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

[Scott Lloyd]

not a calling but rather a obligation.  One is called to a calling.  one is assigned a HT/VT route

I'm fairly certain President Ezra Taft Benson, were he around today, would disagree with you.

 

Brethren, home teaching is not just another program. It is the priesthood way of watching over the Saints and accomplishing the mission of the Church. Home teaching is not just an assignment. It is a sacred calling.

 

Emphasis mine.

[DBMormon]

I'm fairly certain President Ezra Taft Benson, were he around today, would disagree with you.

 

Emphasis mine.

I think we get leaders saying it both ways.  there is room to disagree, but thank you for the quote.

 

For example the handbook - Under the bishop’s direction, quorum and group leaders oversee home teaching. They instruct home teachers in their duties and inspire them to perform these duties well.

Home teaching is a priesthood responsibility of teachers, priests, and Melchizedek Priesthood holders. Accordingly, home teachers are assigned by priesthood leaders. They are not called, sustained, or set apart.  

Emphasis mine

A calling by definition

= 

19.1 Determining Whom to Call  19.1.1

General Guidelines

A person must be called of God to serve in the Church (see Articles of Faith 1:5). Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit in determining whom to call. They consider the worthiness that may be required for the calling. They also consider the member’s personal or family circumstances. Each calling should benefit the people who are served, the member, and the member’s family.

Although service in Church callings requires sacrifice, it should not compromise a member’s ability to fulfill family and employment responsibilities (see 17.2.1). Before calling a married person to an assignment that requires a significant time commitment, Church leaders consider the effect of the calling on the marriage and family.

If possible, a member is called to serve in only one calling, in addition to assignments as a home teacher or visiting teacher

Again emphasis mine

Edited September 26, 2014 by DBMormon

[Scott Lloyd]

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

all them sinners who don't have callings..... we should just throw them out.  

Um ... I'm fairly sure you are misconstruing his comment.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think we get leaders saying it both ways.  there is room to disagree, but thank you for the quote.

Can you cite a quotation from a leader who contradicts President Benson on this?

[DBMormon]

Can you cite a quotation from a leader who contradicts President Benson on this?

i did, see above

[Scott Lloyd]

i did, see above

I guess I'm missing that.

 

Can you give a link or a quote or a post number?

Edited September 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/callings-in-the-church?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/melchizedek-priesthood/7.4?lang=eng#74

[DBMormon]

One must be called to the priesthood but HT is part of priesthood responsibility by assigmnent.  HT is not a  calling but rather a extension of the calling of Priesthood

Home teaching is a priesthood responsibility of teachers, priests, and Melchizedek Priesthood holders. Accordingly, home teachers are assigned by priesthood leaders. They are not called, sustained, or set apart.  

Emphasis mine

A calling by definition

= 

19.1 Determining Whom to Call  19.1.1

General Guidelines

A person must be called of God to serve in the Church (see Articles of Faith 1:5). Leaders seek the guidance of the Spirit in determining whom to call. They consider the worthiness that may be required for the calling. They also consider the member’s personal or family circumstances. Each calling should benefit the people who are served, the member, and the member’s family.

Although service in Church callings requires sacrifice, it should not compromise a member’s ability to fulfill family and employment responsibilities (see 17.2.1). Before calling a married person to an assignment that requires a significant time commitment, Church leaders consider the effect of the calling on the marriage and family.

If possible, a member is called to serve in only one calling, in addition to assignments as a home teacher or visiting teacher

Again emphasis mine

 

 

If your assigned you can't be called.  A calling can by nature be turned down (with repercussions admittedly)  an assignment can not.  You can shirk the assignment but it is still there.  It can not be removed from you.

Edited September 26, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Scott, I didn't hear back.... do you acknowledge this issue is more nuanced than thought?

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, I didn't hear back.... do you acknowledge this issue is more nuanced than thought?

I just now saw it, because I've been too busy responding to you in other threads. It was less than a half-hour between my last post and this one to which I'm responding.Have some patience. Sheesh!

 

And, you went back in and added content to one of your prior posts, which I didn't see until after I saw your post that said "See above."

 

I can see a semantic difference in the term calling as used in an administrative sense, such as in the handbooks, and in a general sense, such as how President Benson applied the term.

 

So, though I don't think President Benson's statement is wrong, I will acknowledge that if you intended to mean "calling" in the limited, administrative sense of the term (requiring a setting apart and a sustaining as provided in the handbooks), you are not wrong either.

 

Incidentally, the distinction you draw above doesn't work. An assignment can be turned down or refused just as well as a calling can.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

In endeavoring, for illustrative purpose, to find a real-world example of begging the question, I realized one need look no further than this very thread.

 

Person A: Using the phrase "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" or "prompts the question" or "leads one to ask the question" is appropriate and acceptable.

 

Person B: Why is it appropriate and acceptable?

 

Person A: Because people do it.

 

Person B: And why do people do it?

 

Person A: Because it is appropriate and acceptable.

 

Person B: And why is it appropriate and acceptable?

 

Person A: Because people do it.

 

Ad infinitum

 

Voila! A clear example of circular reasoning, or, well, begging the question.

Exactly. Just like the most famous example, originally from a play by Molière, sometimes also called a "virtus dormitiva".  In that play, someone asks why opium makes people fall asleep.  The learned panel of doctors respond "because of its sleep-inducing properties" which at first might sound like an explanation, but of course if you actually think about it, it explains nothing.

 

That's exactly why I NEVER use dictionary definitions as an explanation for anything- they explain exactly nothing.

 

All they do is repeat the same alleged "explanation" over again, without saying anything relevant.

 

These arguments can be very subtle, and are often found in religious discourse.  You see this argument about what makes something "correct" as question begging, and it really IS.

 

But what DOES make ANYTHING "correct" is actually a huge question in ethics and in many other realms of thought.  In language, "correct usage" and why it IS "correct" actually makes little sense, and we know that languages change.

 

"Correct" Latin is no longer "correct" French, Spanish, Italian or Romanian or Portuguese or several more minor languages precisely because what is "correct" varies over time and with usage.

 

So in a sense what we see in this thread is exactly the crux of what makes language, language.

 

I really hate the "incorrect" usage of "begs the question" for "raises the question" because it is imprecise.  It is a new usage which might cause major misunderstandings because "begs the question" ALREADY has had a major usage for 150 years or more. 

 

When analyzing what someone is saying, I always have to stop and look again and see if the individual is using the traditional usage, or the newer colloquial usage which really says nothing.  It takes time and effort to figure out what they are trying to say, and then I tend to judge how well educated they are by how they have used the term.

 

If they have used it to mean "raises the question", I legitimately assume that they don't know the traditional meaning summarized as "circular argument".

 

If they don't know what "begs the question" traditionally means, that means they are not acquainted with logical fallacies, or philosophies in general.

 

So then I ask myself- "why do I want to talk to a person who doesn't even know the elements of logic?"

 

At that point, I tend to regard them as ignorant and not worth responding to.  If additionally they are belligerent and militant in their ignorance, I get up on my high horse and want to put them in their place.

 

An innocent error is an innocent error, and we all need to overlook such things.  But militant insistence on non traditional usages, without a good reason,  showing no understanding of the underlying issues just makes me want to cut the person off at the knees.

 

No, it's not Christlike, and I am working on it, but unfortunately that still does not make me want to take off my discussion hat and put on my teach-the -child-hat and be kind and take time from the discussion at hand to now teach the individual that they are actually hurting themselves by using incorrect terms.

 

For me, their credibility goes to zilch, instantly.

 

It's the same for incorrect spelling.  We ALL make mistakes, and we ALL make typos, but when someone gives spelling and grammar NO REGARD whatsoever, I simply dismiss them as ignorant.

 

Perhaps that's bad, but there are so many posts, so little time, and so many trolls, we tend to judge each other.  Them's jest the facts

 

AND THAT IS WHY ALL THIS DISCUSSION ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

Edited September 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

Exactly. Just like the most famous example, originally from a play by Molière, sometimes also called a "virtus dormitiva".  In that play, someone asks why opium makes people fall asleep.  The learned panel of doctors respond "because of its sleep-inducing properties" which at first might sound like an explanation, but of course if you actually think about it, it explains nothing.

 

That's exactly why I NEVER use dictionary definitions as an explanation for anything- they explain exactly nothing.

 

All they do is repeat the same alleged "explanation" over again, without saying anything relevant.

 

These arguments can be very subtle, and are often found in religious discourse.  You see this argument about what makes something "correct" as question begging, and it really IS.

 

But what DOES make ANYTHING "correct" is actually a huge question in ethics and in many other realms of thought.  In language, "correct usage" and why it IS "correct" actually makes little sense, and we know that languages change.

 

"Correct" Latin is no longer "correct" French, Spanish, Italian or Romanian or Portuguese or several more minor languages precisely because what is "correct" varies over time and with usage.

 

So in a sense what we see in this thread is exactly the crux of what makes language, language.

 

I really hate the "incorrect" usage of "begs the question" for "raises the question" because it is imprecise.  It is a new usage which might cause major misunderstandings because "begs the question" ALREADY has had a major usage for 150 years or more. 

 

When analyzing what someone is saying, I always have to stop and look again and see if the individual is using the traditional usage, or the newer colloquial usage which really says nothing.  It takes time and effort to figure out what they are trying to say, and then I tend to judge how well educated they are by how they have used the term.

 

If they have used it to mean "raises the question", I legitimately assume that they don't know the traditional meaning summarized as "circular argument".

 

If they don't know what "begs the question" traditionally means, that means they are not acquainted with logical fallacies, or philosophies in general.

 

So then I ask myself- "why do I want to talk to a person who doesn't even know the elements of logic?"

 

At that point, I tend to regard them as ignorant and not worth responding to.  If additionally they are belligerent and militant in their ignorance, I get up on my high horse and want to put them in their place.

 

An innocent error is an innocent error, and we all need to overlook such things.  But militant insistence on non traditional usages, without a good reason,  showing no understanding of the underlying issues just makes me want to cut the person off at the knees.

 

No, it's not Christlike, and I am working on it, but unfortunately that still does not make me want to take off my discussion hat and put on my teach-the -child-hat and be kind and take time from the discussion at hand to now teach the individual that they are actually hurting themselves by using incorrect terms.

 

For me, their credibility goes to zilch, instantly.

 

It's the same for incorrect spelling.  We ALL make mistakes, and we ALL make typos, but when someone gives spelling and grammar NO REGARD whatsoever, I simply dismiss them as ignorant.

 

Perhaps that's bad, but there are so many posts, so little time, and so many trolls, we tend to judge each other.  Them's jest the facts

 

AND THAT IS WHY ALL THIS DISCUSSION ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

I liken it to being tidy in one's dress and grooming. We do it because, fair or not, people judge us, our credibility and our trustworthiness on our personal appearance.

 

And if I'm going to make a speech or otherwise appear before a group people, be it in person or on television or film or the Internet, you can bet I'll take an extra measure of care with my  appearance.

 

The same thing applies to our written expression, which is why I am dismayed that some folks seem so careless -- and sometimes, as you say, militantly so -- in their observance of the conventions of grammar, spelling, usage and punctuation, especially on the Internet, with a potential readership of millions worldwide.

 

Incidentally, I agree, we all make errors. That's why nearly all my posts carry an "edited by" stamp: I am perfectionist enough that when I notice an error after I've made a post, I will inevitably go in and fix it.

[mfbukowski]

At that point, I tend to regard them as ignorant and not worth responding to.

Uh, I meant: "At that point, I tend to regard them as ignorant and therefore not someone to whom I should even respond"

 

[Skylla]

This thread appears to be done.

 

Skylla