Refusing Callings

[Anonymous]

Ray — you said this earlier:

Quote:

That same message was rampant in the CHI training last November, including Elder Packer’s statement that local leaders need to recognize that the members are there to staff the Church but the Church exists to serve the members.

Is this what you meant to say? I thought BKP said that leaders should NOT consider members only as resources to staff that Church…and then the rest of the phrase as you said it.

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure I agree with most of SD’s list on what bishops get by filling callings – I think they mostly avoid appearing ineffective if they can’t fill them, but even then the risk is low – they can pin it on the slacking members. It all depends. I don’t think bishops get kudos more than anyone else does really.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

DA, I think that’s quite a few emotionally charged statements. I see where you are coming from…but don’t really think it is fair to the good people in leadership positions in most the wards I’ve been in…and I’ve been in a few I don’t care for…Honestly tho, what does the Church gain by getting members to do what they want? Tithing? Do you really think that is their motive? Don’t you really think their motive is that it is to help the families? Perhaps they are wrong, but what do you honestly think their motives are?

I’m sorry if I got a bit carried away with my strong opinions about callings and the “Concern for the One” conference talk. The way you re-worded this definitely sounds more diplomatic than my comments without being too apologetic. I guess this is just an emotional topic for me because I basically live in constant fear that people will ask what my Church callings are and then it is awkward and embarrassing to admit that I don’t have any and I worry what they will think about me after that. Why should everyone be expected to always have callings to begin with? To be honest I don’t believe the Church really gains much of anything truly worthwhile overall by getting members to reluctantly go along with some of these doctrines, policies, and traditions they have mostly inherited from previous generations. In reality these strict requirements and expectations alienate a large number of decent people and put significant limitations on who they can realistically expect to ever convert or reactivate.

Personally, I don’t believe most Church leaders have any deliberately bad intentions regarding tithing, callings, chastity, the WoW, or anything else. My guess is that the primary motivation for most Church leaders to continue to rigidly support these doctrines as if they are set in stone is that they really believe all of this is absolutely right because they are convinced that it came straight from God himself. From this perspective of face-value acceptance of most traditional LDS doctrines trying to get others to buy into all of this and go along with it really could simply be done primarily out of concern for their own good because the assumption is that they will be appropriately blessed for their sacrifices and obedience to these commandments in this life and the next.

I think Church leaders also generally see it as their solemn responsibility to do everything they can to make sure members don’t go astray because they feel like they will be held accountable if they contributed to it in some way. Because of this they often see stern disapproval of supposed “sins” and false doctrines as being a good thing because they think too much permissiveness will encourage all kinds of wickedness. Even if some leaders have their own doubts about some of this they could still rationalize that some pious lies and non-disclosures intended to protect others’ beliefs is alright possibly due to feelings of nostalgia that they were happier themselves when they didn’t have these nagging doubts and because of this they don’t necessarily want to burst anyone else’s bubble.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

It looks like Joseph B. Wirthlin started to do this with his “Concern for the One” conference talk but then he ended up falling back into the old idea that members that fall away are all weak and/or wrong in one way or another because it couldn’t possibly be an indication that anything could ever be wrong with the Church.

My gut reaction to that quote was highly emotional, so I took time to make sure I wasn’t reacting emotionally in my comment below…I think Elder Wirthlin has done as much to highlight issues in the Church and within its membership as perhaps any other apostle in our history, so, again, I am struck by how differently people can read the same words. I think that whole talk can be read as a recognition that there are things wrong with the Church, especially at the local level, and that the members have to fix those problems. I think he very clearly blames those who stay for much of why people leave – and absolutely lays the charge at their feet to understand why people leave and address those reasons. That same message was rampant in the CHI training last November, including Elder Packer’s statement…Taking one part of the talk that is addressed to one particular group and extrapolating that part to claim that “members that fall away are all weak and/or wrong . . .” simply doesn’t fit the entire talk – and I mention it explicitly because I think it reinforces an incorrect stereotype…

I’m not saying the entire “Concern for the One” talk was way off like the 14 fundamentals. Actually, I liked most of it and it definitely showed more sympathy and understanding toward less active members than much of what I typically hear out of Church leaders. However, what makes me somewhat cynical about it is that it sounds like they are mostly concerned about the end results they see (“lost” members) and are basically trying to change these results without doing much of anything to recognize or address some of the real root causes of widespread dissatisfaction with the Church (unreasonable and inflexible doctrines and expectations).

For example, Wirthlin mentioned that some members are lost because they feel weary or overwhelmed but then all he really said to try to help the situation was something to the effect that anyone that feels that way shouldn’t get too discouraged because the Lord will supposedly give you enough strength to carry on if you just “put your shoulder to the wheel.” It seems to me that a much more reasonable and effective solution to the problem of too many members feeling tired and burned out by Church responsibilities would simply be to try to reduce or eliminate some of the pointless busywork that they are repeatedly asked and expected to perform.

If members/investigators start to wonder why exactly it is so important for them do something the Church expects and the main reason is simply because the Church said so or just because that’s the way we’ve always done things then it is increasingly going to ring hollow and test people’s patience to the limit nowadays. Church members can easily look around and see Jack Mormons and non-Mormons that are doing fine without having to constantly deal with all these strict rules and added responsibilities and then start to wonder what the big deal is with some of these things the Church puts so much emphasis on. That’s why I think Church leaders should start to lower the overall costs of being a practicing Mormon by implementing some real changes from the top down and start thinking more carefully about what exactly they are asking people to do and why rather than just expecting members to try harder to conform to the existing structure and constraints.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t really see much wrong with DA’s post, except perhaps saying Elder Wirthlin backtracked. I think JBW had to come out with something firm about the truth, lest his statements be interpreted wrongly, or that he had somehow deviated from the overall plan of truth.

One conunderum leaders face is this — how do you temper overzealous people with sanctioned “breaks” from service without damaging the overall level of commitment? I feel for them in that respect.

[Anonymous]

I have heard from hard lessons that I am never going to cede control to priesthood brethren again. I have seen way too much unrighteous dominion in my time on earth.

That being said, I am finding when I choose to serve, because I want to, then there is much more joy in it.

But I am past having a problem saying no. And I don’t have to even explain the reasons to the brethren.

[Anonymous]

silentstruggle wrote:

I have heard from hard lessons that I am never going to cede control to priesthood brethren again. I have seen way too much unrighteous dominion in my time on earth.

That being said, I am finding when I choose to serve, because I want to, then there is much more joy in it.

But I am past having a problem saying no. And I don’t have to even explain the reasons to the brethren.

I wish we had a thank you button. These are my feelings exactly — until they change again…including the part about joyful service.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

One conundrum leaders face is this — how do you temper overzealous people with sanctioned “breaks” from service without damaging the overall level of commitment?

That’s one of the biggest problems with organized religion. How do you say anything as a church leader that will have uniform effect on all the members of your church? It can’t be done (unless there’s only one of you) … someone always ends up getting marginalized. On some issues it’s not a big deal, but on others it can be a very big deal.

BTW, I also tend to agree with the tenor of DA’s statement. Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but it seems like using guilt to keep church members ‘in line’ is and has always been the primary management tool. Maybe that’s common to all volunteer organizations …

[Anonymous]

Yeah, SD, I mistyped that one badly. I have gone back and fixed it, with a note explaining why.

[Anonymous]

Great, THAT is much easier to swallow Ray. And I think that’s a correct interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

using guilt to keep church members ‘in line’ is and has always been the primary management tool. Maybe that’s common to all volunteer organizations .

And in non-volunteer orgs, too. I think it’s because it’s one of the first ways we learn to motivate other people (from our parents).

[Anonymous]

In a classic Law & Order episode from many years ago, Jack McCoy is asked about things that make him feel guilty. I can’t remember the exact question, but his answer was:

Quote:

I’m Catholic. I can feel guilty about anything.

😆 :clap:

[Anonymous]

Yes, when I was a young adult, there was a book popular at the time called Sex Without Guilt.

I suggested they produce a version acceptable to Mormons called “Guilt without Sex”.

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

One conundrum leaders face is this — how do you temper overzealous people with sanctioned “breaks” from service without damaging the overall level of commitment?

That’s one of the biggest problems with organized religion. How do you say anything as a church leader that will have uniform effect on all the members of your church? It can’t be done (unless there’s only one of you) … someone always ends up getting marginalized. On some issues it’s not a big deal, but on others it can be a very big deal.

BTW, I also tend to agree with the tenor of DA’s statement. Perhaps I am being overly cynical, but it seems like using guilt to keep church members ‘in line’ is and has always been the primary management tool. Maybe that’s common to all volunteer organizations …

I understand that the Church depends on some commitment and voluntary service out of members to even exist as an organization this size especially without any full-time paid clergy at the local level to keep things running. I’m not trying to say they should just go ahead and implement radical changes to the point that they end up with a much more liberal philosophy similar to the Unitarian Universalist or even the Community of Christ (RLDS) churches even if there was any chance of persuading enough top Church leaders to go along with it. Sure you probably can’t ever make everyone completely happy at the same time, I just think it would be better to err on the side of what most people can feel fairly comfortable with without having to rely on so much external pressure and manipulation to get members to do things they aren’t really happy about whether they want to admit it or not.

It doesn’t look like the level of sacrifice and commitment the Church asks for and expects out of the average member really has all that much to do with absolute bare necessities and practical benefits for the organization and members as a whole as much simply being the cumulative by-product of upholding tradition at all costs from one generation to the next and the idea that Church leaders are almost always right. Just because the Church can often get away with telling many members what to believe and do without much resistance it doesn’t mean they should go ahead and ask people to believe and do all this in every case. The problem is that these demands have been taken to extremes way above and beyond what you can realistically expect out of the average person nowadays. This is one reason there are so many inactive members and the retention of converts is so low plus this scorched-earth style approach doesn’t exactly promote goodwill and it leaves many people with a negative impression of what the LDS Church is all about.

I don’t see why they couldn’t just combine some meetings and let more people share the workload so they don’t have to teach lessons nearly as often and maybe then they wouldn’t feel like they need to ask some members to accept callings when they don’t want to. Do we really need so many separate classes especially for primary and the youth? My guess is that most 12-year-olds could easily understand the general idea of the same lessons they are still teaching 17-year-olds. What exactly is the Church trying to accomplish here? Is this split format mostly to try to encourage young members to develop lasting friendships with other active members? In reality the overall impact of these classes is usually not that high compared to all the time kids spend outside of Church the rest of the week. If my home ward was any indication most of the children that go through these programs will not end up going on missions, getting married in the temple, or remaining active as adults anyway. That’s why I don’t see the overall value to the Church of inconveniencing so many adult members with the task of babysitting other people’s children (Mark 2:27).

[Anonymous]

This to me, gets to the “Big Ward or Small Ward” question. In large wards, where there are a lot of people, the burden is spread around so people don’t get worn out. And leaders have a wealth of people to rely on when they need extra help. In the Small Ward philosophy, people are stretched. The rationale given for small wards is that “more people get to serve”. Personally, I found in small Wards we were forced to accomplish the same level of results without the necessary resources. For me, it was frustrating, as a Ward leader I usually operated alone, or in good times, with ONE good counselor I could rely on. Or, with a fully staffed presidency with counselors and a secretary that wouldn’t do much after they were called, with it all falling on myself.

I don’t know — is there perhaps a reason for splitting Wards, unstated, that makes it attractive to priesthood leaders such as Stake Presidents? I reported to one as an executive secretary and he LOVED splitting wards. The wards hated it — when I visited them as a HC later. Yet our SP split like crazy. Could it be that they like the idea of being able to say “in the last 3 years we have split three Wards due to growth”, when really all they did was make that local area more ineffecient, placing overhead and unecessary burdens on the members in that locale?

The only reason I ever heard for Ward splitting when there aren’t a lot of resources is that it gives more people an opportunity to serve. I wonder if there are other organizational/financial/practical reasons, as the “it gives more people an opportunity to serve” reason doesn’t make sense when it causes burnout, frustration, and lack of resources to get results.

[Author]

Posts