What Is The Damage That Not Having A Calling Does To Children

[tonie]

In another thread Bob Crockett suggest that obvious damage to Children raised by same sex couples is that the adults in the home would not have callings.

 

Isn't the obvious answer that ...(2) the parents are not likely to have callings in the Church, ...

 

This begs the question: What is the obvious damage to children when parents do not have a calling? 

 

Is it even feasible or practicle to assign every parent in the Church a calling? I say no it is not feasible or practicle, as doing such would, in my opinion, created busy work for parents. Thus would unnecessarily distract and interfer with quality home life.

 

Is the Church or local leadership damaging LDS children by not assigning a calling to every parent in the Church? If not every parent, at least one parent in a two parent household?

[Alucard]

Not possible for everyone to have a calling.  But being a home teacher / visiting teacher is / are arguably the most important callings.  Every member is or should be one of those.

[Sleeper Cell]

In another thread Bob Crockett suggest that obvious damage to Children raised by same sex couples is that the adults in the home would not have callings.

 

 

 

 

This begs the question: What is the obvious damage to children when parents do not have a calling? 

 

Is it even feasible or practicle to assign every parent in the Church a calling? I say no it is not feasible or practicle, as doing such would, in my opinion, created busy work for parents. Thus would unnecessarily distract and interfer with quality home life.

 

Is the Church or local leadership damaging LDS children by not assigning a calling to every parent in the Church? If not every parent, at least one parent in a two parent household?

 

There is a quite a difference between not having a calling at a particular time and never having a calling.  

 

What sort of callings would you classify  as “busy work?” 

[tonie]

 

There is a quite a difference between not having a calling at a particular time and never having a calling.  

 

What sort of callings would you classify  as “busy work?” 

 

 

Same question begged, with a slight nuance.

 

What is the damage to LDS children or non-LDS children when the parent - LDS and nonLDS parents - never having a calling.

 

Is the Church or local leadership damaging LDS children by not EVER assigning a calling to every parent in the Church? If not every parent, at least one parent in a two parent household?

[Tacenda]

In another thread Bob Crockett suggest that obvious damage to Children raised by same sex couples is that the adults in the home would not have callings.

 

 

 

 

This begs the question: What is the obvious damage to children when parents do not have a calling? 

 

Is it even feasible or practicle to assign every parent in the Church a calling? I say no it is not feasible or practicle, as doing such would, in my opinion, created busy work for parents. Thus would unnecessarily distract and interfer with quality home life.

 

Is the Church or local leadership damaging LDS children by not assigning a calling to every parent in the Church? If not every parent, at least one parent in a two parent household?

My father had very few callings, probably only 3 at the most that I remember...worked at picking up DI donations, Sunday School Secretary, and Scouts.  I don't think of those callings when I think about how Christ like he was.  I think of how uplifting he was to those around him, always ready to make those around him smile, and also the service he'd give w/o being prompted or asked. 

[ksfisher]

In another thread Bob Crockett suggest that obvious damage to Children raised by same sex couples is that the adults in the home would not have callings.

 

 

 

 

This begs the question: What is the obvious damage to children when parents do not have a calling? 

 

Is it even feasible or practicle to assign every parent in the Church a calling? I say no it is not feasible or practicle, as doing such would, in my opinion, created busy work for parents. Thus would unnecessarily distract and interfer with quality home life.

 

Is the Church or local leadership damaging LDS children by not assigning a calling to every parent in the Church? If not every parent, at least one parent in a two parent household?

 

Are you serious about this question, or are you just looking for ways that the church hurts people.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Are you serious about this question, or are you just looking for ways that the church hurts people.

What on earth makes you think this was done in seriousness?

[ksfisher]

What on earth makes you think this was done in seriousness?

 

Not sure, hence my question.

 

Humor, especially subtle humor, and sarcasm are difficult things to convey in writing.

[will227457]

This is not a serious question just a waste of time and space...I want my 5 minutes back

[Ahab]

Same question begged, with a slight nuance.

What is the damage to LDS children or non-LDS children when the parent - LDS and nonLDS parents - never having a calling.

Is the Church or local leadership damaging LDS children by not EVER assigning a calling to every parent in the Church? If not every parent, at least one parent in a two parent household?

Callings are basically assigned responsibilities, so try your question again while replacing the word "calling" with "an assigned responsibility".

And then try replacing the word "damage" with "loss", and the answer should then be more obvious to you.

Any child who has a parent who is never offered an assigned responsibility in the Church loses the benefits (or blessings) that come from someone fulfilling an assigned responsibility.

And if you want to know the benefits associated with an assigned responsibility you'll need to consider the duties of someone with that responsibility.

Also try to realize that the reason members of the Church assign responsibilities to others is because it helps to be organized rather than allow chaos to reign with people not sure of who is doing what and when which causes confusion and stress and a waste of valuable time.

For example, suppose every parent wanted to be the bishop of a ward, or the Relief Society president, without any parent assigned to do it.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Ahab

[ksfisher]

Callings are basically assigned responsibilities, so try your question again while replacing the word "calling" with "an assigned responsibility".

 

 

As long as we're trying to get the lingo right

 

Callings are not assigned.  Callings are extended and we are invited to accept the calling.  A person may be assigned specific duties withing that calling, such as a counselor in the bishopric being assigned to work with the primary or young men.

[tonie]

Are you serious about this question, or are you just looking for ways that the church hurts people.

Unless you are saying Bob Crockett was not serious; then, YES, I am serious about what obvious damage is done to children whose parents do not or have not had a calling.

Mola Rom I have you on ignore and have had you on ignore for awhile now.

[Buzzard]

Woah, look, an avatar! And I wasn't even trying to put one up on this site. 

How about this: The reason that an active homosexual parent will never hold a calling is that they are not worthy to hold one.  So the damage comes not from having a calling or not having one, but from bringing up a family in a home where there is no priesthood, acceptance of grievous sin as normal, and even if they go to church, a lack of serious participation in the life of the ward.  They can attend, but not pray publicly, teach lessons, sit on councils, or any of the many other things fully active LDS do.  You don't think children pick up on the fact that their mommy doesn't teach a primary class like Sally and Jesse's mommies do?

Lack of a calling is a symptom, living a sinful lifestyle is the disease. 

[will227457]

Unless you are saying Bob Crockett was not serious; then, YES, I am serious about what obvious damage is done to children whose parents do not or have not had a calling.

Mola Rom I have you on ignore and have had you on ignore for awhile now.

There is no "obvious" damage done to children who's parents do not have a church calling. As pointed out by Alucard we all are called to either be a home teacher or visiting teacher so technically every member has a calling and if every member has a calling there can be no damage done

[mfbukowski]

A calling is an opportunity to serve and to think about others welfare, and to teach your kids that it is important to help others.

 

If you don't want them to learn that, they will grow up be selfish people who don't care about anyone but themselves and only want to take and not give.

 

In my book, those are not good traits.  Others here obviously differ and think such service is "busy work".

 

I'm just glad those folks were not my parents.

[mfbukowski]

Incidentally, learn what "begging a question" means. 

 

Your ignorance is showing.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/begging-the-question-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1

Edited September 24, 2014 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

While "callings" are great opportunities for people to serve and help others, I've also seen cases where people did more harm than good.  So I don't think we can say that it is a categorically good thing for someone to have a calling (or bad thing for them not to have one).

[Ahab]

As long as we're trying to get the lingo right

Callings are not assigned. Callings are extended and we are invited to accept the calling. A person may be assigned specific duties withing that calling, such as a counselor in the bishopric being assigned to work with the primary or young men.

Therefore, callings are (or consist of) assigned responsibilities for those who accept those callings.

In other words, when you are asked if you will accept a calling you are being asked if you will accept the responsibilities that are or will be assigned to the person who will accept that calling.

Just a little understanding of what it means to accept a calling.

[Bob Crockett]

Lack of a calling is a symptom, living a sinful lifestyle is the disease.

That's what I meant.

[tonie]

Woah, look, an avatar! And I wasn't even trying to put one up on this site.

How about this: The reason that an active homosexual parent will never hold a calling is that they are not worthy to hold one. So the damage comes not from having a calling or not having one, but from bringing up a family in a home where there is no priesthood, acceptance of grievous sin as normal, and even if they go to church, a lack of serious participation in the life of the ward. They can attend, but not pray publicly, teach lessons, sit on councils, or any of the many other things fully active LDS do. You don't think children pick up on the fact that their mommy doesn't teach a primary class like Sally and Jesse's mommies do?

Does the Church assume someone is damaged because there is not a Priesthood holder in the home?

Lack of a calling is a symptom, living a sinful lifestyle is the disease.

So only sinners do not have callings - though we are all sinners - and some have callings and some do not. Edited September 24, 2014 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

 

This begs the question: What is the obvious damage to children when parents do not have a calling? 

 

Oops!

 

You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper manner.

 

 

What is "Begging the Question?"

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

What is it Not?

To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."

 

[tonie]

Oops!

You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper manner.

Before you attempt to triumphantly ride off, you might want to do some research. My use was appropriate, though the opinions pendants can differ. Edited September 24, 2014 by tonie

[Ahab]

Oops!

You used the phrase "begs the question" in an improper manner.

Hmmm. Not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying there is no obvious damage like tonie suggested? His question may have only been clumsy and what he may have meant to ask was "If there is any obvious damage due to...., what is it?" But then again he shouldn't be suggesting that any damage is obvious if he can't see it, should he.

[Buzzard]

Does the Church assume someone is damaged because there is not a Priesthood holder in the home?

So only sinners do not have callings - though we are all sinners - and some have callings and some do not.

There are unfortunate circumstances, and then there is mockery of God's commandments.  And there is also a hierarchy of sins.  I am sometimes too easily annoyed with my lovely spouse.  That's a sin, but I am working on getting better at it.  But there is no comparison between that imperfection (and of course, plenty of others), and openly living in and indulging in a sin that has been identified as next to the taking of innocent human life in seriousness. 

Likewise, a wife, abandoned by her spouse and left to raise children without him is a hard row to hoe, but does not compare with blatant, open defiance of the law of chastity.  

I defy you to find a sexually active homosexual couple with children who bring them each week to LDS services and attend themselves.  I might be surprised, but I'd put my money on there not even being one. So your point is merely hypothetical in any case. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Hmmm. Not sure I understand your point here. Are you saying there is no obvious damage like tonie suggested? His question may have only been clumsy and what he may have meant to ask was "If there is any obvious damage due to...., what is it?" But then again he shouldn't be suggesting that any damage is obvious if he can't see it, should he.

Did you go to the link and read the content there? Did you read the quote I supplied from the link?

 

The phrase "to beg the question" does not mean "to raise the question" or "to prompt the question." It means to commit a logical fallacy wherein a statement is assumed to be true without any evidence being offered other than the claim itself.

 

It's an improper usage of that phrase.

 

People do it all the time, but that doesn't make it correct.

 

Read the content on the link, and perhaps you'll understand better.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd