Callings in the Church

I think I will tackle this one question at a time, with the caveat that I believe deeply and passionately in the concept of callings. I believe the genius of the LDS Church is found most fundamentally in the fact that it is run locally by amateurs – since I think that is where the real communal growth occurs among the saints. (Opposition in all things being a true concept, it’s also why much of the pain and difficulty occurs, but . . .) I believe spirituality and righteousness need to be pursued individually outside the organization, but I believe strongly in the concept of building Zion – and that happens most directly through callings.

With that foundation:

It has been mentioned in another thread how the Church can take up every second of your daily life and I think Callings are probably one of the most important factors of this.

When callings take up every second of one’s life, they are requiring too much. Period. There should be a balance, and ignoring other things for callings isn’t a good balance. I know one family where some of the kids thought their dad loved dead people more than he loved them, simply because he spent so much time in the temple when they were young. That’s not the exact same as callings, but the principle is the same.

Is it expected of you to accept a calling?

Yes, but not any particular calling. It’s expected that you will serve somehow, somewhere – so it is expected that you will hold some kind of calling.

have you ever turned one down?

I haven’t, but I’ve never been asked to do something I haven’t been willing to do. I have told the Bishop on one occasion that I didn’t think I could do it very well – that I didn’t think I would enjoy it and probably wouldn’t be able to “magnify” it, but that I was willing to hold the position for a while until someone else could do so. He was grateful for my honesty.

can you choose not to have callings at all?

Sure, but there are so many possibilities for callings and assignments that not being able to come up with one for someone who would be willing to do something is a basic failure of leadership, imo. There are myriad assignments in EQ, HPG or RS that can be given in lieu of a formal calling. I am fine with not doing anything as a temporary situation while someone gets other things in order, but as a long-term condition . . . I just can’t accept that, personally.

or can you be excommunicated or be treated differently because of this?

There is no valid reason for excommunicating someone if they refuse to accept a calling. There is no valid reason for ANY disciplinary action for this. None. As far as being treated differently, humans are humans, so, unfortunately, some will treat others differently if they don’t accept a calling. On the flip side, I understand if a Bishop or other leader is hesitant to ask someone to accept a calling if s/he has turned down other requests in the past. After a while, they might assume the same answer and stop considering someone who has refused. That’s natural, even if it isn’t totally “right”.

Are they supposed to be divinely inspired or do the leaders just choose who should do what?

Both. I’ve been involved in issuing enough callings to say without question that it is both. Some definitely are inspired; some are simply executive – a choice among multiple options; some are temporary measures to fill holes until inspiration occurs; some can be uninspired and wrong. The last case is fairly rare, ime, but sometimes there are uninspired leaders who make uninspired decisions – which is the single biggest reason why I don’t believe in blind acceptance. Ultimately, it is up to the person being asked to take responsibility for the response – not pawning it off on the one issuing the calling.

Many critics say it is a way of controlling members, making them devote more time to the Church and therefore having less time to interact with non-members who may have other influences (to be honest, of one who is heavily influenced by non-members I can kind of understand the concern)?

Bluntly, I think that is intellectually understandable . . . garbage. The Church begs us to interact with those outside our faith – literally begs us to do that more. Local leaders are getting steady requests to streamline meetings and do everything possible to reduce the time commitment on the members. Time commitment can be overwhelming on the most active members, but there isn’t a nefarious motive behind it. Generally, it’s because not everyone is willing to serve – which is one of the reasons why I am adamantly opposed to an otherwise active member choosing to reject all callings on a long-term basis. It hurts other people – pure and simple – who then feel compelled to accept multiple callings to make up the slack.

What if someone who has a full-time job for example if they are successful business people?

That should be considered. Dale Murphy was a professional baseball player for years. The only “calling” he could do for years was being a Home Teacher, and he only could do that for months at a time over the phone. So that’s what he did. He would call his assigned families from different cities as he was traveling and ask how they were doing, share a simple message, talk with the kids one-by-one, etc. He rarely was able to visit, since time during home stints was sacred family time, but he did what he could with the time he had available in his individual circumstance. That’s the proper model, imo – doing what you can with the time you have available in your own individual circumstances and taking ownership of that decision.

One personal example:

When my wife was asked to be the Young Women’s President in our ward, we had five kids living at home, one on the way and another “son” living with us. (Later, for part of the time she was in that calling, we also had a family of four living in our basement while they got their lives back together after leaving an abusive situation.) When she was asked to be the YW Pres., I was serving as the Ward Mission Leader. We have a wonderful Bishop, and I was released from my calling and asked to be a Primary worker for the duration of her calling – in order to lessen the stress on our family. She served for 4 1/2 years in that calling and was released when I was called to the High Council – for the same reason. More leaders need to be willing to consider situations like ours when they discuss callings – and that counsel has been given by the global leadership. Too often, local leaders lose sight of that in the pressure of the moment and forget to think outside the easy box.

Here is another older post that I found interesting.

When I first joined the church, I said yes to every calling that came along.

I felt in some way that it was “insurance” when I faced a challenge or crisis in my life.

A stronger testimony, a stronger faith, a stronger belief: all that good stuff.

Then the “real thing” came along. My real crisis of faith.

The only callings I will accept today are positions that I have a connection with.

As I’ve mention before, I like Family History & Temple Work (within my boundaries).

– I will never teach a group again. I will teach one on one.

– I like technology. eg. computers & programs.

– I don’t like Missionary work. I won’t do that again.

I should also say, I’m old. So, there seems to be an age cut off for callings. Or, you have

to have a special skill. eg. piano, music.