- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was in HP group a few years ago and an ex-Bishop commented on how a woman approached him with 10 ways she could serve in the Ward for a calling. He said he told her that’s not the way it works — you serve where you are “called” (told to serve). I piped up and disagreed. I said that she was giving very important information about where her internal motivation lay, where her enthusiasm was, and how she could serve with joy and reliability. In telling her “That’s not the way it works” we are often consigning people to work in their areas of greatest weakness and lack of passion. And it means you often have to figure out how to release them when they don’t function.
What are your thoughts on this? Is the “serve where called” model a throwback to authoritarian leadership of the 50’s? Or should we be on a different model where people serve in the areas where there is the greatest enthusiasm?D&C 46 talks about spiritual gifts. Quote:For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
In my opinion, letting people follow their passions has a much better chance of matching up their god-given gift with a need in the church.
The assignment model is more concerned with staffing a position than it is with the individual. What do you do when there’s a calling no one wants or likes? You assign someone to do it.
I hear that nowadays more people are declining callings that in decades past. That’s not the way it works? Good luck with that plan because I get the feeling that approach isn’t going to be the way things work going into the future.
Allowing people to follow their passions is going to translate into callings going unfilled and programs that have to be discontinued but I’d question the need for such callings and programs if there’s no interest, no one with a passion to do them.
I would say the ex-bishop is right if callings actually were inspired from on high. But, I’ve seen too much to believe that’s where callings come from. The exception, maybe, but definitely not the rule. I think you were right with your comment. I would love to see callings work on a true volunteer, rather than a voluntold, basis. I can understand why the church won’t do that though.
If it was entirely based on people only accepting/asking for particular callings, you run the risk of callings remaining empty because nobody wants them. On the other end of that, you might get unhappy people from time to time when some else gets the calling they wanted. But those problems would solvable by having some mix of volunteering and assignments.
The problem for the church though, is that any amount of input from the person receiving the calling undermines the idea that callings are handed out by revelation. That’s why they’re called ‘callings’ after all. I don’t think it’s something that can/will change without some announcement from the prophet saying that we need to be more anxiously engaged in serving and not being compelled by a calling… or something like that that would justify the policy change.
nibbler wrote:
The assignment model is more concerned with staffing a position than it is with the individual. What do you do when there’s a calling no one wants or likes? You assign someone to do it.
Right. Is man made to staff the church or church made to serve man?PazamaManX wrote:
I would say the ex-bishop is right if callings actually were inspired from on high. But, I’ve seen too much to believe that’s where callings come from. The exception, maybe, but definitely not the rule.
About a year ago in Sunday school we had a lesson from a former stake leader and mission president and part of the lesson was that priesthood leaders can make honest mistakes and should be forgiven. I offered that this can apply to callings sometimes and I quoted a former Bishop of mine that said, “Some callings are inspiration and some callings are desperation.”The teacher strongly objected and said that in his experience extending a calling is the exception to the “priesthood leaders can make honest mistakes” rule. They are always inspired.
I found this so incredibly interesting. It seemed like an attempt to have it both ways. When the bishop extends a calling it is from God and should be accepted without question, but if you followed the bishop’s counsel on some other matter and it blew up in your face then “priesthood leaders can make honest mistakes.”
I wondered why there should be a specific carve out for callings. I speculate that this is to help ensure that ward jobs and roles continue to be adequately staffed.
PazamaManX wrote:
The problem for the church though, is that any amount of input from the person receiving the calling undermines the idea that callings are handed out by revelation.
I think there could be some precedent for accepting input from the individual as revelation. Since the days of JS, we have had councils in the the church that debate the proper solution to a course of action. The decision and the meeting minutes are considered revelation. It could be similar for individual members providing input. That also can be revelation. If God inspires you to share with your bishop the talents that you have and the places and ways in which you desire to serve – how is that not revelation?
Roy wrote:I think there could be some precedent for accepting input from the individual as revelation. Since the days of JS, we have had councils in the the church that debate the proper solution to a course of action. The decision and the meeting minutes are considered revelation. It could be similar for individual members providing input. That also can be revelation. If God inspires you to share with your bishop the talents that you have and the places and ways in which you desire to serve – how is that not revelation?
The church does do something similar in some select settings currently. On his first day, my mission president told the story of when he and his wife were called. They were in Eyring’s office, just sitting and talking about not very much for a while, mostly just shooting the breeze. Eventually, Eyring said that he had been “treading water” while he waited for the spirit and then proceeded to call them to lead my mission.
I don’t know how much of what my MP and wife said during the conversation was taken into consideration, but it is at least an example of the church being a little more open ended when giving someone a calling. Now, I doubt a bishop would be able to dedicate the time to sit with each member of the ward while he waited for inspiration of some sort. But, the church did release a short video a little while ago about the importance of councils. I could see them moving to give callings out in that style, and I think I’d personally prefer that too.
If someone asks me to serve in any responsibility, they get me – not someone they want me to be. I say that upfront, and I am fine being released if who I am does not fit whom they thought they were getting. I have no problem with anyone putting parameters on what they will do. I just make it clear I will suck at what I am being asked to do and let them make their decision and deal with the consequences.
I agree with what you all are saying here. I believe the church would be better served if it allowed people to choose what they’d like to do. As Pazama said, I think the inspiration for callings is the exception rather than the rule. The old “inspiration, desperation or relation” thing is more true than most will admit, with the last two having far greater weight. I do as OT says making it clear that if you call me you get me, but I also make it clear that if it’s something I don’t want to do I’m not going to put any effort into it. There are some church jobs I have no interest in.
One of the low points of GC for me was the part of Elder Gong’s talk where he got into callings. (Bolding is mine) Quote:May we remember, as President J. Reuben Clark taught, in the Lord’s Church we serve where called, “which place
one neither seeks nor declines.” When Sister Gong and I were married, Elder David B. Haight counseled: “
Always hold a calling in the Church. Especially when life is busy,” he said, “you need to feel the Lord’s love for those you serve and for you as you serve.” I promise that love is spoken here, there, and everywhere as we answer yes to Church leaders to servethe Lord in His Church by His Spirit and our covenants. Based on him saying that, particularly the bits I’ve put in bold, any changes we would like to see aren’t likely to happen anytime soon. Not that I was expecting any kind of change. It’s just unfortunate to see the same process remain entrenched.
It is a statement, not a command. I know of nobody who has been disciplined in any way for not accepting a calling. That’s true but when I was in the mindset of never saying no to a calling I never stopped to consider that the church wouldn’t try to take some disciplinary action against me if I declined. I think the harm comes from the belief that you’re disappointing god if you try to establish boundaries in that arena. I’m also not quite sure how that sort of thing works out when you’re going to a church school that requires an ecclesiastical endorsement. The issuer of the endorsement might take Gong’s remarks into consideration and not endorse someone that declines callings. Maybe that’s not different than the way things were before Gong’s statement.
All the same, it’s disappointing to hear that teaching renewed. Many times when the church makes a change they quietly stop teaching the old way and start teaching the new way. Maybe they don’t want to draw attention to some changes, who knows. It’s sad to hear the don’t decline callings teaching and the teaching that all young men have an obligation to serve a mission get renewed. Those two teachings would have best been left in the past. IMO they’re highly manipulative and put the organizational church before the mental health of the members.
Did I miss the part where it was explained how it came to be that Elder David B. Haight was counseling this couple at or near their wedding? I honestly am thoroughly unimpressed with the advice. I come to expect church leaders to convince people in new and creative ways to put the needs of the church first. I feel that this is their job. (I also recognize that they probably believe that putting the church’s needs first is also best in the long run for the individual [especially if we consider the “BIG” picture – for example “Think Celestial.”]) But even still the advice to give a newly married couple is to ALWAYS hold a calling??? Not exactly inspiring.
Too authoritative. The bishop should take everything into account in his decision making/inspiration. Ive had bishop’s that would completely ignore information because he was the head (and therefore was above outside influence), it actually kept him from receiving inspiration.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.