The comparison is also available in PDF and Powerpoint formats.
| Assessment of Wards' Plans: | ||||
| Criteria for Great vs. Poor Ward Mission Plans | Waltham | Adams | Hickham | Rose Hill |
|
1. The plan articulates a vision for what the ward leaders want the ward to become
five years hence.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
2. The plan is the work of the entire ward council, vs. having been written by only the
ward mission leader or the bishopric.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
3. The ward council has set specific annual goals for growing sacrament meeting
attendance and for the number of people they and the ward members will find for the
missionaries to teach.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
4. Each of the priesthood quorums and auxiliary organizations in the ward have
contributed at least one building block to the plan.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
5. It transforms things that already are being done into missionary opportunities.
It does not entail a lot of extra work on top of what ward members already are doing.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
6. The initiatives in the building blocks are recurring activities that ultimately can
become part of the ward's habits & culture. There are few one-time or sporadic events.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
7. The plan is specific as to which organizations and leaders are responsible for
following through, in contrast to generalized statements of intent that all members
will do something.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
8. The building blocks enlist non-members to serve alongside members in doing the
work of the Lord, vs. only involving non-members as attendees, or as recipients of
service.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
9. The ward council has a regular time and method for holding themselves
accountable for achieving their goals, and for revising the plan as needed to achieve
what whey set out to do.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Excellent |
Good |
Neutral |
Poor |
Unsatisfactory |




