Goal-setting has often received emphasis in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and with good reason. We are an industrious, action-oriented people. Our ancestors were motivated by their faith to cross oceans and mountains, drain swamps, tame deserts, and build kingdoms.
Goal-setting can be a helpful way to organize effort and to prioritize our use of time by identifying activities and steps that are meant to move us toward a desired objective. It is often a valuable tool.
But this kind of goal-setting can also be dangerous.
In his 1992 address on how our strengths can become our downfall, Elder Oaks warned that “We cannot be so concerned about our goals that we overlook the necessity of using righteous methods to attain them.“
I would like to expose an additional danger of goal-setting. There is often a temptation to reduce complex objectives into a collection of simpler, easily measurable steps and then to assume that the sum of these steps is equal to the objective as a whole.
In many cases it is possible to check off every goal in the list without ever attaining the real purpose for which it was intended. This process exposes us to the danger of substituting superficial measurements for more essential endeavors and abstract attributes.
I sometimes see this problem in my work as a software engineer. Computer programming involves complex problem-solving and creativity. Measuring the productivity of a programmer can be difficult, especially for managers who are not as technical as the people they manage. So sometimes companies try to break projects down into simpler concepts that are easier to define and measure.
But these easily measurable items can inadvertently provide a false sense of information. The key principle at work is this: You will get more of whatever it is you measure.
If you use the number of lines of code a programmer writes as a measure of productivity, you will get lots of lines of code. Whether those lines of code are the best way to solve the problem or are just bloated code and extra padding is a different question.
If you measure the amount of time programmers are at their desks, you will get programmers at their desks for lots of time. Whether the time spent there is productive or not is a different question.
These kinds of superficial but easily measured goals can become misleading substitutes to which we turn because our real objectives are complex and difficult to measure.
And we can do the same kinds of things in the church.
Take scripture reading for example. Yes, we should read the scriptes frequently and regularly. But the objective isn’t merely to be able to say you have read the Bible and the Book of Mormon by a certain date or with a certain degree of regularity. The objective is to learn, understand, and believe the Gospel of Jesus and to become familiar with the Spirit of God that attends the words and teachings contained in the scriptures.
Or missionary work. Yes missionaries should work to teach and baptize new members. But the objective isn’t merely to teach a certain number of lessons within a measurable time period, or to jump prospective members through oversimplified hoops involving the number of times they have attended church or number of days they have abstained from coffee before rushing them into the water. The objective is to help every person who will listen to the missionaries to develop a foundation of faith in Jesus Christ and his Atonement, to believe in the Restoration of the Gospel and the Priesthood through Joseph Smith, to repent of their sins, to enter into a solemn covenant with God by submitting to His living representatives and being baptized under the binding authority He has given them, and to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost under their hands.
Being truly converted to the restored Gospel is less tangible and more difficult to measure. So we sometimes try to substitute oversimplified measurements as a proxy for our real objective.
Repentance is another example. We sometimes break repentance down into measurable steps: acknowledging the sin, feeling sorrow, confessing to proper authorities, asking for forgiveness, making restitution, &c. These are all true parts of the process of repentance. But it is possible to oversimplify these steps into a superficial formula through which a person can pass without really ever achieving the real repentance of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
Now, I’m not saying that gospel activity that is primarily habitual or goal-oriented is bad. Reading the scriptures every day or by a certain date increases our regular exposure to the teachings of Jesus and his prophets and apostles and clearly contributes to the larger objective of understanding and believing the Gospel. It establishes a safety-net of routine. Routine and consistency can help smooth out the natural fluctuations in our lives.
But we must be vigilant and be careful not to replace our objectives with superficial goals just because they are easier to measure. The intermediate, measurable goals are necessary. But if we lose sight of the ultimate objective then we may find that we have completed all our steps and still not accomplished our ultimate goal.
And since all of us fall into this trap now and then, it is important to regularly evaluate whether our goals are still in harmony with their objectives and re-calibrate.
This concept of substituting measurable actions for more complex principles was discussed in the April 2012 conference of the church by Elder Donald L. Hallstrom of the Presidency of the Seventy:
“Some have come to think of activity in the Church as the ultimate goal. Therein lies a danger. It is possible to be active in the Church and less active in the gospel. Let me stress: activity in the Church is a highly desirable goal; however, it is insufficient. Activity in the Church is an outward indication of our spiritual desire. If we attend our meetings, hold and fulfill Church responsibilities, and serve others, it is publicly observed. By contrast, the things of the gospel are usually less visible and more difficult to measure, but they are of greater eternal importance.”
Additionally, this danger of goals undermining objectives can sometimes manifest itself as an effort to manufacture spiritual feelings and experiences through manipulation. Instead of inviting the Holy Spirit (a real, spiritual being) to be present with us, we try to manufacture spiritual feelings through the way we talk and move or through an emotion-inspiring ambiance.
When that happens, it is easy to mistake strong human feelings for the Holy Spirit. But even though the Holy Ghost does communicate through our feelings, not every emotional experience constitutes “feeling the spirit”. Experiencing authentic spiritual communication from the Holy Ghost is not the same thing as being emotionally moved by beauty or impressed and inspired by human resilience, even though those feelings may be felt simultaneously with the feelings of the Spirit.
Our desire to create spiritual experiences can undermine our objective of receiving real divine communications. It is crucial that we learn to distinguish between the Holy Ghost and these other kinds of strong emotion.
All of these observations lead me to the main point I want to make:
In recent years it has become very common for agitators and dissident groups within the church to construe their questionable actions in terms of “helping people stay in the church” or “helping people to not leave the church” and to accuse their critics of “driving people out of the church“.
On the surface, keeping people in the church seems like an unquestionably worthy goal.
But remember, you get more of what you measure. If the thing we measure is the number names on the membership rolls or bodies in the pews, then we will get more names on the rolls or bodies in the pews. Whether or not those people have testimonies of the Gospel and the Restoration &c. is a different question.
Staying in the church is an essential part of attaining the spiritual objectives of building Zion and God’s plan to save and exalt us. Keeping people from leaving the church is a worthwhile goal when it serves these greater objectives of the church and the gospel.
But keeping people in the church who reject the core tenets and claims of the church, who tear down the faith of others, and who use their claim to be “active” members of the church as a smokescreen to gain the trust of others so that they can influence them contrary to the direction of the Lord’s appointed leaders, undermines these real objectives of the church.
Of course we don’t want people to leave the church. We don’t want people to be excommunicated. We want them to stay and participate. But we want them to stay because we hope that by continued involvement they will come to believe, repent, and be converted.
There are times when excommunication or disfellowship serve the moral and spiritual objectives of the church better than keeping people in the church. It would be foolish to treat “keeping people from leaving the church” as an ultimate end in and of itself to which all other objectives must bend and break.
But that seems to be the way in which these dissident groups invoke “keeping people from leaving the church”– as if that alone justifies their actions.
It doesn’t.
The goal of keeping people in the church must always be in the service of the work of salvation as defined by God through his servants.
So the fact that these individuals and groups proclaim that their teachings, doctrines, and actions keep people from leaving the church is virtually meaningless. It isn’t enough to declare that you are preventing people from leaving the church. We have to ask if the objective of their encouraging people to stay is consistent with the the purpose, doctrines, and objectives of the church and the gospel?
The actions and teachings of these groups must be evaluated based on their doctrinal merit and cumulative effect upon the church as a whole, not on manipulative, emotionally-charged threats to leave unless demands at met.
Let’s not let the goal of keeping people in the church undermine the doctrine of the church and the work of salvation.
For you cannot enter in at the strait gate … by your dead works.
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall stay in the church, and lose his own soul. Or for what shall it profit the church, if it retain all its members, and lose its own soul.
[Cross-posted from Sixteen Small Stones]
Related posts:
- Having A Form of Godliness – Modern Mormon Pharisees
- Watchmen on the Tower – On the Limits of Prophetic Fallibility
- Go and Sin No More – Misinterpreting Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery
New Post: Dead Works – When Goals Undermine Objectives: Goal-setting has often received emphasis … http://t.co/kEkm3sUiUG #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: Dead Works – When Goals Undermine Objectives http://t.co/nXUVdQc8cy #lds #mormon
RT @ldsblogs: TheMillennialStar: Dead Works – When Goals Undermine Objectives http://t.co/nXUVdQc8cy #lds #mormon
“But keeping people in the church who reject the core tenets and claims of the church, who tear down the faith of others, and who use their claim to be “active” members of the church as a smokescreen to gain the trust of others so that they can influence them contrary to the direction of the Lord’s appointed leaders, undermines these real objectives of the church.
Of course we don’t want people to leave the church. We don’t want people to be excommunicated. We want them to stay and participate. But we want them to stay because we hope that by continued involvement they will come to believe, repent, and be converted.
There are times when excommunication or disfellowship serve the moral and spiritual objectives of the church better than keeping people in the church. It would be foolish to treat “keeping people from leaving the church” as an ultimate end in and of itself to which all other objectives must bend and break.”
Wise words, Jmax.
It is worth adding that when churches bend to popular whim to “keep people in the church” they ultimately end up shrinking rather than growing.
I love the story of the Gideon’s army:[ref]Judges 7.[/ref]
Gideon had had 32,000 soldiers.
God said: “Too many”
So Gideon told all who were fearful to leave. This left Gideon with 10,000 soldiers.
God said: “Too many”
So Gideon asked them to drink from the stream. Only those who knelt and scooped water with one hand, the other ready to take up their weapon in case of attack, were retained.
So Gideon attacked the Midianites with 300 men, less than 1% of the army he started with.
Aside from demonstrating the power of God, one would have expected far more than 1% of the men in such an action to die, so woot for saving hundreds or even thousands of lives.
3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
4 And the Lord said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.
5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the Lord said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.
6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.
7 And the Lord said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.
My highest of praises, Jmax!
“Of course we don’t want people to leave the church.”
Just wanted to bump that portion of your comments. All the comments I want to make about this would risk offending someone – like maybe me after getting some sleep.
At the end of the day, I will sorrow if anyone ultimately chooses not to return to God. Their “activity” in the Church is an artifact along the path to that end, and can only be understood by the fruit that path eventually yields.
A personal relationship with God, whether in the form of the Holy Ghost, supplication of The Father as we pray, meditating on the Savior as we partake of the sacrament, or untold other ways is my ultimate goal. Setting goals for others is a tendency that can go awry. Suggestions of ways we can approach the main goal are quite acceptable but prescritive goal setting as in the list of objectives that the leasdership presented at a Stake Conference which it was expected that ‘every worthy adult member’ should achieve within the year, and which included several items that were impossible for me to achieve at that time, can create dissonance. I really appreciated this post for cutting through the confusion that the overriding mandate to retain members can create.
I love love love the notion of you get what you measure. One of the things that is hardest about all of this is that ultimately conversion to Christ is discernible, but I’m not sure how measurable it is.
I also think that if we focus too much on goals, we miss the reality that God isn’t a linear being and that agency and the Atonement allow for the messiness of not having things always neatly turn out the way our mortal selves would want them to.
The Church is true. The ordinances are real. The doctrine is true. If someone chooses not to embrace these things right now, I personally think there is power in respecting that choice. I don’t feel the same kind of panic that some seem to feel that people are leaving. We can’t make people stay, nor should we try. The Church cannot and will not be everything to everyone, nor should it try to be. We can seek to be better at who we are without frenetically running around trying to make people like us or let people insist that things have to change SO MUCH before they will want to stay.
Healthy boundaries are about being where you are and letting people choose whether they want to engage with you. In other words, I agree with you. And I would just add that I think it’s not an uncaring thing to let people seek, struggle, and make choices from which they can learn, including experiencing natural consequences along the way. Even if those choices take them away from the path for a time, God’s hand is outstretched still and He can turn even the hardest experiences for good.
When the Church has to change for people to be happy, they are victims, which is a powerless, hopeless place to be. I do not believe it is helpful or loving to enable people to stay in that place.
“We can’t make people stay, nor should we try. ” and p.s. there is definitely nuance to this. I’m not saying the Church is perfect. But it doesn’t have to be. It is sufficient. It has the ordinances and doctrine necessary for salvation. And life gives us the experience to come to learn how to apply the Atonement…which means facing the imperfections of people and all that is part of a fallen world.
Thank you for this! It is true that you get more of what you measure. Unfortunately, as touched upon, it is not really possible to outwardly measure the intent of a person’s heart or some of the long lasting effects of someone’s good or bad deeds. Living our lives knowing that much of what we are earnestly trying to do right will not receive proper appreciation in this life requires much faith. We don’t have the tools to measure those things and I dare say that is part of our Father’s plan.
When you talk about not wanting people to leave the church, of course we are not looking for people to leave the church. That said, I continue to see people in our congregations threaten to leave if they don’t get their way or that a Bishop does not properly chastise someone else in the congregation who has offended said individual. Of course we don’t want this person leaving our congregation or the church, but when this “leaving” becomes a bargaining tool, how far do we go to prevent them from leaving? I would argue that we are measuring staying in the church or congregation, when perhaps in the spirit of the law this person who is bargaining for their way is already spiritually gone out of the church.
I have seen well-meaning church leaders counsel the local ward leaders to go way above and beyond in order to appease a manipulative member threatening to leave the church. It was interesting to see that subsequently, the well-meaning leaders somewhat changed their position and agreed that the local leaders need not be continually manipulated by this member’s threat of leaving.
In the church, we keep records, and we measure things. It can help us see patterns and help to give us a jump start into new ways of looking at things. But the danger is putting too much emphasis on those measures. One of the memorable lessons I have been taught through spiritual revelation is that I can’t judge my efforts by the behavior of others. Meaning, I can only do my best to teach and love, and help people come unto Christ. If they choose not to respond to my genuine invitations, I don’t believe my invitations are of any less worth in the eyes of my Father-in-Heaven. But, we aren’t able to measure all of the different ways we can invite people to come unto Christ.
Thanks for this post. Lots of things to think about. Perhaps more to discuss.
I remember once as a teen worried that if I stayed in the Church I would just turn out to be like my father. What would other’s think of me if I ended up with his idiosyncrasies? That isn’t to say I didn’t love him or that he was a bad person, only who at that age wants to be like their parents. The class was watching a video about a parent who had a son doing wrong things and he was trying desperately to have him change his ways. I don’t recall how the video turned out, but I had a revelation that the only worry I should have is if I turn out like my Father in Heaven. It left a lot open for me to be my own person. All other goals and worries should focus on that no matter what others think in or outside the Church, or how many leave or stay. Truth will always be Truth with a capital T. I am not afraid of a shrinking membership, but of an unrighteous one eager to capitulate to the image of the world while losing the blessings of God so they don’t look bad.
Michelle
Thank you for your comments as well.
I particularly liked, “When the church has to change for people to be happy, they are victims,”. Well put
Michelle, I love your comment and think they are very insightful.
Thanks for this excellent post! I have a friend who was excommunicated but has been rebaptized and had all of his blessings restored. I was fortunate to attend his temple sealing last year. The spirit in the room was so very strong, considering all that he and his wife, also a dear friend, had been thru. He has often said that his excommunication was the best thing that ever happened to him. It was the only thing that knocked him back into place.
But, you make some excellent points about quality vs, quantity. Is the quality of our work good? Are we doing good work? I think that is so important. I also thought about Elder Oaks’ talk “Good, Better, Best”. What are we focusing on? Is it the best? I hope it is.
Brother Wilson and other posters, thank you for clarifying the turmoil I have been having over a couple of blogs.
You are welcome, Kris. Glad you found it helpful.
And thanks to all of you for chiming in.
Thank you for your articulate, faithful voice. It is greatly appreciated.