- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
I believe it might be better if I just show up and start serving with the Young Men and my son.
Yes…that approach is a good one to try.
Also…try to leave yourself an out or back door…they’ll want to get more and more from you…and if you sign up as a YM leader there is a commitment of weekly activities that may make it hard to not do without it causing problems…or maybe it isn’t the weekly part, but another expectation that goes with it. So…return to add what you want…and try to leave some wiggle room so you don’t go ALL IN, then ALL OUT, then ALL IN and cause yourself angst, and possibly your family.
Just one idea.
Heber13 wrote:SilentDawning wrote:I believe it might be better if I just show up and start serving with the Young Men and my son.
Yes…that approach is a good one to try.
Also…try to leave yourself an out or back door…they’ll want to get more and more from you…and if you sign up as a YM leader there is a commitment of weekly activities that may make it hard to not do without it causing problems…or maybe it isn’t the weekly part, but another expectation that goes with it. So…return to add what you want…and try to leave some wiggle room so you don’t go ALL IN, then ALL OUT, then ALL IN and cause yourself angst, and possibly your family.
Just one idea.
I am actually favoring this approach — let them know I will do one activity a month. No teaching, no Ward council meetings, etcetera — so maybe Bishop, it’s best if I just serve on an assignment basis?? VERY COMFORTABLE…
Hi Silent, I don’t see your question as confrontational.
🙂 I say that you cannot tell them what calling you want because of the culture.A few months ago, my Bishop told me that I should have a calling. I said, “Great, as long as it’s not in nursery”. (I am not fond of kids that age). And he said, “I never had someone tell me what calling they would or would not take”. My response was, “Well, I just did”.
You should definitely go back on YOUR terms. I wish we could choose where we would like to serve and what programs work for us as an individual. I know I will not take a calling that I would HATE.
I wish you luck. I love the Gospel (not necessarily the church) and I hope it works for you.
Merry Christmas!!!!!
BuffetMormon wrote:A few months ago, my Bishop told me that I should have a calling. I said, “Great, as long as it’s not in nursery”. (I am not fond of kids that age). And he said, “I never had someone tell me what calling they would or would not take”. My response was, “Well, I just did”.
:clap: Nicely done!I think there should be an interview process for all open positions in the church. Otherwise how does a leader really
knowthe talents & interests of the members. I don’t believe that by praying alone you get answers about who should serve in a specific position.
We had a PH lesson once about callings & I asked the question, is it ever appropriate to turn down a calling?
Our future Bishop said absolutely.
Heber13 wrote:BuffetMormon wrote:A few months ago, my Bishop told me that I should have a calling. I said, “Great, as long as it’s not in nursery”. (I am not fond of kids that age). And he said, “I never had someone tell me what calling they would or would not take”. My response was, “Well, I just did”.
:clap: Nicely done!I have no compunction about telling my Bishop where I want to serve. I think the fact that we conscript people is part of the reason so many members get burned out or lack commitment.
I think its symptomatic of the problem in the church that we are even debating with Bishops about whether people should share where they want to serve…
SilentDawning wrote:I think its symptomatic of the problem in the church that we are even debating with Bishops about whether people should share where they want to serve…
Where do you think that comes from?
My guess is that it is a few of factors:
1) Authority: Church is trying to setup the organization with leaders that stand and represent God and Jesus, they shouldn’t be worshipped, but it is almost a model or practice to have someone be that authority and we should be willing to submit and be humble to go and do what the Lord is asking us to do, sometimes when we don’t want to. “How would we act if God himself asked us to go back and get Brass Plates?” That gospel principle lays a foundation to justify the bishopric or stake leaders to encourage members to accept calls and do what needs to be done, because….it helps the person do things they sometimes don’t want to do, it helps them serve and have a “whatever” attitude for the faithful. It helps them sustain leaders and inspiration from leaders with faith God may be involved. Apart from the calling of cub scouts…what is the attitude to receive a call?
2) Ease: It just takes so much more effort and time to try to figure out who wants to do what, and who can be willing to give in to allow others to do some things so everyone isn’t wanting the same callings. Bishops are either lazy or simply don’t have the time to find out what everyone wants to do. So there is a practical approach also…”we need someone in nursery..someone has to do it…please just do it for us even if you don’t get excited about it”.
3) Stretch/growth: Sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know…and have fears about doing a certain calling, but with support and faith, a person can learn to grow into things and find things like a talk in sacrament is painful but afterwards is rewarding, or a calling to be a ward missionary can make you wince, but actually lead to learning some things about yourself.
What do you think? Are these valid reasons we “debate it with bishops”?
Of course, these would all be from the side of church leaders and why they justify their approach. There are appropriate responses we can also protect our needs, but perhaps acknowledge why they approach it like they do…which in my experience goes beyond control and power, although it feels that way sometimes.
Heber13 wrote:SilentDawning wrote:I think its symptomatic of the problem in the church that we are even debating with Bishops about whether people should share where they want to serve…Where do you think that comes from?
My guess is that it is a few of factors:
1) Authority: Church is trying to setup the organization with leaders that stand and represent God and Jesus, they shouldn’t be worshipped, but it is almost a model or practice to have someone be that authority and we should be willing to submit and be humble to go and do what the Lord is asking us to do, sometimes when we don’t want to.
For me, this is a key component — authoritarianism. It’s the leadership style that dominates the church, probably started many many decades ago. Research shows that an authoritarian, controlling style can be effective in certain circumstances. But with volunteers? I find it a stretch.
The argument that it’s akin to doing what God wants us to do, and therefore teaches us humility has some merit, but not a lot in my view — not unless it truly is God’s will. And the number of times I’ve prayed about callings and realized they were just trying to get a bum in a chair, has me convinced it’s often out of organizational convenience that people get called.
The other issue is faith in Authority — someone once said that once you put a dent in that belief, much of our theology and culture unravels before our eyes. I am not as convinced in the church’s authority any longer…I still have respect for it, but I am not as testimony-firm as i once was, and am open to the fact that in the next life, many Mormons may well get a big surprise.
Quote:what is the attitude to receive a call?
A balanced perspective. One that starts with willingness, but then recognizes the realities of a person’s unique set of talents, situation, and other factors leaders can’t always know about. An attitude that says “this may be good for the church, but is this truly something I would feel passionate about? Can I really commit to this? What education must I do of our bishopric to help them see where my skills, talents and motivation really belong?
The church’s approach is skewed toward the church. I’ve seen it over and over again. A year ago, our new Bishop called me and asked me to be his Exec Sec. He knew nothing about my own personal desires, my interest in leadership, my new philosophy about how to interact with volunteers in a co-missioning way — all he saw was someone with enough talent to do the job, and asked me to do it — without any research or discussion about where I might be at, at this time. This is a good example of a the wrong way to call someone, in my view.
Also remember – D&C talks about talents, and how people have different ones — leaders who make calls without considering talents miss out on the blessings of the D^C or BoM (can’t remember) section on talents and their purpose.
2)
Quote:Ease
What is easy, is not always effective. Don’t confuse willingness with competence either…it takes work to get the right people in the right places, it sure does, but the rewards are great in terms of results, frustration saved later on, and the respect volunteers feel for their own agency.
I can live with the “pick em based on our Ward’s needs approach — but only if we lop off the “never say no to a calling” value that permeates MOrmon culture. At least giving people agency to serve where they want, without ostracizing them or looking down on them, acts as a filter for bad calls.
Quote:3) Stretch/growth: Sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know…and have fears about doing a certain calling, but with support and faith, a person can learn to grow into things and find things like a talk in sacrament is painful but afterwards is rewarding, or a calling to be a ward missionary can make you wince, but actually lead to learning some things about yourself.
I think it’s great when people see potential in us. And ask us to do things — but again, don’t lop off the agency to say no through cultural norms that indicate we should say “yes” no matter what calling is extended to us.
Quote:What do you think? Are these valid reasons we “debate it with bishops”?
Mostly valid, but with qualification that gives volunteers the right to say no, without impunity.
Quote:Of course, these would all be from the side of church leaders and why they justify their approach. There are appropriate responses we can also protect our needs, but perhaps acknowledge why they approach it like they do…which in my experience goes beyond control and power, although it feels that way sometimes.
[/quote]
Really good leaders inspire others to service. They get to know the talents and needs of their followers. They have a keen sense of vision and know organizational needs, and they elicit strong commitment from the people they are leading. If they CAN’T raise support for certain issues, sure they can try to get bums in chairs, but they need to inspire people to take those chairs and commit. It is work, it takes judgment, it takes respect for volunteers’ agency. Much of that is missing in our system of mandated calls and releases.
If you can’t go into the Bishop and say “I notice there is a hole in this auxiliary, and I feel passionate about serving in that capacity — could you and the Bishopric consider calling me to this position?”. A balanced approach is what is necessary, and the fact that you can’t have conversations like this shows a deficit in the way our church staffs its positions, in my view.
I think its symptomatic of the problem in the church that we are even debating with Bishops about whether people should share where they want to serve…SilentDawning, you are so right.
Here is the problem. Boyd K. Packer said (April 1999 General Conference):Bishops are inspired! Each of us has agency to accept or reject counsel from our leaders, but never disregard the counsel of your bishop, whether given over the pulpit or individually, and never turn down a call from your bishop. There sure are reasons to turn down a calling. Perhaps he could have said, “Careful consideration and prayer should be given when offered a calling”. Yes, Bishops are inspired, but I don’t think they are always right. Sometimes it is just…. hey, we need a nursery teacher and so-and-so doesn’t have a calling.
Last school year, a new Seminary teacher was called. He was awful. The kids (including my son) did not like Seminary as taught by him. He would just read from the manual, have his wife do the lesson, have a student do the lesson or just teach for 10 minutes and let everyone play on their phone.I know my son was not lying because I heard it from the other mothers. About half way through the school year, I let my son stop going. My son was getting up at 5am for this? Towards the end of the school year, it became known that he never wanted the calling, but “never turn down a calling”. Wouldn’t it have been better for everyone involved if he had?
Why does the church have to be so black-and-white? NEVER turn down a calling? NEVER? Come on!!!!!
Boyd K. Packer also said that the Church is meant to serve the members not the members being meant to staff the Church. We tend to remember what stands out and shocks us the most at any given moment, and we tend to gloss over and even forget the things with which we agree or that don’t shock us in the moment. It’s human nature, but it also is not conducive to peace.
Old-Timer wrote:Boyd K. Packer also said that the Church is meant to serve the members not the members being meant to staff the Church.
We tend to remember what stands out and shocks us the most at any given moment, and we tend to gloss over and even forget the things with which we agree or that don’t shock us in the moment. It’s human nature, but it also is not conducive to peace.
Ray — what you say may be true, but regrettably, Boyd K, Packer’s “Unwritten Order of Things” is the prevailing culture in our church. I have been guilty of glossing over his statement in WWW training that leaders should NOT see members as simply units to staff the church, and that the church is there to serve the members, and not the other way around. All great steps toward correcting the culture of conscription that conscious engineering (I believe) caused — with him as one of the proponents.
It will take more than a couple comments in leadership training to turn the ship toward a church that really does put its members more “firstly” than it currently does. I do not think the inmates should run the asylumn, but in this case, there is room for improvement.
Buffet’s story about the person they called to teach his son is a great case in point. If you really want dedicated volunteers, you MUST go deeper than getting their initial acceptance of the calling out of guilt of cultural norms. Even people who are INTERESTED in the calling often turn away after putting one hand on the plow. There is a better way, and our church is not there yet. That part of the experience — recruitment and retention of volunteers — is one part that needs significant change. So therapeutic for me to be trying to right that wrong in my own circle, no matter how small…
No argument, SD – but it is important to point out the complexity of things that too often are over-simplified. As is the case with everything, this shows that even the most orthodox Mormons are cafeteria members in a very real way. There are enough conflicting statements, even from the same leaders over time, that picking and choosing what to accept is the only option – and that is even more clear when canonized scripture is added to the equation.
We all do it, but many members (especially on the orthodox, conservative side of the mid-point) just don’t understand they are doing it.
Old-Timer wrote:As is the case with everything, this shows that even the most orthodox Mormons are cafeteria members in a very real way. There are enough conflicting statements, even from the same leaders over time, that picking and choosing what to accept is the only option – and that is even more clear when canonized scripture is added to the equation.
Agreed. And I think that works well for the individual trying to stay active through mental self-conditioning etcetera. However, at some point, one’s personal beliefs will clash with the prevailing culture. What does a person do at that point? They have now experienced direct conflict with their personal beliefs, their inner peace with NOT accepting callings for which they feel they are a bad fit (notwithstanding the leaders statement the call was inspired)….and may even experience ostracization, as I did after backing out of my HPGL calling….then what?
Worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience – which is as close to a creed as we have.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.