- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Stake President wants to meet with me on Tuesday! Scary I know. Frankly I’m quite happy with where things are right now (I’m the ward activities chair). Let the speculation begin
(obviously I’ll report the damage after my meeting)
Quote:Bishop Eu
Has a nice ring to it!
Here’s my speculation: 1. questioning why in the heck am I writing heretical things publicly. perhaps a disciplinary council is in order (I’ll call on Ray’s help in this case)
2. a stake calling having to do with the young men (scouts, or YM perhaps).
#1 would be initiated by your Bishop – and would be stupid, so I’m discounting that for now. #2 would be reasonable and sensible, so I’m discounting that for now.
My first thought woud be wonderful and surprising and reflective of God having a great sense of humor, so I’m sticking with having to get used to calling you Bishop.
Old-Timer wrote:#1 would be initiated by your Bishop – and would be stupid, so I’m discounting that for now.
Yes, I agree.Old-Timer wrote:#2 would be reasonable and sensible, so I’m discounting that for now.
Most definitely.😆 😆 Old-Timer wrote:reflective of God having a great sense of humor
Ain’t that the truth!Old-Timer wrote:#1 would be initiated by your Bishop – and would be stupid, so I’m discounting that for now.
#2 would be reasonable and sensible, so I’m discounting that for now.
My first thought woud be wonderful and surprising and reflective of God having a great sense of humor, so I’m sticking with having to get used to calling you Bishop.
😆 My guess is there is a need for a new secretary to one of the Stake Presidency members. That would mean lots of meetings to go to, but not a bad calling to see how things work and just do the easy stuff of calling and setting up appointments.
Your Stake President was hiding a secret crisis of faith for years, visited our site here, and based on the material and interactions on the forums decided he could remain in the Church and continue to be SP after all. He wants you now to be his second counselor with the eventual goal of joining the ranks of General Authority in the near future. 😆 I was just trying to figure out how to get one-up on Ray’s bet.😆 You suceeded, Brian. I officially am changing my mind. Well, it was all very anti-climactic. I went in and we chatted about life and circumstances and he decided not to extend the calling to me. Perhaps he could sense my heresy! 😆 😆 I do have a question for Ray though (I think he would know most about this being on the HC and all). He asked me several questions.
1. Do I have a current temple recommend.
2. Am I worthy in every way to have a calling.
3. Is there anything in my past which would be an embarrassment for the church.
4. Do I have a pornography problem.
I have been interviewed for callings by the SP two times in my life, and both times I was asked these same questions. Has it become standard to ask the questions in this way, specifically the last two? Why isn’t the first question sufficient? It feels to me like there really are three levels of standards in the church now (maybe it’s always been this way) – regular member, temple worthy member, priesthood calling worthy member.
I wasn’t asked those questions when I was intereviewed, so I don’t think they are standard questions from on high. I can’t be sure from just what you shared, but I am left with the impression that the calling might have been different than you anticipated. Especially the third question leads me to believe it might have been something that would have put you in a highly visible position.
Also, fwiw, I believe there are (and probably should be) different standards for various “levels” of participation in the Church. One of my frustrations is that the temple attendance standard has been extended to the church entrance standard, but I understand totally a desire to make sure that someone who is being asked to be a face of the Church, if you will, is willing to live a standard that is not asked of others. Iow, I don’t want more restrictive and proscriptive standards extended “downward” organizationally, but I have no problem with the existence of different standards moving “upward” organizationally. (In a way, I’d really like to see another J. Golden Kimball called as an apostle, but I understand and support the reasoning that keeps it from happening again.)
For example, I have no problem with the desire to have the sacrament be taken more seriously as a saving ordinance, so I am ok with asking those who administer it to wear white (when possible) in order to model the temple ordinances. I am bothered by the extension of that idea to all men who attend church – to the idea that a white shirt, tie and suit coat somehow is a “uniform” righteous men should wear. However, I wear a white shirt, tie and suit coat every week to church at the moment, since my Stake President asked me to do so as a function of my calling as one of his representatives. I’m ok with a diffrenent “standard” for a High Councilor, since, in an important way, I am a face of the Church now. I don’t agree totally, but I’m ok with it. When I am released, I will go back to wearing colored shirts and no suit coat, unless I am asked again to dress differently for a new calling.
If you will pardon this, I will share an experience I had while I was serving in a Stake Mission Presidency years ago. It came to mind as I read your last comment. I have no idea if it is relevant directly to your situation, so take it for what it’s worth:
I was asked to determine who should be called to be the Ward Mission Leader in a ward where I knew nobody. I prayed for guidance and then looked over the ward directory, trying to see if any particular name jumped out at me in any way. After a while, I got the distinct impression that it should be a particular brother – and I made that suggestion. I was told that the man was inactive, but that he came from a very active family and had been raised in the Church. After further consideration, I felt confident he was supposed to be asked to serve in that calling, so I was told to talk with him about it.
Long story short, he didn’t end up accepting the calling, but I walked out of his home convinced that the impression to talk with him about it had been real inspiration – since it caused him to re-evaluate his life and consider the possibility that God really did have a work for him to do.
Old-Timer wrote:Long story short, he didn’t end up accepting the calling, but I walked out of his home convinced that the impression to talk with him about it had been real inspiration – since it caused him to re-evaluate his life and consider the possibility that God really did have a work for him to do.
Thanks for sharing Ray. I’m always open to re-evaluating my life. Over the past year I just decided I would focus on my own personal and family goals and just make the church work for me as a regular member. But then are moments like this interview where the church/God seem to thrust themselves into my life causing me to consider other things.I have a lot of thoughts and feelings about the interview, so maybe it was a success in that regard.
It may have been that even had he extended the call I may have said no. There are still some callings that I don’t wish to have and/or would not be comfortable with given my views.
Well, for the record, I think you would have been a great [insert calling of choice]! hawkgrrrl wrote:Well, for the record, I think you would have been a great [insert calling of choice]!
Thanks hawk, I’m giving you a virtual cyber hug!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.