Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Needing Callings More than They Need You & Being No Less Servicable


Recommended Posts

1. My father in law and a few other people I know seem to need callings more than those callings need them (Scouters, like for decades).

   It seems unhealthy to me, to need a calling more than it needs you; like to feel a part of your identity is literally missing unless you are called to serve in X group (Primary, Youth, scouts, RS, EQP, etc.) or if you attend church w/o a calling for a while (new ward, stake boundaries; you moved for work, etc.)

So detaching the correct amount - accepting any calling that comes to you with no thought of specialization - seems a more healthy but also aimless approach.

2. If an EQP member was called to serve as the Primary Pianist, this seems like it woudl upset the hierarchy of responsibleness the ward and stake leaders have;

BUT if there is no such thing as "advancing in the priesthood" per Elder Christofferson, why would such a neutral (not advancing, not retrogressing) calling be less preferred?

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. My father in law and a few other people I know seem to need callings more than those callings need them (Scouters, like for decades).

   It seems unhealthy to me, to need a calling more than it needs you; like to feel a part of your identity is literally missing unless you are called to serve in X group (Primary, Youth, scouts, RS, EQP, etc.) or if you attend church w/o a calling for a while (new ward, stake boundaries; you moved for work, etc.)

So detaching the correct amount - accepting any calling that comes to you with no thought of specialization - seems a more healthy but also aimless approach.

2. If an EQP member was called to serve as the Primary Pianist, this seems like it woudl upset the hierarchy of responsibleness the ward and stake leaders have;

BUT if there is no such thing as "advancing in the priesthood" per Elder Christofferson, why would such a neutral (not advancing, not retrogressing) calling be less preferred?

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

I think callings, like priesthood, can help us advance "in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ... [that we] may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." All gospel principles are neutral and even inert until we apply faith to them and thus magnify them.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. My father in law and a few other people I know seem to need callings more than those callings need them (Scouters, like for decades).

   It seems unhealthy to me, to need a calling more than it needs you; like to feel a part of your identity is literally missing unless you are called to serve in X group (Primary, Youth, scouts, RS, EQP, etc.) or if you attend church w/o a calling for a while (new ward, stake boundaries; you moved for work, etc.)

So detaching the correct amount - accepting any calling that comes to you with no thought of specialization - seems a more healthy but also aimless approach.

2. If an EQP member was called to serve as the Primary Pianist, this seems like it woudl upset the hierarchy of responsibleness the ward and stake leaders have;

BUT if there is no such thing as "advancing in the priesthood" per Elder Christofferson, why would such a neutral (not advancing, not retrogressing) calling be less preferred?

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

I thought this sounded familiar, then paged down to the "Similar Content" posts at the bottom of every page.

Take a look for yourself, just page all the way down, till it stops scrolling.

Three virtually identical threads plus this one, make four.

Asking the same question and hoping to get a different answer? What gives?

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

My father was released as a Bishop and his next calling was Nursery Leader.

There is no hierarchy of responsibleness. Now, in some congregations, there is a lack of members who can be trusted with difficult or time consuming or critical callings so it often seems like a dozen or two families are always running the ward. They are usually an eclectic mix of skilled administrators, enthusiastic firebrands, quiet dedicated servants, founts of revelation, and many other types that complement each other as they should. They are not jealous of their positions. They dedicate a good part of their life to strengthening others. Many of them would love to take a breather in a less prominent position. And the apostles have commented again and again that prominence is not the sole indicator of righteousness. 

As you say there is a danger in identifying too strongly with a certain calling organization. We tend to stagnate if we do the same thing too long. I love to teach more then anything. I am fortunate to have a teaching calling in addition to the one that is mostly helping me grow at the moment but I cannot count on that forever and do not.

Link to comment

Personally, I feel people generally provide the best service when they feel the personally "called" to a specific kind of work. I know that is definitely true with people who have a deep love for scouting. It's not just about fulfilling a calling they've been assigned, but they feel a calling from God, independent from what the church assigns. I've seen many scoutmasters get released and then join up with a local troop so they can continue serving where they feel a passion and aptitude.

While I think there is definitely something to be said for challenging ourselves and getting outside of our comfort zones, I've found that the people who become most frustrated in their callings are people who 1) don't have the skill for that particular calling, like calling someone totally non-musical to be ward choir director or 2) People who have a skill but not a passion for what they are doing (like maybe a burned out accountant being called as a stake auditor or a daycare worker being called to the nursery). When other people make decisions about what a person's "calling" should be, there are bound to be mix ups and less than happy calls issued/accepted. IMO a "calling" is not necessarily the same thing as an assigned service, though it can be. I would prefer for people to self-identify how they would like to serve by choosing something they enjoy, are good at, and hopefully feel called by God to do. I think that if the church shifted to understand callings in this way people would be happier and even more willing to serve.

 

Link to comment

We have had several brethren be primary pianists.  I think there is some wide variance of callings someone can do.  Heck I have done a bunch.  I like some more than others, but try to do the best I can.  I have been in stake callings where there wasn’t much to do.  Sometimes we have been happy just to have an organist-man or woman.  Some people will not accept any calling and that can be tough on a ward. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. My father in law and a few other people I know seem to need callings more than those callings need them (Scouters, like for decades).

   It seems unhealthy to me, to need a calling more than it needs you; like to feel a part of your identity is literally missing unless you are called to serve in X group (Primary, Youth, scouts, RS, EQP, etc.) or if you attend church w/o a calling for a while (new ward, stake boundaries; you moved for work, etc.)

So detaching the correct amount - accepting any calling that comes to you with no thought of specialization - seems a more healthy but also aimless approach.

2. If an EQP member was called to serve as the Primary Pianist, this seems like it woudl upset the hierarchy of responsibleness the ward and stake leaders have;

BUT if there is no such thing as "advancing in the priesthood" per Elder Christofferson, why would such a neutral (not advancing, not retrogressing) calling be less preferred?

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

In my experience, most people in the church are just fine with getting whatever calling they get (aside from the normal "I don't enjoy this kind of thing" aspect, which has nothing to do with hierarchy of callings).  My dad was a counselor in the bishopric and now he teaches primary (and he LOVES it).  One of the past bishop's in my ward is also teaching primary right now.  It hasn't upset any hierarchy in the ward.

I think that most of the time people desire certain callings because they are human and prefer some activities or responsibilities over others.  

Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My father was released as a Bishop and his next calling was Nursery Leader.

 

Ward growing up, our SP (also CEO of big company) got released and became one of our ward's nursery leaders.  My memory is that he enjoyed being 'grandpa'.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

If an EQP member was called to serve as the Primary Pianist, this seems like it woudl upset the hierarchy of responsibleness the ward and stake leaders have

When the EQP I served in most recently was released, I was subsequently called to serve in Primary and the other two guys were called to serve in Nursery. 

We are all perfectly happy with where we are serving currently. :) 

 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

1. My father in law and a few other people I know seem to need callings more than those callings need them (Scouters, like for decades).

   It seems unhealthy to me, to need a calling more than it needs you; like to feel a part of your identity is literally missing unless you are called to serve in X group (Primary, Youth, scouts, RS, EQP, etc.) or if you attend church w/o a calling for a while (new ward, stake boundaries; you moved for work, etc.)

So detaching the correct amount - accepting any calling that comes to you with no thought of specialization - seems a more healthy but also aimless approach.

2. If an EQP member was called to serve as the Primary Pianist, this seems like it woudl upset the hierarchy of responsibleness the ward and stake leaders have;

BUT if there is no such thing as "advancing in the priesthood" per Elder Christofferson, why would such a neutral (not advancing, not retrogressing) calling be less preferred?

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance.

That seems foreign to me. I had a prior elders quorum president who was released and called a nursery worker. He was never happier.

ive never seen anyone take offense at being called anywhere.

course I don’t claim to have seen every thing

Link to comment
15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My father was released as a Bishop and his next calling was Nursery Leader.

There is no hierarchy of responsibleness. Now, in some congregations, there is a lack of members who can be trusted with difficult or time consuming or critical callings so it often seems like a dozen or two families are always running the ward. They are usually an eclectic mix of skilled administrators, enthusiastic firebrands, quiet dedicated servants, founts of revelation, and many other types that complement each other as they should. They are not jealous of their positions. They dedicate a good part of their life to strengthening others. Many of them would love to take a breather in a less prominent position. And the apostles have commented again and again that prominence is not the sole indicator of righteousness. 

As you say there is a danger in identifying too strongly with a certain calling organization. We tend to stagnate if we do the same thing too long. I love to teach more then anything. I am fortunate to have a teaching calling in addition to the one that is mostly helping me grow at the moment but I cannot count on that forever and do not.

My wife went from a stake calling in RS to nursery leader as well and loved it!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Amulek said:

When the EQP I served in most recently was released, I was subsequently called to serve in Primary and the other two guys were called to serve in Nursery. 

We are all perfectly happy with where we are serving currently. :) 

 

Holla back, Amulek.

I echo that sentiment with every fiber of my being

Link to comment

President Packer said to the General Authorities in 1985? that while there may not be a lot of things do there are lots of things to be

 

my take is while callings come and go, that shouldn't stop us form being charitable and considerate of others, Mosiah 18:9

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...