how we can do the work in an effective and efficient way.

First, there were videos of a few people invited to baptisms/birthday parties, but especially one where a couple was first introduced to one LDS family, then another, and another, until they had many LDS friends.  The second, discussed by Pres Monson, was the small branch in Canada, in which the branch president desired a chapel.  When he was told the branch (25 members, 12 active) would have to grow first, the branch president asked for six FTMs and then went to work. He opened the Yellow Pages and began selecting people from it.  With 6 missionaries, he could better surround these people than with the 12 active he currently had.  Within a couple years, they were approved for a chapel.

The “how to” here is to surround the investigator with loving LDS friends.  If her only contact is with the missionaries or perhaps one LDS family, then there is a major disadvantage, as the person’s worldly friends will be pulling them in one direction, with only one pulling them toward Christ and his Church.  However, if we can surround the person with loving LDS friends, then there is no pulling from the world.  The influence of the Spirit is more prominent, and the opportunities to hear and desire the gospel are everywhere.

This is what happened about 20 years ago in Wetumpka, Alabama.  The branch president at the time, Carl Stephens, wanted to prepare the branch to be a ward.  As the missionaries prepared an investigator, Carl would assign members to invite the family in for dinner each week (often on Sunday after church).  So, one week, the family would eat with one LDS family, and with another the next.  In one instance, a young black family (the Montgomery stake had only recently actively started teaching African-American families) was brought into the Church using this method. They were very well integrated into the branch by the time of their baptism.  One year later, the new brother was called as elder’s quorum president (and did a fantastic job), and a few years after that the couple were called as service missionaries in the Tuskegee branch.  Wetumpka became a ward within just a couple years, and is a strength to the small stake to this day.

What are other methods of “how to” that members and FTMs alike can implement in their wards and lives?

Church leadership held a special broadcast on missionary work Sunday and, among other things, announced that missionaries would be spending time on social media networks in an effort to improve missionary work.

Elder (L. Tom) Perry also announced changes Sunday in how missionaries will spend their time finding people to teach. Because many people prefer to connect online, missionaries will use the Internet and digital devices in their ministry, Elder Perry said. He noted that missionaries will use “mormon.org, Facebook, blogs, email, … text messages” and other platforms to reach out to people. “The Church must adapt to a changing world,” Elder Perry said.

Speaking earlier in the day to new mission presidents, Church leaders said that missionary use of the Internet and digital devices such as iPads will begin in phases and only in designated missions for the rest of this year. The Church anticipates these tools will be available to missionaries throughout the world sometime next year.

Church leaders also announced a surge in interest in missionary work.

The number of missionaries continues to rise since President Monson’s October 2012 announcement of lower missionary age requirements. At the time of the announcement, 58,500 missionaries were serving; as of this week, Elder L. Tom Perry of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said, more than 70,000 missionaries are serving — the most ever at one time in Church history.

Female missionaries comprise more than 20 percent of that number, with 14,650 serving. As the Church announced in April 2013, the increasing number of female missionaries has led to the creation of a mission leadership council that will include both men and women as missionary leaders. This council will consist of the mission president and his wife, assistants to the president, zone leaders and sister training leaders — a newly created role.

As the Church reported in February 2013, 58 new missions were created to accommodate the influx of missionaries, bringing the total number of missions to 405. By year’s end, the Church anticipates having 85,000 missionaries.

As noted in my last post on this theme, we are discussing Jim Collin’s book, Good to Great. It comes from a 5 year study of public companies, with a team of 21 researchers, to determine just what makes companies great.

In this series, I’m applying his principles to LDS concepts.

“Good” is the toughest enemy of “Great”

Under this concept, we can consider the following:

  First, the great General Conference talk given in October 2007 by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, entitled “Good, Better, Best”.  In this discourse, Elder Oaks notes that often we settle for that which is good or better, rather than seeking for the best: Continue reading →

In 2001, Jim Collins and his team wrote a book, entitled “Good to Great.”

They gathered tons of data to determine what made companies truly great, and not just good or mediocre. Scanning through the stock market records, they sought out companies from 1950 to present that had a long period of okay performance, but then had a major increase in profits and stock  value lasting at least 15 years. Of the thousands of stocks, they only found 11 companies that fit their criteria.  Then, they searched those companies (comparing them with each other and contrasting them with others in their business sectors) to find out what made them different.

Over a few posts, I’ll share some of the key concepts, and then discuss them not in a business sense, but in a LDS setting. Continue reading →

I’ve been thinking a lot about norms, customs, and traditions. Basically, a norm can be compared to a default template for behavior.

Norms can have two forms: descriptive or prescriptive. Descriptive norms merely describe what most people do. For example, most people sleep at night, and work during the day. This is a statement of fact — it is a norm in our community. But this norm doesn’t really describe what ought to take place. Some might argue that there are prudential reasons for adhering to this norm, but few people would describe this custom as an ought, or consider a bad person for violating it. It’s just the default for people to sleep at night and work during the day, and because it’s the default, there are good, prudential reasons for going along with it. This would be a good example of a descriptive norm.

Prescriptive norms describe what ought to be the case. Now, some norms lay claim on everyone — for example, everyone should wash their hands after using the restroom. This is a custom, tradition, or norm that is definitely prescriptive. You should do this. That’s the essence of a prescriptive norm.

Other prescriptive norms are more flexible — they don’t lay claim on individuals, but merely lay claim on the aggregate. For example, I don’t think that everyone couple should be a stay at home mother. I don’t think this norm should prescribe behavior for every individual couple. There should be give and take on this norm, and I think even in communities where this is a norm, there is give and take. Few people want to hold this as a template that every individual should adhere to. Rather, we recognize that in the aggregate, when this ceases to be a norm, there are drastic changes and consequences in society. Our very understanding, for example, of the purposes of marriage can change.

I think it is possible to lament the changing norms of society without judging or scrutinizing the choices of individuals. For example, I think we see far too many mothers dividing their attention between children and a career — it is no longer a norm for a mother to dedicate her time to child raising. But I can say that without judging any particular mother with a career. Because I see think this norm should be binding on the aggregate, but not necessarily on the granular level of the individual. Individuals can and should be free to make decisions based on individual inspiration and the needs of their family, while a community on a whole can try to normalize — that is, enforce a norm — committed stay-at-home mothers in the aggregate.

For that reason, I think it’s sad that it’s hard to lament changing norms without offending everyone who makes a different choice. I think it really is possible to hold a norm as ideal without demeaning the choices of individuals.

Yet at the same time, I don’t think it’s possible for us to have norms without individuals feeling pressured by society, in some way, to follow them. That’s what norms do. Even descriptive norms do this to some extent. When the majority of people act a certain way, we anticipate that an individual we meet will act that way. And when we know that others anticipate that we will act a certain way, and when we know that they know that we know that they anticipate that we act a certain way, we feel as if we are somehow committing a wrong by violating their expectations. There’s no way around that — it’s a social fact. We feel twinges of guilt when we defy the expectations of others, even when we feel we have made the right decision.

This is ok. This is how communities work. This is how communities normalize values that it believes should be practiced on the aggregate, even if individuals here and there deviate from the practice. And so it makes perfect sense that those don’t fit the mold, who don’t follow the templates, will feel out of place or that they don’t belong. It’s natural to feel that way. And, whenever norms are in place, it will be almost inevitable. It’s hard to have norms without those who violate them — even if they have good reason to — feeling alienated or judged for doing so.

It seems to me that many people complain because they feel pressured into following a norm that they feel (rightly or wrongly) that they are an exception to. For example, some couples elect not to have children. Other couples decide that both of them need to work, rather than stay at home and raise children. Some individuals decide not to get married at all. And in each of these cases, there may be very good reasons for making those decisions. But we as a society should, nonetheless, preserve norms that make these behaviors minority behaviors — that is, it shouldn’t be normal (in the sense that most people do it that way). And that means that the couple who chooses not to have children may very well be asked, more often than they would like, when or if they plan to have children, and the individual who elects not to marry may be asked, more often that he or she might like, how his or her dating life is going, or if they want to be set up on a blind date, or whatever.

And in that context, those who make decisions to violate those norms are going to feel judged, even if they aren’t. They’re going to feel scrutinized, even if they aren’t. And the solution is not to dismantle the norms. The solution is for those individuals to reflect and confirm that they are making the right choices, and press forward regardless of the feared scrutiny — and for the rest of us to be careful to always treat others with warmth, respect, and friendship, even if they violate our expectations. But it is not incumbent on us to simply never expect anything at all of others, since holding generalized expectations — even if we recognize that not everyone will meet those expectations — is pretty much the essence of a norm in the first place.

My conclusion: righteous norms are a good and necessary thing — even if individuals who have good reason to violate them feel judged for doing so. Being expected by others to behave in certain ways comes with the territory of being a member of a community. Let’s not bash norms merely because there exists exceptions. Let’s do reach out to those exceptions with warmth and friendship, but little we do will help them not feel slightly (socially) uneasy about their decisions, so long as a sturdy norm remains in place. But I think that’s probably ok, and preferable to a society with no prescriptive norms at all (which is likely impossible anyways).