Does "the church" take too much time from families?

[SilverKnight]

IF I feel my new calling is to time consuming I will tell them that I can no longer do it. I doubt it will come to that but we shall see huh.

I hear you though SK, don't be afraid to say no. But don't just say no, because you just don't want to serve.

To be fair, the most overworked people in the church seem to enjoy it - cheerfully slogging through their unpaid part time jobs with a smile.

Also I've found that those who complain most loudly about the demands of church on your time are the persons who haven't been inside an LDS church in years.

I also agree with Senator.

"I don't want to serve" is a great reason not to.

[Jeff K.]

The Church CAN take too much time from your family if you let it. Ultimately you have to decide what's right for you and put your foot down and say "We're staying home and not attending that leadership meeting. We need family time."

I agree, the spirit should dictate the callings and family impact for the callings. Sometimes you may need to say no. Though not usually.

[Jeff K.]

Actually, I find that a very legitimate reason to say no.

No a lack of desire reflects a lack of testimony. One can want to serve, that is what the church is all about, and still decline when weighing the impact on family. But to simply refuse to serve the Lords church because you don't want to? No, that is not legitimate in the eyes of the Lord. But it can be legitimate for those who may see some greater service elsewhere, something perhaps more important that God? One's self maybe? Selfism always has a big following, and it provides for a great deal of selfism behavior.

[LDS Guy 1986]

To be fair, the most overworked people in the church seem to enjoy it - cheerfully slogging through their unpaid part time jobs with a smile.

Also I've found that those who complain most loudly about the demands of church on your time are the persons who haven't been inside an LDS church in years.

I also agree with Senator.

"I don't want to serve" is a great reason not to.

I agree also, if you don't want to serve, simple say so. Yes, it isn't the greatest thing for your reputation with the Bishop, but it is better than feeling you have to accept a calling then feeling animosity for being "forced" into something.

I also agree that the burdens of any calling are far surpassed by the blessings of serving God and your fellow man!

[LDS Guy 1986]

The Church CAN take too much time from your family if you let it. Ultimately you have to decide what's right for you and put your foot down and say "We're staying home and not attending that leadership meeting. We need family time."

And there is nothing wrong with this either, I am a ward missionary and was asked to go to the ward mission leaders meeting to sit in for our ward mission leader because his wife is preparing for surgery due to cancer. The High Councilor was very understanding and helped me out seeing that I have never sat in a leadership meeting ever before!

[LeSellers]

"I don't want to serve" is a great reason not to.

It's a horrid reason not to serve. Not wanting to serve is the most powerful reason to accept the calling (and to do a good job of magnifying it.

Lehi

[rongo]

To be fair, the most overworked people in the church seem to enjoy it - cheerfully slogging through their unpaid part time jobs with a smile.

Also I've found that those who complain most loudly about the demands of church on your time are the persons who haven't been inside an LDS church in years.

Amen to that. I have two coined phrases that stick out for me. One was from the brother at a stake cannery assignment who thanked us, the STP, for coming. He asked us what we thought STP stood for, and I was thinking of a fuel additive . . . He said he has found that the Same Ten People are the ones who always cheerfully come to canning assignments. The other one was related by a member of the stake presidency in the Gilbert Stapley Stake. He, his mother, and sisters had joined the Church together, but his father never had. In watching his children and wife serve in the Church for decades, he told them that he had found the perfect description of the Church: the

[rongo]

<duplicate post deleted>

[blooit]

Every Sunday for us

Sunday 9:00-12:00 - 3 hour block (Sometimes I teach HP quorum, Mom teaches young women's lesson sometimes... Sunday school is shared among three people, all good teachers)

Sunday 1:00 - Mother and daughter to Choir

Sunday 4:00 - Dad to Aaronic Priesthood Council

The rest doesn't happen every Sunday

Sunday 12:00-3:00 - Dad to another ward for ward conference (only if you are on the High Council and only a couple of times a year)

Sunday 2:00 - Mother to YW Laurel's Presidency Mtg. (Maybe once a month or twice but no more)

Sunday 3:00 - Hometeachers Visit our home (once a month)

Sunday 6:30 - Dad to Stake Youth Committee mtg. (not that often, once a month, maybe twice and it depends on your calling in either High Council or ward leadership--- If you are called to high council you usually remove all of your ward leadership callings

I serve in the stake young men's - so I attend every ward conference. I do also hold 2 ward callings, although this is not typical, and they only require maybe an hour a week. I mentioned earlier though, that there are many other meetings too that often fill these spots that are not weekly. This is not every week, but typical of one or two of our weeks each month. We have had a few busier, and a few not that busy.

Anyway - just pointing out that this is not every week, but not an exaggeration either - many weeks look just like this one. Add to that preparing for lessons I teach, talks given, home and visiting teaching, PPIs, etc., and the schedule can be very full.

[blooit]

Here are some wonderful statements from a series of leadership meeting in 1990. . .

-----------------------------

rongo - thanks -great material there for me to study

doesn't make me want to be released, but does make me feel less guilty about being concerned about time with my family - if that makes sense

[Senator]

A member of the seventy once told me that he has never had anyone turn down a calling from him (the point being that if we pray for inspiration and are firm-yet-loving, people will accept even when they feel overwhelmed or inadequate). No argument with that, as far as it goes, but I also feel that the extension of a calling carries with it the actual autonomy of the person to accept or decline it (and we need to respect that). I have appreciated when people have expressed reservations or turned down callings, despite best efforts to

[Jeff K.]

If you have desires to enter the Celestial Kingdom, ye are called to work.

Otherwise there is plenty of real estate in some of the lesser neighborhoods.

As always it is your call.

[Senator]

If you have desires to enter the Celestial Kingdom, ye are called to work.

Otherwise there is plenty of real estate in some of the lesser neighborhoods.

As always it is your call.

So, you turn a gracious invitation into an ultimatum, specifically and personally on my behalf.

Nice work Jeff!

That takes talent.

Now can I ask you a personal favor Jeff?

Please put me on your ignore list.

[Jeff K.]

Nope, I don't turn anything into what it is not. I simply state the obvious for those who prefer to camoflage it. Do you actually believe that you can say no (simply because you don't want to) when God calls and then turn around and expect all the rewards those who have sacrificed for to be made available to you?

All of the commandments are "gracious invitations" since we are saved by Christ's grace in the Atonement which makes exhaltation available to us. But if you do not live those commandments do you believe that graciousness will somehow also overlook the fact you said "no"?

[Senator]

Nope, I don't turn anything into what it is not. I simply state the obvious for those who prefer to camoflage it. Do you actually believe that you can say no (simply because you don't want to) when God calls and then turn around and expect all the rewards those who have sacrificed for to be made available to you?

All of the commandments are "gracious invitations" since we are saved by Christ's grace in the Atonement which makes exhaltation available to us. But if you do not live those commandments do you believe that graciousness will somehow also overlook the fact you said "no"?

Jeff, I fully understand what the possible implications of our actions may be.

I just don't accept YOU as the messenger of them to me!

It is between the individual, THE LORD, and his Bishop!!!!

Got it?

Again, please put me on your ignore list.

In fact, I'll lead the way and put you on mine.

[Jeff K.]

In other words, overlook the message and slay the messenger.

Who said anything about confessing sins publically or giving up ones privacy? I am simply pointing out the issues based on self centered decisions. Saying "no" simply because you can't be bothered with the Lord's word is akin to not following commandments simply because you can't be bothered with them.

You seem to believe that making the issue clear somehow destroys privacy. I don't see the connection other than you seem to be going over the top and tying something in that has nothing to do with acceptance or denial.

In fact, I'll lead the way and put you on mine.

Nothing comes along as being sillier than making a public pronouncement about something you want to do.

"I am going to climb Mount Everest" or something of similar grandiosity "I am going to put you on my ignore list".

That is fine, but I value your input even when it is wrong, so I will not ignore you but respond to your posts whenever possible. Whether in agreement or disagreement.

[SilverKnight]

If you have desires to enter the Celestial Kingdom, ye are called to work.

Otherwise there is plenty of real estate in some of the lesser neighborhoods.

As always it is your call.

Funny, I've found that the most charitable people in the church behave so out of love for their fellow humans - not because they feel they are making down payments on their personal chunk of Celestial real estate.

Alternatively, it seems those members most sure of their exaltation are also the most self-righteous, obnoxious and unpleasant to be around.

So, after Rongo's thoughtful perspective on balancing the demands of church and family, you, in typical fashion, throw down your gauntlet of piety and dare people to be a righteous as you.

Thankfully, us 'lesser kingdom' types vastly outnumber the sanctimonious self-righteous blowhards who've already got their 100 Acres of in the Celestial Kingdom staked out.

[Senator]

SilverKnight,

I tried to PM you, but it said you were not able to recieve messages. Do you know why?

[SilverKnight]

SilverKnight,

I tried to PM you, but it said you were not able to recieve messages. Do you know why?

???

I don't know why.

I cleaned out some old messages, and re-saved my settings.

Try again.

[Jeff K.]

Funny, I've found that the most charitable people in the church behave so out of love for their fellow humans - not because they feel they are making down payments on their personal chunk of Celestial real estate.

Alternatively, it seems those members most sure of their exaltation are also the most self-righteous, obnoxious and unpleasant to be around.

So, after Rongo's thoughtful perspective on balancing the demands of church and family, you, in typical fashion, throw down your gauntlet of piety and dare people to be a righteous as you.

Thankfully, us 'lesser kingdom' types vastly outnumber the sanctimonious self-righteous blowhards who've already got their 100 Acres of in the Celestial Kingdom staked out.

I agree that those who take their responsibility seriously do so out of the pure love of Christ. Now if someone who can explain to me how the pure love of Christ operates when we say "no" just because, I will see that such works.

I do believe in balance and sometimes we must balance our family life (which should take priority) over the callings we take. There is no issue there in my mind.

However to say "no" simply because you don't feel like serving Christ does nothing to either show the pure love of Christ and reflects a self centered lack of ability to make the smallest sacrifice for Christ who has made the largest of sacrifices. I do not think the Celestial Kingdom has such people in it.

But feel free to get all self righteous about it.

[SilverKnight]

However to say "no" simply because you don't feel like serving Christ does nothing to either show the pure love of Christ and reflects a self centered lack of ability to make the smallest sacrifice for Christ who has made the largest of sacrifices. I do not think the Celestial Kingdom has such people in it.

In my estimation, using Christ as a scapegoat to make someone out to be a self-centered rebel against God for choosing family over religion is the greater 'sin'.

For example:

"I would rather do homework tonight than go to mutual." ---> "You are selfish and must not like serving Christ. The Celestial Kingdom will not have people like you in it."

"I think I'll watch a movie with my kids instead of going to that boring meeting." ---> "You are selfish and must not like serving Christ. The Celestial Kingdom will not have people like you in it."

"This Sunday I am taking my family to the park instead of church." ---> "You are selfish and must not like serving Christ. The Celestial Kingdom will not have people like you in it."

I guess it's all in your perspective, but I say the Dad who skips out on the tedious stake training meeting to play catch with his young son is closer to 'serving Christ' than the Dad who did his 'priesthood duty' and went to the meeting.

[sjdawg]

I guess it's all in your perspective, but I say the Dad who skips out on the tedious stake training meeting to play catch with his young son is closer to 'serving Christ' than the Dad who did his 'priesthood duty' and went to the meeting.

+1.

[Jeff K.]

In my estimation, using Christ as a scapegoat to make someone out to be a self-centered rebel against God for choosing family over religion is the greater 'sin'.

For example:

"I would rather do homework tonight than go to mutual." ---> "You are selfish and must not like serving Christ. The Celestial Kingdom will not have people like you in it."

"I think I'll watch a movie with my kids instead of going to that boring meeting." ---> "You are selfish and must not like serving Christ. The Celestial Kingdom will not have people like you in it."

"This Sunday I am taking my family to the park instead of church." ---> "You are selfish and must not like serving Christ. The Celestial Kingdom will not have people like you in it."

I guess it's all in your perspective, but I say the Dad who skips out on the tedious stake training meeting to play catch with his young son is closer to 'serving Christ' than the Dad who did his 'priesthood duty' and went to the meeting.

Wait, I apparently wasn't clear. Let me help you.

I agree that those who take their responsibility seriously do so out of the pure love of Christ. Now if someone who can explain to me how the pure love of Christ operates when we say "no" just because, I will see that such works.

I do believe in balance and sometimes we must balance our family life (which should take priority) over the callings we take. There is no issue there in my mind.

You seem to have missed that portion which established context.

Now for those who use the family as a scapegoat in order to avoid giving service to Christ and frankly deciding they were more important and so say "no" simply because they felt like it, then well, you won't find them in the celestial kingdom now will you?

Or do you believe those who simply choose not to serve because they "don't feel like it" somehow deserve the highest kingdom? And no, it is so obvious as to require no perspective. If you understand the context, which apparently you missed. But feel free to rant on with false analogies.

[Jeff K.]

Self righteousness is an excellent cloak to cover selfishness. It is something we should all remember.

[SilverKnight]

Wait, I apparently wasn't clear. Let me help you.

You seem to have missed that portion which established context.

No I saw it - and I appreciate, and agree with, the sentiment.

Now for those who use the family as a scapegoat in order to avoid giving service to Christ and frankly deciding they were more important and so say "no" simply because they felt like it, then well, you won't find them in the celestial kingdom now will you?

False Dichotomy.

Choosing to spend time with family over church meeting will never equal 'avoiding giving service to Christ' in my book.

Choosing to play video games by yourself instead of helping the Elder's Quorum move a widow might however.

Or do you believe those who simply choose not to serve because they "don't feel like it" somehow deserve the highest kingdom?

But we are not talking about "don't feel like it" people.

We're talking about the people who already devote 10x more time and energy to their church than the average person.

We're talking about generally faithful, active members who, if given the choice, would prefer to spend a little less time in meetings and a little more time with their families.

Those type of people certainly do deserve the highest kingdom.

Incidentally, I believe the "don't feel like it" people do as well, but that is besides the point.

If you understand the context, which apparently you missed. But feel free to rant on with false analogies.

As long as we're making analogies, I believe the Dad who takes his son, plus the two boys who live with their single mom, to YM Activity night and plays basketball with them, is closest to 'following Christ' of all.

I realize that we belong to a lay-church with no full time clergy, so we members must shoulder the burden of running the church. However the sheer amount of time the church can begin to consume can become ridiculous if allowed. Before it gets to that point each of us should not feel guilty for saying "no" to whatever we deem excessive and serving in whatever capacity we feel comfortable.