- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Your description is probably how it’s going to work, SD. In this particular case, by virtue of callings the spouse is already aware of the coming calling, although I do like to ascertain spousal support for everyone. These people are both very TBM, I’ve known them for the entire 25 years I have lived here, and I quite literally likely don’t even have to say what the calling is and either would accept. I get what you’re saying Ray, and it makes some sense. However, I find myself trying to be ever so careful to not draw attention to things that may make me look like a radical, and I fear breaking protocol might just do that. I really do believe God wants me where I am because I do believe I have a message to give – and I don’t want the human nature of leaders to get in the way. I think my SP recognizes that I have a message and has given a wink and nod, but I am also fully well aware that this is not my primary responsibility nor can I really say what I think and believe. I certainly think I can get away with “Wow, wasn’t that talk by Pres. Uchtdorf great?” but not “I only watched Pres. Uchtdorf because the rest of the guys irritate me sometimes.” While it’s clear the SP would like that I listen to all of them, he understands why I don’t – but others, including his counselors, the HC and bishops, probably don’t. Thank you, God, for BYUTV and the Mormon Channel!
If the issue is telling the person what the calling is in advance, don’t do it – but if I am going to tell them the nature of the calling when I talk with them in person, I always tell them that it is totally fine if they take a day or two to talk about it and let me know what their decision is. I’ve had that happen with me as the person who was being asked to serve in a calling, and it’s amazing the difference in how it feels – even in cases where I accepted gladly on the spot. Just the courtesy of being asked meant a lot. There absolutely is no protocol that says that can’t or shouldn’t happen – and I am adamantly opposed to the assumptive model that feels like compulsion when the interview happens right before the meeting where the sustaining is to occur. It’s like whenever I was at the pulpit announcing new callings and asking for a sustaining vote. Every time I got to the part about asking if anyone was opposed, I very clearly looked around the room carefully and then looked behind and around me on the stand. I made it a point to look at everyone in the room – and to make it very obvious that I was doing so. Those are different scenarios, but they both involve the right to say, “No” – and nobody could complain that I was breaking a rule in any way by doing do.
To me, it’s all about true respect for one’s right and ability to think about a calling and say no for whatever reason – and that is a very important concept to me. Many times, an answer can be given on the spot – but I don’t like making that assumption about all cases and creating a situation in which the other person feels pressured to respond immediately.
With good planning, there is no need for that.So, in this case, with what you have said, I would contact the person in advance, say that you would like to talk about a possible calling and set up the time to do so. After explaining what the calling is, I then would ask if they need time to talk about it and, if so, how much. I can’t imagine any leader having a problem with that, and I see no protocol that would be violated.
I should add that not actually extending the calling until after the person has indicated they would accept it is something I learned from one of the best Stake Presidency members I’ve known in my life.
He was as orthodox as it gets, but he valued informed consent highly and simply refused to violate it. I should have clarified that I have no problem allowing the individual time to think about it and not extending the calling on the spot. The option has been offered to me in the past and I have also taken the option when it hasn’t been offered. In fact, in my current calling the SP and I talked about the call (and worthiness), he didn’t extend the call and said he would contact me again within a week, I emailed him about my willingness the next day (since I knew on the spot, but it was still nice to think about it more) and we met again two days after that where he did extend the call. I’m not sure I’d get away with telling the person what the calling is on the phone beforehand, though. Looking at the way such assignments are made in the HC (here at least) it appears as though they try to assign someone who lives in the ward/branch and knows the individual, which would accommodate a scenario like that described above. Were I assigned to assign a call to someone I don’t know in a branch an hour’s drive away it might not be as easy. Quote:I’m not sure I’d get away with telling the person what the calling is on the phone beforehand, though.
I understand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.