Tech Forum

Having read the article in the March Ensign, page 28, and Handbook2 9.5.2 - 9.5.4 I wish to pose a question.

If we can record a married couple as having done HT & VT, HB2 9.5.2, should we record visits by just HTs or just VTs as both for the qtly report? see page 32.
The qtly report is clear and I would say no, but that seems to go against the spirit of that article and what it is saying. The report is to help review the members activity in ministering to one another and if local leaders take the alternating HT/VT approach or one in preference to the other, for whatever reason, then should that count as the ministering with regards HT & VT?

I was asked if the reporting would change by the Stake RS President and so I have been giving it some thought.

The monthly reporting to the Bishop is a separate issue and I think that is clear and there are no issues with that.

simonawright wrote:If we can record a married couple as having done HT & VT, HB2 9.5.2, should we record visits by just HTs or just VTs as both for the qtly report? see page 32.
The qtly report is clear and I would say no, but that seems to go against the spirit of that article and what it is saying.

I don't see how that article, in spirit or letter, changes the reporting requirements that are clearly stated in Handbook 2, sections 9.5.2 - 9.5.4. We clearly should be doing everything we can to minister to members, particularly those who have special needs. It may well be appropriate to choose to home teach or visit teach someone less often than monthly. But if such a choice is made, and a visit is not made in a reporting month, I don't see how one can argue that a visit that was not made could possibly be reported as having been made. The statistics should reflect the visits that are actually made.

simonawright wrote:If we can record a married couple as having done HT & VT, HB2 9.5.2, should we record visits by just HTs or just VTs as both for the qtly report? see page 32.

If I understand the question correctly, you're asking if a family has been visited by the HT can be counted as being visited by the VT? I don't see that. In the case of a visit from the couple, they've been visited by both the priesthood and the sisters. That's not the case when someone is only HT or only VT.

But ultimately the keys to interpretation belong to the local priesthood leaders.

simonawright wrote:If we can record a married couple as having done HT & VT, HB2 9.5.2, should we record visits by just HTs or just VTs as both for the qtly report? see page 32.

Take a look at Handbook2, 9.5.2, paragraph 4, and 7.4.2, paragraph 8. In those exceptional cases when a couple is assigned as a companion for both home teaching and visit teaching then sentence two of both paragraphs state "Couples report these visits as home teaching and visiting teaching". (emphasis added) So a single visit is counted as both a HT visit and a VT visit when a couple visits a home.

But remember that it is not the reporting of visits that important. It is the ministering that is important. I would guess that in many of those exceptional cases assigned to a couple there may be more than one visit throughout the month. When I had such an assignment my wife and I were visiting at least twice a week. The numbers reporting wasn't the important thing; it was the temporal and spiritual welfare that required the special assignment with frequent visits.

Thanks for the comments guys.

I think the underlying thought was the idea that you could have a HT that was assigned to visit a sister and be told that they were not to visit, the VT would be the contact for a while. They might be willing to visit but the record would show they weren't visiting their family.

As JD Lessleymentioned it is the ministering that is important.

Please pardon my moment of madness:)