Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nuclearfuels

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. :) 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

THANKS EVERYONE!!

You've provided some reassuring comments.

Seems like being content might be the key; whatever the calling may be

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By nuclearfuels
      Seems like the scriptures support ranking of certain things like sins (murder, sexual sin, etc.), which to me seems to suggest a specific amount of suffering required by the Savior in order to satisfy justice and provide forgiveness.
      And in prayer: seems like our ancestors whose Temple work we give them the option to accept, can pray with more faith and more power after we complete their Temple work and they choose to accept it. No?
      Seems like service (operationalized in the form of callings) might also be rank-able and quantifiable.
      (Perhaps framing it as an objective event like the Second Coming would help: "Wickedness will not hasten it. Righteousness will not postpone it." - since service is an eternal process not an event, though - gives me another disconnect...
      It is confusing to me then to realize that callings are not ranked and the fact that none of us "advance" in callings but instead, we progress in a nonlinear, individual path. 
      My wife said this is the case because we all come to earth to learn the same lessons but we learn them in different ways.
      As a loyal spouse, I'm not allowed to question nor accept her advice on face value....but it seems to explain the disconnect my neurons so often confront.
      Her ancestors who held callings for 20+ years, I suppose, simplified things: I was called to do x. That's what I'm doing until I'm released.
      If any of you beautiful people could expound on these disconnects and my wife's wisdom, I'd be much obliged. 
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      So if you were called over a period of 8 years in let us say a certain calling which you had reservations about but accepted anyway, at what point would you say no to future callings in the same certain calling area?  If you said no to such a calling and then received a similar calling a few months later, what would you think? Not enough adults to call or inspiration coming back again?  In all honesty when Auxiliary leaders make recommendations for certain callings in ward council/correlation mtg, is there further prayer/consideration/Spiritual guidance by Ward Leaders?  I believe so and I hope so; just seems strange to get a calling quite similar to one I said no to a few months earlier.
      I've heard that Sunbeams coteacher in a former ward I was in received seven no's in response to callings and I can't judge anyone who turned it down as I wasn't part of those callings' issuance.  A friend of mine in college turned down a Primary call since she was a homemaker with three boys and said she needed a break.
      The non-linear part makes sense; we all don't progress in the same order of callings...BUT it seems odd to me to have received such a similar calling in multiple wards over many years, in a chartered organization that I do not support.
       
    • By nuclearfuels
      So I'd appreciate a little illumination on this...
      Callings aren't linear like each brother in the Church does not need to move from one calling to another such as: Elders quorum presidency, Young men's president, bishopric, stake presidency, mission presidency, Temple presidency, Area Authority, General Authority, Member of the Twelve, First Presidency, etc. right?  Each sister doesn't need to progress from Primary to RS to stake primary to stake Primary and so forth, right?  Following such a procession of callings does not demonstrate an increasing testimony nor acceptance of the gospel (which I love) anymore than say a random assortment of callings, right?
      If so, would it not stand to reason then that in our post-mortal life that we may each progress on infinitely different paths of eternal progression?  Would it not stand to reason that each of us followed an infinitely different path of premortal progression?  
      If so, how did we each end up at the same exact event: birth, death, eternal progression to godhood, etc. and God still be a God of order and not confusion?
      On the other hand Satan proposed the plan where everyone does exactly the same thing, never varying, leading us to a progression-less mortality and post-mortality so of course we can't all proceed in callings in a prescribed order.
      Since the gospel is true would it not behoove some of us to move to areas further out from large cities to serve in leadership positions in smaller branches that are short on priesthood? I've heard that some GA's regret that so many highly educated people live in UT instead of moving out and "lengthening they cords and strengthen thy stakes."  If callings aren't linear, it does not truly behoove us to become unemplyed to strengthen a struggling branch...but if the gospel is true and it is, why would anythign else matter if we had sufficent faith?
    • By Monroe
      I went to church today, and I rarely ever go.  It's not that I don't believe or anything, it's just that I work from 6:30 in the morning till 10:30 at night.  Normally it's only 4 days a week, but we're against application deadlines and so this week I worked 6 days, and there was substantial pressure to work on Sunday (though I declined).
       
      I woke up with a headache, but at 8:30 my wife told me that my clothes were laid out for me.  I looked at my Sunday best on the bed, got dressed, and off we went.
       
      So I ended up in Gospel Principles.  The instructor was talking about sacrifice, and towards the end of her lesson she showed a video on John Rowe Moyle.  For those of you who don't know, he was part of the first handcart company to go to Salt Lake.  A good number of people in his company died, and when he finally got to Salt Lake, he started a farm.  He was, however, a stonecutter and he got the call to work on the temple in Salt Lake.  So he would travel the 22 miles on foot because he couldn't spare the horse, work all week on the temple, and get back on Friday night around midnight so he could do his chores around the farm.  I guess he never really saw his kids or wives (yeah he was poly).  Finally, towards the end of his life, a cow kicked him, and he broke his leg.  He had to have it amputated.  So he carved himself a wooden one, and as soon as he was up and around, started hiking the 22 miles back to Salt Lake to continue working on the temple.
       
      After the video was over, I wasn't going to say anything, but the teacher called on me and asked for my impressions of the video.  Well, I thought the guy was rather foolish.  I would have spent more time with my wives, thank you very much, and if they'd wanted me to work on the temple, I'd have done what Moses did.  I would have said no and waited for God to sweeten the deal.  I said as much in church.  There was this awkward silence, and then the teacher called on someone else who gave the standard response like "What dedication and faith the guy had."  Well, if he had that much faith, why didn't he just have one of the apostles miracle heal his leg rather than having it amputated?
       
      After the meeting, my wife said she really didn't understand me and didn't get why I was so rebellious and contrary.  Is it that bad to expect God to kick down his fair share of the deal?  Jonah and Moses said no initially so why shouldn't I?
    • By thatjimguy
      I apologize, I should have made this topic "for those 50+ years" The idea was to get people who lived through this part of LDS history as adults.
       
       
      I am a convert and don't really know much about large LDS social settings in Utah, Idaho etc. I am asking to get an idea of where people stood and how someone could express personal revelation without rocking the boat of LDS leadership.
       
       
      The year is 1970...8 years before blacks regain the Preisthood...
       
      Did you know it was going to change?
       
      If you did know, could you talk about it openly? If so, what resistence did you recieve? Where did the resistence come from?
       
      Would you call it personal revelation?
       
      Were there many taken aback from the 1978 change? Did any leave the church because of it?
       
       
       
×