- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been assigned to extend a stake calling to an individual in my own ward. The assignment is to be completed by Sunday. I know this individual will be in church Sunday (barring sickness or unforeseen circumstances). I’ve had no problem in the past extending such calls, but this week I’ve been thinking about whether it is better to make an appointment with the person or just pull them aside at church. Either way I intend to accomplish the task during, before, or after church meetings. If I call ahead, the person has time to think to mentally prepare (and perhaps fret), but just catching the person in church might seem like an ambush. Were the shoe on the other foot I would be torn – notification gives me time to come up with reasons why I could or couldn’t do whatever it is (depending on what it is) but no warning doesn’t allow me to fret. FWIW this individual is about as TBM as they come and if I told this person the SP had prayed about it and God’s will was for them to take of their shoes and start walking to Missouri right now, they’d do it – so I’m not worried at all that the answer would be no. What are your preferences – prior appointment (not more than the evening before in this case) or surprise? The short answer, it depends on the person. One method I don’t appreciate is when a leader like a BP, SP, or HC calls with the intention of setting up an appointment to talk on Sunday, no further details given. All that does is create anxiety. What’s going on? Is it a calling? What is the calling going to be? Who has been released recently? Who has been in their calling for a long time? I bet it’s this calling. I bet it’s that calling. When Sunday arrives it’s all you can think about and it distracts you from being able to feel the spirit. The anticipation can do more damage to the reverence of a meeting than people talking loudly ever could. So I wouldn’t do that.
Me, I hate surprises… but receiving a new calling is not the kind of surprise I hate. I hate the surprises that require you to drop everything because immediate action is required. In the church context, the all to frequent telephone calls from the missionaries that need an exchange in 15 minutes. Receiving a new calling doesn’t fall into that category because the transition into the “do” phase of the request is not immediate. It doesn’t force me to rearrange my plans, the calling will still be there tomorrow so I have time to process the request. Just be aware that some people hate surprises and you might be surprised by what surprises them.
Allow me to unnecessarily compare your situation to a couple having a baby. Do you want to find out what the gender is before they are born or do you want it to be a surprise? Me (I’m broken BTW), it’s still a surprise whether you find out the gender as soon as possible or if you find out on the day they are born. You didn’t know something before, you know something now, the timing is largely irrelevant. If you are the doctor doing the ultrasound you might want to know what the couple’s preferences are before you go blurting out the gender.
Ha. Maybe discovering the gender of a child works as an analogy after all. You might have a strong preference for having a girl or boy but your preference makes absolutely no difference, you get what you get!
Nibbler are you saying that if I do make an appointment with the person that I indicate it’s to extend a calling? I get what you’re saying about the appointment (it’s what I meant about fretting) and I was there recently in my own new calling – the SP did make an appointment the day before and I did go through the process you describe. Interestingly, I don’t ever recall having had such an appointment made where the leader told me what the appointment was about – but I don’t know why we can’t or wouldn’t. On the other hand, telling the person it’s about a calling only takes some of the fretting out of the equation – the rest of the stuff you mention is still there (FWIW this is not publicly open calling, it’s one someone has been released from but that announcement won’t come until the new person is sustained). DJ, It really depends on the person you are calling, and most of the time, it won’t be obvious which way they would prefer it. For me, I’ve been annoyed by appointments and I’ve been annoyed by being pulled to the side unexpectedly, if I have someething else I’m already doing, so really, there’s no right answer. But one thing you could consider doing to ease either situation is to start off by saying you are there to issue a call from the stake president, but that you don’t want him to answer during your meeting. Set a specific time for him to call you with his answer (or any followup discussion). That way it’s not “Hi, Jim, I need you to make a decision right now that will affect your lifestyle for the next 3 years… ready?… now!”
My husband is as TBM as they come, and he HATES being extended a calling 10 minutes before it is announced in sacrament meeting. It doesn’t really make sense that once the bishopric or whomever has decided that they are going to all, they don’t let that person know right away. Why should they sit on it for a week in the Internet age when communication is easier now than it’s ever been in human history? Cynically, I think there’s an element of social pressure – a person is asked ten minutes before sacrament begins is more likely to say yes, rather than “I need to think about it,” because obviously things are in place that would be thrown out of whack if consent wasn’t given immediately (we HATE to make waves). It’s easier to get people to agree to things if you put them on the spot. (And while that may not be true in all situations, it’s certainly true in many – and shows what a skewed relationship we have between the membership and the leadership of the Church.)
On Own Now wrote:DJ,
It really depends on the person you are calling, and most of the time, it won’t be obvious which way they would prefer it. For me, I’ve been annoyed by appointments and I’ve been annoyed by being pulled to the side unexpectedly, if I have someething else I’m already doing, so really, there’s no right answer. But one thing you could consider doing to ease either situation is to start off by saying you are there to issue a call from the stake president, but that you don’t want him to answer during your meeting. Set a specific time for him to call you with his answer (or any followup discussion). That way it’s not “Hi, Jim, I need you to make a decision right now that will affect your lifestyle for the next 3 years… ready?… now!”
Good point OON, I , too, have been annoyed by both scenarios – that’s why I asked because I don’t know if it’s just me or if there is a general preference for one or the other. Also, I am clearly not one to expect an immediate answer and I always say, even if I do know the answer right then, that I want to think and pray about it before I give an answer. In my current calling I didn’t have to ask for that, the SP simply made it that way by saying we would meet again in a few days (given that was partly because he had some misgivings himself). FWIW, I did know then and there what my answer was, partly because I had been “inspired” (if you will) about what calling he was about to extend. I full well expect that this individual would decline such an offer (as I said, very TBM) and even if given would be calling me back very soon. But again, I do recognize that this is not the case for everyone.
What I’m saying is that if someone is calling me to extend a calling just go ahead and spill the beans during the call. Don’t keep me guessing all week. That’s just me though, I don’t need the face to face, some do. To me an ambush is an ambush regardless of whether it takes place over the phone or in person. In my crazy world there’s no way for it not to be an ambush. Why is an unexpected phone call any different than being pulled aside in the hallway at church? It’s not a bad thing, it’s just the nature of the beast.
So what I was getting at is that I don’t like the anticipation that comes over the delayed reveal. The ambush to tell me they have some mysterious thing to tell me in a few days. Ok, I’ve been ambushed, just tell me right then and there what this is all about.
I do agree that it’s good to give people time. Perhaps a hybrid: tell me the calling over the phone, give me time to think about it, and let me know this Sunday. But that’s me. I think it probably doesn’t matter to most people.
Joni wrote:My husband is as TBM as they come, and he HATES being extended a calling 10 minutes before it is announced in sacrament meeting.
It doesn’t really make sense that once the bishopric or whomever has decided that they are going to all, they don’t let that person know right away. Why should they sit on it for a week in the Internet age when communication is easier now than it’s ever been in human history? Cynically, I think there’s an element of social pressure – a person is asked ten minutes before sacrament begins is more likely to say yes, rather than “I need to think about it,” because obviously things are in place that would be thrown out of whack if consent wasn’t given immediately (we HATE to make waves). It’s easier to get people to agree to things if you put them on the spot. (And while that may not be true in all situations, it’s certainly true in many – and shows what a skewed relationship we have between the membership and the leadership of the Church.)
I’m not very TBM and I hate that, too. That is not the case in this scenario – the beauty of a stake calling. The sustaining won’t take place for a week or two. Theoretically it’s supposed to happen in a week, in my experience I’m not sure the stake is capable of logistically making that happen. Actually, I think the stake is capable, it just doesn’t usually work out that way. As you mention, with modern technology how hard can it be to assign the required number of HC or SP members to be in the units on any given day to perform this quick task? there are more of us than there are units.
nibbler wrote:What I’m saying is that if someone is calling me to extend a calling just go ahead and spill the beans during the call. Don’t keep me guessing all week. That’s just me though, I don’t need the face to face, some do.
To me an ambush is an ambush regardless of whether it takes place over the phone or in person. In my crazy world there’s no way for it not to be an ambush. Why is an unexpected phone call any different than being pulled aside in the hallway at church? It’s not a bad thing, it’s just the nature of the beast.
Unfortunately, I think beyond saying that the appointment is to extend a calling (which is iffy) I’m pretty sure it is against protocol to actually extend the call over the phone under normal circumstances. My assignment is to actually meet with the individual, as were all of the similar assignments given at the last meeting. The SP actually asked us if we were going to be in the given unit that day (or sometimes asked who was going to be in a unit) so that we could meet in person.
DarkJedi wrote:
I’m not very TBM and I hate that, too. That is not the case in this scenario – the beauty of a stake calling. The sustaining won’t take place for a week or two. Theoretically it’s supposed to happen in a week, in my experience I’m not sure the stake is capable of logistically making that happen. Actually, I think the stake is capable, it just doesn’t usually work out that way. As you mention, with modern technology how hard can it be to assign the required number of HC or SP members to be in the units on any given day to perform this quick task? there are more of us than there are units.My husband’s calling is a stake calling too, and he was called on a Saturday night and asked to meet with the stake high council member at 8:50 the next morning. He knew he was being expected to accept a calling right then and there because the stake HC member wouldn’t be back again for a while (long story short, we have been gerrymandered to a stake we don’t really belong in geographically). I was surprised to see my husband disgruntled about it, but he’s right – the convencience of the person extending the calling shouldn’t override the convenience of the person extending it.
I honestly don’t know why callings have to be made in person. It’s not in the HB2, though maybe it’s in HB1? Anyone know? Or is just a weird cultural relic? The last time I got a calling, the 2nd counselor spent an entire Saturday afternoon driving around in a suit and tie handing out callings. I know this counselor pretty well and I know he travels for work, and his Saturday afternoons are better spent with his family. Personally, I’m not happy with a system that takes a man away from his family for 4-5 hours when he could just as easily spent an hour on the phone in his bedroom and then take the kids out for ice cream or something.
Joni wrote:The last time I got a calling, the 2nd counselor spent an entire Saturday afternoon driving around in a suit and tie handing out callings. I know this counselor pretty well and I know he travels for work, and his Saturday afternoons are better spent with his family. Personally, I’m not happy with a system that takes a man away from his family for 4-5 hours when he could just as easily spent an hour on the phone in his bedroom and then take the kids out for ice cream or something.
Very good point – which is why I intend to do this at church and within or close to the three hour block.
And, I don’t know why extending a call in person is standard, either. I assume it has to do with giving it a very personal touch and perhaps has something to do with spiritual witness? A spiritual witness is how I knew this calling was right for me right now – and it came in the interview, even though I have in the past had to take the time to get the witness, or in lieu of a witness (which has happened) just decide if I wanted to do it or not. Then again, maybe it’s just harder to say no in person.
An interesting little side note here: I attended another ward’s bishopric meeting recently and they had several open callings and several people without callings. They put this all up on the board, but divided the people into groups of “likely to accept a calling” and “maybe won’t accept a calling.” I’ve not seen that done before and I appreciated that they understood that not everyone is just going to do something because they’re asked. Likewise during the discussion, there was some discussion about whether certain individuals might not accept one calling as opposed to another. FWIW, and for those who have never experienced this type of inner working, there was one specific calling that one individual name stood out for – that calling was not on the list of those open.
Since our faith transition we have chosen to ask on the phone what the matter is regarding. It really is courteous to tell someone, “Can we have a few minutes, we have a calling/assignment we would like to extend to you?” From my chair, a simple phone call would be the best. DarkJedi wrote:What are your preferences – prior appointment (not more than the evening before in this case) or surprise?
I didn’t read all the replies, but my take is: Make an appointment. Be clear that it is to talk about a calling, so at least the person isn’t fretting that they’re in trouble. I think that saying, “We’d like to talk with you” isn’t sufficient. As a courtesy between grown-ups the person asking for the meeting should state his business. When people say that it can’t be done that way in case the meeting reveals that the person isn’t able/worthy/accepting of the calling. So what really is the harm done? The person who asked for the meeting can just say, “I’m glad we talked. I have a feeling that a different calling, or a different time, will be better for all,” or something like that.
I don’t like all the drama that is whipped up with mysterious calls from the bishop/stake president.
My thoughts have evolved over the years, and I now favor the following: A phone call telling the person that you have been asked to meet with the person about whether they would be willing to serve as ___________________ – followed immediately, before the person can respond, with a request for them to think and pray about it before you talk with them whenever. (In your case, that would be on Sunday, with the person knowing they are expected to give an answer at that point.) I believe in saying something like:
Quote:“We want you to talk about this with your spouse (including telling the spouse exactly what the calling is), think about it and pray about it. We aren’t asking you to accept it automatically, so I will talk with you on Sunday to answer any specific questions you might have and, hopefully, get your decision, one way or the other.”
Overall, I believe in talking about a possible calling, giving the person time to think about it, then “extending the calling” only if the person is willing to accept it. In other words, the extension of the calling is nothing more than the formal step of getting an official answer once the acceptance is expressed. Everything up to that point is preparation and consideration.
In that situation, nobody EVER has to “turn down” a calling, since it hasn’t been “extended” yet.As a former church volunteer who felt rather used by the organization, I would err on the side of respect for the volunteer. I would go the appointment route, and give a preview of what you want, without breaking church protocol and telling them over the phone the exact calling. Indicate you would like to meet with them in person to discuss a calling in the church. If there is a spouse, invite them to be present as well, whether the person being called is male or female.
For certain people this may not be necessary, but if you aren’t sure, as I said, err on the side of respect, allowing them to prepare, etcetera.
Good luck, and thanks for thinking so carefully about this. It boosts my faith in priesthood leadership.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.