- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been stewing a lot about future church participation post COVID, and I don’t have any answers yet. I have also been under a lot of stress due to family stuff. I am currently the R.S. teacher – who teaches 1x a month via Zoom and the Achievement Day leader – who also teaches 1x a month via Zoom. We don’t do virtual Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School. I teach R.S. and attend the other R.S. meeting about 1/2 the time. We haven’t done any of the “Come Follow Me” or the Primary Fireside that was presented last month. So, I was really surprised when the Branch President called and left a message on my phone wanting to talk to me. I was worried that it would be a) a call to repentance re attendance, b) a calling, c) a talk request. So I waited a few days and he called back and left another message on my phone.
I texted him back with some concern stating that I would prefer text or email regarding his request. My concern increased when he said he wanted to insist on either in-person or Zoom format.
So, I texted him back stating that if it was a calling or a talk, the answer was “No” because we are not back in church yet, and I don’t know how transitioning my children is going to go (it is known that I have an additional needs family member who needs additional transition support that I am best qualified to provide).
Of course, I got a return text that was slightly hurt – I was breaking at least 1 culture rule – and he is a on the rule-abiding side as a person.
He said that it was a 3rd calling into co-teaching in Primary and if that changed anything (which it didn’t). What he did not tell me was that it would be co-teaching the class that my daughter would be attending (and from his description I thought it was the class below hers). I texted back that it didn’t change anything (because it didn’t), but that I would be happy to be the 2nd adult in the class provided that a) I was at church, b) I wasn’t teaching R.S., and c) that neither daughter needed me in their class at the time.
So, we finished off the conversation with no conflict. I had set boundaries, and provided what resources I had to support him in supporting Primary within those boundaries.
I still feel vulnerable – I got on their radar enough that they would ask about the 3rd calling, and I pinged their radar again when I broke the rules via calling issuance… And most of the “active” sisters in my branch have more and heavier duty callings then I do.
Here’s the thing – I am getting a lot of feedback regarding why the leadership even offered the 3rd calling – which is something I didn’t even consider.
A lot of the more faithful people I talk to are surprised regarding its existence. So I guess it was culturally acceptable to dodge the actual calling in general?
SIDE NOTE: Evidently, there is a strong push from some of the larger families to resume in-person services to the degree possible (which I get). So, the leadership is trying to figure out how to “return to normal” with the higher level maximum capacity limits issued by the state and start to provide 2nd hour services – hence the need for Primary teachers.
We are not in that category of family because my 4 year old has never met anyone she didn’t want to hug (culturally acceptable COVID reason), and I am not sure that I am going to go back (culturally unacceptable reason).
I love your boundaries, you sound as paranoid as me 
I would love to have almost any calling at Church, so the fact that you have many sounds like they value you in your branch. Sometimes we just have to jump into things with a personal contract with ourselves that if it’s not working for us, we can always opt out because……..it’s voluntary.
AmyJ wrote:
A lot of the more faithful people I talk to are surprised regarding its existence. So I guess it was culturally acceptable to dodge the actual calling in general?
I would like some clarification here. Are people surprised that the calling exists or that you might be asked to fulfill it along side the two other callings that you are already doing?
AmyJ wrote:
most of the “active” sisters in my branch have more and heavier duty callings then I do.
I do feel bad for the people that are shouldering an inordinate part of the burden. I also feel that I could wear myself out in church callings and it would never be enough. There would always be more to do and not enough people to do it. I conclude that it is the system that expects so much of the members that is the problem and I really have no control over that. I can only set boundaries that preserve my mental health and work/family/life/church balance.I think the other half of this is that setting these boundaries is usually not validated in our cultural environment. We are not very far removed from a time when it was considered taboo to turn down any calling. There will always be those that see my boundaries as a sign of being lazy or uncommitted. Part of my struggle to StayLDS is in coping with that judgment.
Ebowalker wrote:
Sometimes we just have to jump into things with a personal contract with ourselves that if it’s not working for us, we can always opt out because……..it’s voluntary.
I personally feel that it is more advisable to decline a calling than to accept one and then back out later. It feels to me like it would expend less social capital. For this reason, I try to find out as much as I can about a potential calling and get my conditions up front (like I need to work with my spouse as a team or I can only do the parts of this calling that do not require Sunday attendance).The subject of a different thread but should any ward in the continental US even be remotely considering starting up Primary again? I get it, there’s a growing push to get people back to church and to get church back to normal but small children don’t currently have a vaccination option and kids aren’t as careful as adults (okay, some adults) when it comes to preventing the spread of illness. I’m guessing the need for Primary stems from having to stick the kids somewhere while the adults and youth attend their classes. AmyJ wrote:
My concern increased when he said he wanted to insist on either in-person or Zoom format.
A part of that is tradition, a part of that is probably because leaders know it’s harder to say no in person and/or it’s easier to work on a person to get them to change their mind when communicating face-to-face. I wouldn’t worry about it, communicate with them in whatever way you feel comfortable. If they want to communicate with you in a way that makes your feel uncomfortable; it’s on them to change. They want something from you so the onus is on them to accommodate.
In defense of your branch president…
Unfortunately it’s not uncommon for people in branches to have two or three callings. When I was in a branch it wasn’t unusual for the same person to give a talk during SM, teach the lesson during SS, and teach the lesson during PH on the same Sunday (when it was the 3 hour block).
It’s also not uncommon to ask parents to teach classes that their children attend, so it could be as simple as that.
You sound like one of your branch’s doers and it sounds like your branch president thinks highly of you. They don’t typically extend a third calling to people they don’t think highly of, they just give someone that already has three callings a fourth.
Roy wrote:
I think the other half of this is that setting these boundaries is usually not validated in our cultural environment. We are not very far removed from a time when it was considered taboo to turn down any calling. There will always be those that see my boundaries as a sign of being lazy or uncommitted. Part of my struggle to StayLDS is in coping with that judgment.
Well said.
Roy wrote:I would like some clarification here. Are people surprised that the calling exists or that you might be asked to fulfill it along side the two other callings that you are already doing?
That I was asked at all after not being in church sacrament meeting in over a year. The leadership (oblivious to my faith transition) knows I have 2 kids in the system and thinks that I might be willing to help. One of my probable friends is the Primary President.
And I spent a good year in nursery when I was at church. And I sit in classes with my oldest and help when I can – it just won’t work as an official calling with attendance expectations.
Having been in branches and currently living in a very small ward (which would not have made ward status today) I know we all wear multiple hats – except those who don’t. It seems like in any ward it’s a few who do all the work, but I think it sticks out more in small units. As I look around my own ward and consider the hats I have refused to wear I see others who have little to nothing to do and realize it’s mostly because they too have refused other hats. That can be a whole other multi-faceted topic though. With the above in mind, it does surprise me a bit that they would think about conflicting callings. Primary and RS are at the same time in real life church, which is going to return sooner than later. You wouldn’t be able to do both. Like Roy’s similar post about a calling, the cynical side of me takes over. Cynical me, which tends to be the most outspoken me of late, says they’re trying to make sure you come back by giving you a calling where you’re with your children. Cynical me also says they will keep piling on until you say no.
(Note that I had composed this earlier but somehow didn’t submit
🙄 )
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.