Refusing Callings

The parser in me points out that, if you limit the discussion to EXACTLY what he said and ONLY what he said, he’s talking about a very narrow group of people who “refuse Church callings or accept callings and fail to fulfill their responsibilities”. “Callings” is plural, so I will choose to read it as those who refuse callings (plural) refelxively and have no desire to serve in the actual organization.

I couldn’t care less about if that is more narrow than he meant it to be. In fact, I’m sure it is. Yes, I’m letting him off of the hook with that reading. However, I’ll take it that narrowly – since I really do think that members shouldn’t refuse all callings REFLEXIVLEY, and I’d MUCH rather someone say no than say yes and just not show up or try.

I have a quote from Dallin H. Oakes from 2002, October Conference regarding Church members fulfilling callings:

Still, there is room for improvement in the commitment of some. When I ask stake presidents for suggestions on subjects I should treat at stake conferences, I often hear about members who refuse Church callings or accept callings and fail to fulfill their responsibilities. Some are not committed and faithful. It has always been so. But this is not without consequence.

The Savior spoke of the contrast between the faithful and the unfaithful…Half of the invited guests were excluded from the wedding feast because they were unprepared when the bridegroom came (see Matt. 25:1–13). The unprofitable servants who failed to employ the talents they were given by the Master were not allowed to enter into the joy of the Lord…My brothers and sisters, if you are delinquent in commitment, please consider who it is you are refusing or neglecting to serve when you decline a calling or when you accept, promise, and fail to fulfill…

The emphasized words in the quote above are mine for discussion. Elder Oakes seems to imply that there is some kind of eternal damnation if you don’t accept callings, fail to act with commitment, or by extension, ask to be released before the Bishop or SP is ready to release you…I also had a SP member who said “Never refuse a calling; if you have concerns, just share those concerns with the person calling you and let him decide”. Basically, saying — give me control over what you do, and don’t retain that right for yourself…Just curious what you think about these quotes.

Personally, I think it was rather presumptuous of Dallin H. Oaks to act as if Church members have this automatic obligation to just do whatever they are told. In reality the main consequences I see of saying no to callings are simply more free time and more enjoyable Sundays overall. It felt like a huge weight had been lifted off my back. As far as any eternal consequences, I guess I just don’t have that much confidence in the supposed connection between the LDS Church and God, Jesus, “the truth”, etc.

Even when I did believe in the Church’s claims it was still hard to feel very motivated about so many demands at the same time because I felt like no matter how hard I tried it was never good enough and there was always something else I should have done better. This made me discouraged as if I was destined to be condemned anyway so I started to feel like there was no point in even bothering to try anymore.

As if most people don’t already have enough to worry about now the Church wants to pile on all these additional guilt-trips and unrealistic expectations. The result is that church has become a negative experience overall for far too many members nowadays. Even if many of them continue to put up with this it doesn’t necessarily mean they are truly happy with the situation and all this blatant manipulation certainly doesn’t look like a very ethical way to treat people.

I guess I just don’t have that much confidence in the supposed connection between the LDS Church and God, Jesus, “the truth”, etc.

I think this is the crux of the matter. And it has me wondering how the brethren can structure the Church experience to keep faith alive. WE know about scripture and prayer, but we find that with some people, that’s what causes the problems — they don’t find nourishment there all the time.

For me – in stage 3 thinking – I believed there was a connection between my faithfulness, living a fairly charmed life, and God’s love and personal attention towards me. Had I not fallen into circumstances that disrupted this logic somewhat forcefully, I would have been content to continue on as I was. The problem then was unrealistic expectations. I wanted cause and effect with mortal consequences and eternal ramifications – the LDS theology system (as I understood it) provided that correlation.

I feel the Brethren are making efforts to include inclusive language now and again for those that have moved past stage 3, while being careful not to disillusion the base.

my actions had nullified his discernment

😯 That’s nuts. Sorry, but his comment about what if your MP refused to let you go see a specialist? Yes, and what if going to see a specialist would have saved your life and he wouldn’t let you go? These are questions for him, not a 19 year old kid. You’re much more charitable toward that guy than I would be, even if I had been a missionary under him.

I like SD’s list. It’s important to bear that in mind. A friend who was a bishop said that an alarmingly high % of members (between a third and half) turn down callings routinely, making it super difficult to keep a ward running, all classes with teachers, etc. I think we probably tend to think of the “legitimate” reasons (like on SD’s list) why people turn them down, and even Oaks said

“Some are not committed and faithful. It has always been so. But this is not without consequence.”

I think that’s true enough that some people will accept and not fulfill a calling (e.g. teachers who don’t show up) for lots of reasons that aren’t good ones:

1 – some people view certain callings that are necessary to the ward as beneath them personally. They only want something that they think makes them look good to others. (I know that when I was called to nursery, they had already had 3-4 people turn it down, and when I needed more helpers due to the large size of the class, many more turned it down). I know there are people who literally barter for callings they want: “I won’t do that, but if you called me to X, I would do a really great job.”

2 – some people accept things because they are people pleasers, but don’t take into account what they are getting into and then just don’t act on it. They over-commit (and under-deliver). They say yes to the bishop because then the bishop is happy and grateful, but then they don’t deliver, and nobody really takes them to task for it.

3 – some callings are frankly really nebulous with little instruction or get bogged down in bureaucracy. For example, you might be called to lead scouts, but then not given resources or budget to do the calling properly, or you might be called to do ward canning or preparedness and not have a clue what it even means or any instructions on what the ward goals are, or you may have a job that precludes you doing it on workdays. So much boils down to ward dynamics. People can feel like failures and not want to “volunteer” in some circumstances. I think the worst outcome is people just do the bare minimum in these circumstances. I think it’s far better to make your own goals and operate independently, despite incurring the wrath of a controlling bishop.

4 – Some people turn down a calling because they underestimate their abilities or they are just too intimidated by the calling to accept. I think these people are probably a valid audience for Oaks’ comments. People talk themselves out of serving because they are perfectionists. His talk is not well-written to that group of people, and someone should give them the encouragement they need. I think bishops generally try to talk people into things because so many underestimate what they can do. I always talk about what limitations I have (due to personal life, work/travel schedule, etc.), but I accept once they know my circumstances.

A good statistic I’d love for the church to track is TTF (time to fill callings – which probably indicate ward dynamics and leadership issues) and what % of callings are turned down (which may indicate some of the same or other causes).

It’s an interesting talk. Oaks is right that some people turn down callings for lack of commitment or don’t fulfill them for the same reason. SOME is the operative word. I don’t know that it’s even the majority. I think the majority turn them down due to pride and the second highest group due to perfectionism.

I like SD’s list. It’s important to bear that in mind. A friend who was a bishop said that an alarmingly high % of members (between a third and half) turn down callings routinely, making it super difficult to keep a ward running, all classes with teachers, etc. I think we probably tend to think of the “legitimate” reasons (like on SD’s list) why people turn them down, and even Oaks said

“Some are not committed and faithful. It has always been so. But this is not without consequence.”

I’m not committed and faithful, and the consequences are that the Church doesn’t get 100% of my time and energy. All I can say is “whatever…. [rolls eyes].” I’m committed to God and Jesus, and I am committed to doing what those diving beings reveal to me through the Holy Ghost. So the corporate Church can STFU, because I am actually doing what they raised me to do. I have no guilt about it. I do what I can. And often enough, my circles intersect with their circles, so we are on the same page. If not … well, we just aren’t. *Shrug*

Secondly,

If 33% to 50% of members turn down callings, and that makes it hard for the programs to run that need those callings, perhaps this is an example of the membership voting with their support. That’s what I think it says. Unwanted programs that don’t inspire people to participate, *OR* having so many “good” programs that it burns people out and they stop participating … perhaps those programs need to fail in the marketplace of Mormonism.

The Church manages things backwards too many times. They invent programs from the central/top hierarchy down, and then find out they don’t have the resources to make it happen, especially as you get farther and farther from the central Mormon cultural corridor where every five blocks is a ward and they have to invent callings to make sure everyone has one.

That backwards approach, in a volunteer organization, is bad business and should fail. Instead, measure the resources you have first (human resources, member commitment, etc.), and THEN make human resources budgeting decisions — prioritize what you are going to do, and make sure you DO IT GOOD!!!! instead of trying to implement the same cookie-cutter approach everywhere and assuming God will bless it and make everyone fall in line.

MY SOLUTION:

Plan less and do it better.

…do you think the brethren can actually stand up and say that? Or would you find that people would use this advice to duck callings out of sheer laziness? If you were a GA, how would you present “Philosophy of callings and releases 101” to the general membership in a way that engenders commitment, but also respects individual circumstances and free will? [By the way, I think Elder Wirthlin broached this subject a bit in Concern for the One].

I guess I just don’t have that much confidence in the supposed connection between the LDS Church and God, Jesus, “the truth”, etc.

I think this is the crux of the matter. And it has me wondering how the brethren can structure the Church experience to keep faith alive. WE know about scripture and prayer, but we find that with some people, that’s what causes the problems — they don’t find nourishment there all the time.

I don’t think the Church should require and depend on this level of commitment and unquestioning faith out of its average followers to begin with. There are Catholics that don’t believe half of what their church teaches but they continue to support it anyway simply because it’s a family tradition. Well maybe their grandchildren will get more out of the Catholic Church than they did. Meanwhile the LDS Church gives members the impression that they absolutely need to accept everything the Church says or else they might as well leave. To me Church leaders’ reactions to members not having callings look about the same as the way they typically react to seeing members that disobey the WoW or don’t have a testimony. Basically, it looks like they interpret this as a common first step toward falling away completely from the Church so because of this they want to try to make sure members have the right attitude about accepting callings and “enduring to the end” no matter what.

If you think about it, callings are one way to get many members to attend meetings when they don’t really feel like it because it exploits their sense of duty and then others expect them to be there. So rather than doing anything to improve the quality of the meetings the Church has relied on short cuts like this to get members to do what they want. What they should do instead in my opinion is step back and honestly consider why so many members were/are dissatisfied with the Church and whether this is really necessary to this extent or not. It looks like Joseph B. Wirthlin started to do this with his “Concern for the One” conference talk but then he ended up falling back into the old idea that members that fall away are all weak and/or wrong in one way or another because it couldn’t possibly be an indication that anything could ever be wrong with the Church. For example, look at the following quote:

To those who have strayed because of doctrinal concerns, we cannot apologize for the truth. We cannot deny doctrine given to us by the Lord Himself. On this principle we cannot compromise.

DA, I think that’s quite a few emotionally charged statements. I see where you are coming from…but don’t really think it is fair to the good people in leadership positions in most the wards I’ve been in…and I’ve been in a few I don’t care for.

Perhaps if I change a few words, I can agree with your statement this way:

If you think about it, callings are one way to get many members to attend meetings when they don’t really feel like it because it [fulfills] their sense of duty and then others expect them to be there. So [in addition to] doing anything to improve the quality of the meetings the Church has [tried] short cuts like this to [give] members what they want…[a friend, a responsibility, and nourishing by the good word.]

Was that too apologetic? 😳

Honestly tho, what does the Church gain by getting members to do what they want? Tithing? Do you really think that is their motive? Don’t you really think their motive is that it is to help the families? Perhaps they are wrong, but what do you honestly think their motives are?