Calling Confidential

[Amulek]

The handbook contains the following guidance with respect to confidentiality:

Section 30.1.4
Callings and releases are sacred. Because of this, leaders keep information about proposed callings and releases confidential. Leaders share such information at a time and in a setting that is consistent with its sacred nature.
For example, a person who is being considered for a calling is not notified until the calling is issued. This helps avoid embarrassment if the call is not extended.
Additionally, only those who need to know, such as a spouse and an organization presidency that has responsibility for the position, are informed before the person is presented for a sustaining vote.

Now, I can certainly understand the part about keeping things close to the vest before a calling has actually been extended. But I've never really understood the practice of keeping everything top secret after a calling has been extended but before the sustaining vote has taken place.

Case in point: our bishopric was recently released and an entirely new bishopric was installed. In calling the new bishopric the counselors weren't notified of who the new bishop would be. That seems to be taking the abundance of caution thing a bit farther than is strictly needful. But maybe not. Maybe there are really good, practical reasons for handling things this way.

So, I figured I would 'ask the audience.' Have any of you experienced or heard of a situation where information about a calling being made public (post-issue, pre-sustaining) has caused a problem of any sort?

 

[bluebell]

I can see the need to keep things confidential before it's all been decided or before the people who currently have the calling have been released especially, but I don't understand the idea that we don't say anything because the information is sacred.  That comes across to me as an explanation created to support the secrecy, rather than secrecy existing because everything is sacred.

It seems like even the handbook is confused.  Is it kept secret because the information is sacred or is it kept secret because it might cause embarrassment?  The explanation in the handbook seems to call into question the very idea of sacredness by providing an example that uses embarrassment as the actual reason to keep it quiet.

Thankfully, when my husband was called as a counselor to the bishop, he (both of us since I was there too) was told who the new bishop would be at least.  It would be weird not to know, especially if it ended up being someone that the person did not get along with at all.  

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

The handbook contains the following guidance with respect to confidentiality:

Section 30.1.4
Callings and releases are sacred. Because of this, leaders keep information about proposed callings and releases confidential. Leaders share such information at a time and in a setting that is consistent with its sacred nature.
For example, a person who is being considered for a calling is not notified until the calling is issued. This helps avoid embarrassment if the call is not extended.
Additionally, only those who need to know, such as a spouse and an organization presidency that has responsibility for the position, are informed before the person is presented for a sustaining vote.

Now, I can certainly understand the part about keeping things close to the vest before a calling has actually been extended. But I've never really understood the practice of keeping everything top secret after a calling has been extended but before the sustaining vote has taken place.

Case in point: our bishopric was recently released and an entirely new bishopric was installed. In calling the new bishopric the counselors weren't notified of who the new bishop would be. That seems to be taking the abundance of caution thing a bit farther than is strictly needful. But maybe not. Maybe there are really good, practical reasons for handling things this way.

So, I figured I would 'ask the audience.' Have any of you experienced or heard of a situation where information about a calling being made public (post-issue, pre-sustaining) has caused a problem of any sort?

 

Yeah- that's not normal.

However, the issue of timing is often much more challenging than one might expect. Getting everyone called and everyone released in a meaningful way so that they hear it from the leader first, can be tough.

One of my greatest regrets as a Bishop was the way I handled 1 specific release of the RS President. It was rushed and didn't fully convey the appreciation and magnitude of what the RS had put into her calling. That was nearly 10 years ago but I still regret it. It was totally my fault but I think part of the circumstances about the timing pushed me to do it in a way that wasn't appropriate.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

In calling the new bishopric the counselors weren't notified of who the new bishop would be. That seems to be taking the abundance of caution thing a bit farther than is strictly needful. But maybe not. Maybe there are really good, practical reasons for handling things this way.

Both times I was called as a counselor in a bishopric I was told who the bishop would be. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can see the need to keep things confidential before it's all been decided or before the people who currently have the calling have been released especially, but I don't understand the idea that we don't say anything because the information is sacred.  That comes across to me as an explanation created to support the secrecy, rather than secrecy existing because everything is sacred.

It seems like even the handbook is confused.  Is it kept secret because the information is sacred or is it kept secret because it might cause embarrassment?  The explanation in the handbook seems to call into question the very idea of sacredness by providing an example that uses embarrassment as the actual reason to keep it quiet.

That's maybe a good question. What is actually sacred: the information pertaining to the calling/release or is it the process that is sacred?

I completely agree that the revelatory process involved in calling/releasing people might rightly be considered sacred. But I don't see how every single step in the administrative process after that point has to be considered sacred as well - you know, kind of like how we consider temple ordinances sacred, but that doesn't prohibit us from discussing everything relating to the temple.

 

[The Nehor]

Callings have become much less formal in terms of how they are extended. I remember when my dad was a bishop he would often try to meet with the potential person in their home to get a feel for where they are in their life and family before extending the call. He wanted his counselors to do the same thing and to go with the Spirit if they were prompted not to extend the call. Now it is often ten minutes before church. I understand why. Callings are much more fluid and members move much more often in and out of wards so the traditional way is kind of impractical.

I don’t know.

The confidentiality thing can lead to some weirdness. A friend of mine got congratulated by a member of the High Council for a calling he hadn’t heard about yet since in the last meeting he was told the calling would be extended and sustained the Sunday before but it was delayed.

While it can be humorous feelings are also sometimes hurt. The only time I have seen someone opposed to a sustaining vote in my current ward was a guy who was never called objecting to his own sustaining. Egg on face……….

[The Nehor]

Just now, Amulek said:

That's maybe a good question. What is actually sacred: the information pertaining to the calling/release or is it the process that is sacred?

I completely agree that the revelatory process involved in calling/releasing people might rightly be considered sacred. But I don't see how every single step in the administrative process after that point has to be considered sacred as well - you know, kind of like how we consider temple ordinances sacred, but that doesn't prohibit us from discussing everything relating to the temple.

 

The idea is to keep the information contained to those involved in the selection so the person called is told first. If it leaks before that and for whatever reason does not happen it can become a gossip thing. Keeping it hidden until it is announced also prevents the same thing from happening if there are any last minute changes.

It is not a perfect system but I think spreading the information freely would be much worse.

[Canadiandude]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The idea is to keep the information contained to those involved in the selection so the person called is told first. If it leaks before that and for whatever reason does not happen it can become a gossip thing. Keeping it hidden until it is announced also prevents the same thing from happening if there are any last minute changes.

It is not a perfect system but I think spreading the information freely would be much worse.

How so?

Assuming the policy is to not inform the council lord who they’ll be serving with/under, why can’t the councillors and their spouses be expected to respect confidentiality, and know the person they’ll be serving under, just as the prospective leader & their spouse are?

Otherwise, the councillor might originally agree, only to decline after learning who they are serving with/under. And that could also lead to bad feelings.

 

If I’m mistaken in my understanding of what you are saying let me know.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Canadiandude
Councillor not council lord. Darn autocorrect

[bluebell]

I'm wondering if some of this is a problem created by a poorly worded handbook section?  It seems like there are two different issues here, two different points the handbook is trying to make:

1. Callings are sacred, and being released from a calling is also a sacred aspect of the calling.  Callings and releasings should be done in a way that illustrates the sacredness of that service (whether the person doing the service is coming or going).
2. Confidentiality of calling and releasing someone is important because if done the wrong way it can lead to embarrassment and hard feelings, disrupt ward unity, and generally cause contention in a ward or between someone and a leader.

Both excellent points. Where things get confusing (for me anyway) is how the handbook conflates these two reasons by putting them both under the "sacred" umbrella, instead of just the first.  

This doesn't make sense to me because, for example, by calling the information of who will serve in a new calling "sacred" and using that as the specific reason for confidentiality, the handbook sets up a situation where information that was once so sacred it was inappropriate to share, becomes information that must be shared with as many people as possible later.

The timing does not change the sacredness of the information, but the timing does change whether or not it is appropriate for the information to be widely known.  If it's the timing and not the information that determines whether or not something should be confidential, that seems to suggest that confidentiality is important because of #2 above, and not at all because of #1.

And if that's true, then I think the wording in the handbook (especially the underlined part) where it says "Callings and releases are sacred. Because of this, leaders keep information about proposed callings and releases confidential" is clunky, confusing, and accidentally misleading.

Edited November 9, 2021 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Canadiandude said:

How so?

Assuming the policy is to not inform the council lord who they’ll be serving with/under, why can’t the councillors and their spouses be expected to respect confidentiality, and know the person they’ll be serving under, just as the prospective leader & their spouse are?

Otherwise, the councillor might originally agree, only to decline after learning who they are serving with/under. And that could also lead to bad feelings.

 

If I’m mistaken in my understanding of what you are saying let me know.

I was talking about callings in general. Being called as a counselor and not being told who is bishop or the organization president they will be serving is very abnormal. People called are only supposed to tell their spouse (though often the spouse is present) and their children assuming their children can be trusted not to say anything. I have no idea if the children thing is still valid. Now that kids can spread things more easily maybe that has changed. My dad told me and my brother (the two oldest) he was being called as Bishop but not the younger ones. I already knew he was being called by what I like to think was the Holy Ghost but my memory of how I reached the conclusion is foggy (I was 12). I even told my dad that. He said it was unlikely because he had only been in the ward for six months. I am also not sure how I knew the bishopric was being changed out. I was friends with the outgoing bishop’s son. Hmmm….

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's maybe a good question. What is actually sacred: the information pertaining to the calling/release or is it the process that is sacred?

I completely agree that the revelatory process involved in calling/releasing people might rightly be considered sacred. But I don't see how every single step in the administrative process after that point has to be considered sacred as well - you know, kind of like how we consider temple ordinances sacred, but that doesn't prohibit us from discussing everything relating to the temple.

 

I can see the process being considered sacred and I also get the idea of feeling things out before extending the calling.  At the same time I find myself getting irritated that I have to wait to find out what calling they are planning on extending to me - a calling which will affect me more than them - and then feel pressured to say yes right then.  

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

I can see the process being considered sacred and I also get the idea of feeling things out before extending the calling.  At the same time I find myself getting irritated that I have to wait to find out what calling they are planning on extending to me - a calling which will affect me more than them - and then feel pressured to say yes right then.  

Exactly.  

If they would call you in and then give you a few days to decide then it would be different, but like Nehor said, a lot of callings are being extended 10 minutes before Sacrament meeting, where the person-if they agree-is going to be sustained.  That's a lot of pressure and not much time to choose to accept something that is a sacred act of service and therefore will have spiritual repercussions to the person agreeing to it.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

I can see the process being considered sacred and I also get the idea of feeling things out before extending the calling.  At the same time I find myself getting irritated that I have to wait to find out what calling they are planning on extending to me - a calling which will affect me more than them - and then feel pressured to say yes right then.  

There is also an argument to be made that last minute notification of a congregation about who will be serving them in key roles like Bishopric, Relief Society etc doesn't provide adequate time to fully consider the individual for the calling before sustaining them. As it turns out the sustaining becomes perfunctory with very little meaning. It's more like an acknowledgement by the congregation that information has been received.

[rongo]

47 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Both times I was called as a counselor in a bishopric I was told who the bishop would be. 

Neither time I was called as a counselor was I told who the bishop would be. Both times I was called as a bishop, I . . . picked my counselors.  They weren't told who I was, and found out with everyone else. 

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's maybe a good question. What is actually sacred: the information pertaining to the calling/release or is it the process that is sacred?

I completely agree that the revelatory process involved in calling/releasing people might rightly be considered sacred. But I don't see how every single step in the administrative process after that point has to be considered sacred as well - you know, kind of like how we consider temple ordinances sacred, but that doesn't prohibit us from discussing everything relating to the temple.

I think the confidentiality traditions have more to do with propriety, not hurting feelings, and not "letting the cat out of the bag" until the actual sustaining and/or attendant callings are made. I don't think it has much to do with the sacredness of extending the call. 

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Callings have become much less formal in terms of how they are extended. I remember when my dad was a bishop he would often try to meet with the potential person in their home to get a feel for where they are in their life and family before extending the call. He wanted his counselors to do the same thing and to go with the Spirit if they were prompted not to extend the call. Now it is often ten minutes before church. I understand why. Callings are much more fluid and members move much more often in and out of wards so the traditional way is kind of impractical.

I don't think the traditional way is impractical, but I do think that leader behavior is mirroring social trends, like you say. I always met with both spouses, even for "minor" callings. I often did meet with people in their homes (with advance notice, of course). 

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The confidentiality thing can lead to some weirdness. A friend of mine got congratulated by a member of the High Council for a calling he hadn’t heard about yet since in the last meeting he was told the calling would be extended and sustained the Sunday before but it was delayed.

I remember long ago a guy was called up to be set apart in an elders quorum presidency. He looked confused, but he went up and sat down as he was set apart. The calling had never been extended (breakdown in communication between the stake presidency and the high councilor). He was a good sport about it. 

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Neither time I was called as a counselor was I told who the bishop would be. Both times I was called as a bishop, I . . . picked my counselors.  They weren't told who I was, and found out with everyone else. 

I think the confidentiality traditions have more to do with propriety, not hurting feelings, and not "letting the cat out of the bag" until the actual sustaining and/or attendant callings are made. I don't think it has much to do with the sacredness of extending the call. 

I don't think the traditional way is impractical, but I do think that leader behavior is mirroring social trends, like you say. I always met with both spouses, even for "minor" callings. I often did meet with people in their homes (with advance notice, of course). 

I remember long ago a guy was called up to be set apart in an elders quorum presidency. He looked confused, but he went up and sat down as he was set apart. The calling had never been extended (breakdown in communication between the stake presidency and the high councilor). He was a good sport about it. 

 

I've heard many stories of people not knowing they were being released from a calling until they were released during sacrament meeting.  The best laid plans and all that...

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is also an argument to be made that last minute notification of a congregation about who will be serving them in key roles like Bishopric, Relief Society etc doesn't provide adequate time to fully consider the individual for the calling before sustaining them. As it turns out the sustaining becomes perfunctory with very little meaning. It's more like an acknowledgement by the congregation that information has been received.

I was struggling with this for the past few months.  I stopping raising my hand to sustain because I realized after I thought about it that I didn't really know what I was doing, especially when I had never heard of them before. 

Last week I went in to see the bishop  about my temple recommend.  We talked about sustaining church leaders etc and I mentioned my feelings on sustaining when called.  He said a line that I loved.  He said that there was no requirement to sustain immediately.  That it is perfectly fine to get to know a person first.  

[The Nehor]

I have one friend who was extended a calling by a counselor. This friend is one of the strongest members I know. One of those people who is always an automatic “yes”. This call was extended early in the week before the Sunday in which it was to be sustained. He said he just felt completely wrong about the calling and told the counselor he would think about it and get back to him in a few days. He felt horrible because he had never turned down a calling. Turned out it was probably a spiritual prompting and the Bishop called him a few days later apologizing. The Counselor had gone off a bit half-cocked and extended the calling when the Bishop hadn’t made a final decision.

I was once extended a calling to be a Single Adult rep for my ward. I am not a fan of the Single Adult program. I find being involved with it horrible and it rarely does things that appeal to me. When I say that I am told that makes me perfect because I can shake it up and fix that (three times I got that explanation about a Single Adult call). Then I am stuck because you don’t want to say that it isn’t the planning; it is the people. I don’t want to be around people just because we happen to be single.

Anyways I got the calling extended and gave a very halfhearted acceptance more because of temple covenants I probably did not want to break than because I wanted the calling. Later I was called as the Ward Clerk and got to know that counselor and found out that that was the first calling he had ever extended and I felt awful that that was his introduction to the process and apologized profusely. He said it was a good way of easing him into the process. The next person just said “no”. I managed to get rid of that calling by collecting more and when I had three I talked to the Bishop and he told me to tell the Stake Presidency I had three callings and couldn’t do all of them and got them to release me from the Single Adult one.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've heard many stories of people not knowing they were being released from a calling until they were released during sacrament meeting.  The best laid plans and all that...

Wow. If we hadn't personally extended the release, then it waited until the next week when we had. That's more fraught with potential to hurt feelings and offend than anything else. 

[bluebell]

I'm going to take this opportunity to be extremely supportive of the change in the handbook calling section reminding bishoprics that people should be left in callings long enough to get good at them and then be able to perform them to that level of ability.

Calling someone to a calling for a month and then moving them to something new (and continuing to do that to members of the ward over and over again) is soul crushing.  Yay for that common sense being (for now) enshrined in the handbook!   

Length of Service

As much as possible, leaders allow members to serve in their callings long enough to establish strong relationships with those they serve. Members may also need time to learn and grow in their responsibilities. This can be especially important for leaders of youth and children as well as presidents of the Relief Society and elders quorum. The ideal length of service for leaders varies, but two to five years are often sufficient.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Wow. If we hadn't personally extended the release, then it waited until the next week when we had. That's more fraught with potential to hurt feelings and offend than anything else. 

Yes, I think in many the examples that I heard shared, hurt feelings were a result.  It was never personal (and always accidental) but that doesn't mean it doesn't feel personal, especially if the calling was loved by the person being suddenly released.

Edited November 9, 2021 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm going to take this opportunity to be extremely supportive of the change in the handbook calling section reminding bishoprics that people should be left in callings long enough to get good at them and then be able to perform them to that level of ability.

Calling someone to a calling for a month and then moving them to something new (and continuing to do that to members of the ward over and over again) is soul crushing.  Yay for that common sense being (for now) enshrined in the handbook!   

Length of Service

As much as possible, leaders allow members to serve in their callings long enough to establish strong relationships with those they serve. Members may also need time to learn and grow in their responsibilities. This can be especially important for leaders of youth and children as well as presidents of the Relief Society and elders quorum. The ideal length of service for leaders varies, but two to five years are often sufficient.

Now we just need a statement telling members to move less.  

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Now we just need a statement telling members to move less.  

True.  That can make things really hard.

Once we were called in to see the bishop because he was extending a cub scout calling to my husband.  My husband told him that we could be moving in the next couple of months and he didn't really feel like he should accept the calling but the bishop was kind of a 'not going to take no' guy (he was a good bishop, no one is perfect) so hubby accepted.

Then we moved 6 weeks later.  

Sometimes leadership creates their own mess.  

Edited November 9, 2021 by bluebell

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

The handbook contains the following guidance with respect to confidentiality:

Section 30.1.4
Callings and releases are sacred. Because of this, leaders keep information about proposed callings and releases confidential. Leaders share such information at a time and in a setting that is consistent with its sacred nature.
For example, a person who is being considered for a calling is not notified until the calling is issued. This helps avoid embarrassment if the call is not extended.
Additionally, only those who need to know, such as a spouse and an organization presidency that has responsibility for the position, are informed before the person is presented for a sustaining vote.

Now, I can certainly understand the part about keeping things close to the vest before a calling has actually been extended. But I've never really understood the practice of keeping everything top secret after a calling has been extended but before the sustaining vote has taken place.

Case in point: our bishopric was recently released and an entirely new bishopric was installed. In calling the new bishopric the counselors weren't notified of who the new bishop would be. That seems to be taking the abundance of caution thing a bit farther than is strictly needful. But maybe not. Maybe there are really good, practical reasons for handling things this way.

So, I figured I would 'ask the audience.' Have any of you experienced or heard of a situation where information about a calling being made public (post-issue, pre-sustaining) has caused a problem of any sort?

 

The handbook particulars are in place (a) because enough leaders asked the same question; and / or b) enough members have been harmed in the same way.

Making a calling public post issue, pre-sustaining can create problems ranging from distracting, detracting and destructive speculation and gossip post-issue/pre sustaining changes, and significant spiritual damage to the individual called and others if the change is related to moral reasons or creates speculation and gossip about their capacity or moral standing.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have one friend who was extended a calling by a counselor. This friend is one of the strongest members I know. One of those people who is always an automatic “yes”. This call was extended early in the week before the Sunday in which it was to be sustained. He said he just felt completely wrong about the calling and told the counselor he would think about it and get back to him in a few days. He felt horrible because he had never turned down a calling. Turned out it was probably a spiritual prompting and the Bishop called him a few days later apologizing. The Counselor had gone off a bit half-cocked and extended the calling when the Bishop hadn’t made a final decision.

I was once extended a calling to be a Single Adult rep for my ward. I am not a fan of the Single Adult program. I find being involved with it horrible and it rarely does things that appeal to me. When I say that I am told that makes me perfect because I can shake it up and fix that (three times I got that explanation about a Single Adult call). Then I am stuck because you don’t want to say that it isn’t the planning; it is the people. I don’t want to be around people just because we happen to be single.

Anyways I got the calling extended and gave a very halfhearted acceptance more because of temple covenants I probably did not want to break than because I wanted the calling. Later I was called as the Ward Clerk and got to know that counselor and found out that that was the first calling he had ever extended and I felt awful that that was his introduction to the process and apologized profusely. He said it was a good way of easing him into the process. The next person just said “no”. I managed to get rid of that calling by collecting more and when I had three I talked to the Bishop and he told me to tell the Stake Presidency I had three callings and couldn’t do all of them and got them to release me from the Single Adult one.

I disagree with some Church leaders (and one Seventy in particular, whom I've discussed this with) about expecting people to never turn down a calling. This one in particular claims that he's never had anyone turn down a calling from him, and that if you extend it as if Jesus Himself were extending it, it will never happen to you, either. 

I believe that extending callings is a serious, holy thing --- and that people have agency. And that leaders should respect that agency. Sometimes, when members feel awful about turning down a calling (or not being able to hide how unenthusiastic or other things along those lines), it's devastating to them. I always made it clear that I needed to know any concerns they have, or things that I don't know about that impact accepting it, and that it's okay to be honest and open about that. My approach was always 1) we're meeting to discuss a calling for ________ 2) what the calling entails, what we need from them in that calling 3) "let us counsel together;" what are their thoughts 4) do you and your spouse formally accept it?

I've had great people who, for different reasons, couldn't/shouldn't accept it at that time, and I made it clear that that was okay --- and I tried to make sure they knew through my demeanor and interactions in the coming weeks and months that it was "still" okay. 

Sometimes you need to "read the room" and make an executive decision to "pull out of the dive" with callings. 

[CV75]

I was once called to a position and was explicitly told not to share with any family member (except my wife who was present when the call was issued). Well, our daughter's power went out that night and she and her family spent the night with us and came to Church with us the next day, sat with us in the pew. Not a small crowd. To make matters worse, her husband served with the Stake President, who was on the stand and obviously wondering / putting 2 and 2 together, looking (to me) a bit peeved. Well, I was sustained, asked to come up to the stand, and walked by the Stake President, but obviously couldn't explain what was up. A long meeting, indeed! I had to chase after him on the way down the hall afterward to tell him the situation. He told me he understood and appreciated it. later on, when I told my family what happened, my son-in-law said he hadn't been privy to my calling.