posted
Well, I got a suprise today after church. I was pulled aside privately by a member of the bishopric who wanted to talk to me. I then found out that I had recieved a calling. I am now the teacher of the sunbeams(3-4 year olds).
Another bonus is my youngest sister is in the sunbeams. Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm somewhat confused, by your use of the word "calling" it must mean something different to you. To me, a calling is something that God lays on your heart, and the only person who can know you have it is you (and God) How can someone else tell you that you have a calling?
Again, it's probably just a semantics issue.
Best of luck, that's a challenging age group, but a fun one!
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I since I got it from the church it's supposed to be god's will that I recieve this calling, or something like that. And I have the ability to refuse the calling.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I was just pointing out that some churches call that "a ministry." Somehow it sounds better than "I scrub toilets."
When I belong to a church, I usually end up doing something along those lines. It helps keep us from having to spend church money on services so that more of it can go towards good purposes like feeding the poor or supporting missionary efforts (or whatever). So I guess in a sense that the toilet scrubbing is a good thing (or leads to good things). But I still get a chuckle out of pastors who call it a "ministry" in the apparent hope that someone will be suckered into it and do the job. Hey wait! I'm the one that get's suckered into it!!!
The donut ministry is the one that really cracks me up.
I'm always tempted to hand them out liked blessed wafers.
The Bishop (usually) and sometimes the RS pres or the head of whatever organization, prays to know who to ask to fulfill a responsibilty. The person is asked, and then that person prays to accept. Generally, you accept it unless there is compelling reason otherwise (re: Anne Kate's willingness to be in nursery, but due to traveling, is unable to make the committment to be there every week, so can't be in charge.)
I've seen the prayers to ask and the answers and the results of these callings, and it's really cool. Often, the most unusual, non-intuitive people are called, and it's wonderful to see people grow to meet their responsibilities in ways you'd never think of.
Not to highjack your thread, MEC, but we are also asked to speak in sacrament meeting. The only-halfway-joking joke is that you are asked to speak on principles you need to work on. I was asked last week to speak in April on meekness. I'm not sure what the Lord's trying to say there.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can relate to the talk thing, just a few weeks ago I was asked to give a talk on fasting, the same day I asked a question about fast offerings in church...lol. Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My prior calling was as the 10-11 year old girls achievement day leader. It rocked! We did some very cool things. The girls were all great.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
YOu know, if my pastor or our children's ministry director came to me and said God had told them I was being called to lead the 3-4 year olds, I'd tell them God must have been having an off day.
That's interesting. See, in our church, if there is a need we let it be known. For example, if we need someone to help out with the 3-4 year old church, we'd have it announced from the pulpit that there is a need in that area, and ask for people to pray and see if God is leading them toward that.
We've never had a need go unmet. I'm not saying either way is wrong, just interesting in the different approach.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you ask people to serve in a specific capacity instead of asking for volunteers, the people are often put in uncomfortable situations that they would never have volunteered for. That is a good thing. It's a great opportunity for growth and learning.
My favorite calling is to teach Sunday School to the "problem" classes. I always have a blast with the problem kids. It's the well-behaved ones that I find more difficult to get involved...
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you ask people to serve in a specific capacity instead of asking for volunteers, the people are often put in uncomfortable situations that they would never have volunteered for. That is a good thing
Not necessarily. You can also force people to serve in capacities they are not cut out for and don't enjoy,and that isn't helpful to anyone nor is it what God intends. We are all given certain spiritual gifts. My sister-in-law has the gift of administration. She does not have a strong gift for teaching or for hospitality. She keeps records for her Sunday School class, attendance, financials, etc. She loves it. She does well.
Ask her to teach kids, and everybody would be miserable. She hasn't the patience for it and she hasn't been given the gift for it. She should use the gifts God gave her, and she does. Likewise, take someone with the gift of teaching and ask them to sit down and move numbers from one column to the other and they'd be miserable.
I don't think anyone should be asked to work in a ministry they don't feel led to and don't enjoy and don't have any aptitude for. God wants us to serve with a cheerful heart. And he's gifted us accordingly.
Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy teaching the class or the problem kids or whatever you want to do - perhaps that is indeed your calling and if you're happy doing it then it is. But, I think it's wrong to assume that everyone should be pulled out of their comfort zone and asked to do things just because someone else thinks it's a good idea - that's not necessarily the case.
Again, not saying God doesn't want MEC teaching sunbeams or mr porteiro teaching problem kids, or Bob serving donuts. Not for me to decide what God wants. I just think it's wrong to assume every person can serve adequately in every area of ministry - that's not true. Otherwise spiritual gifts would have no place or meaning, and we know from the Bible that they do.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A drawback of the wholly voluntary system is folks over commit and get burned out. I think there was a thread about that recently.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presumably, those that pass on notice of the calling to the appropriate person do so on the received word of God.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My favorite calling is to teach Sunday School to the "problem" classes. I always have a blast with the problem kids. It's the well-behaved ones that I find more difficult to get involved...
I'm really trying to envision where I'd be placed. Do they have a class for well-meaning but out-of-control hyperactive children? I think that's where I'd show up.
There'd be a lot of asking me to please don't sit on my legs, to maintain eye contact when speaking, and to not speak out of turn. But I'd do my work well and be an enthusiastic volunteer.
posted
The second councilor in our LDS ward bishopric is moving, and all the men in the ward are keeping a low profile.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the way callings are handled in our church because almost everyone does them, not just a few, as was true in other churches I've seen. Also, it's great to have to stretch a little out of your comfort zone. You learn more that way, and grow. Standing up in front of the whole congregation and giving a talk was very hard for me. Not in theory, but in practice. When faced with all those people watching me, I just get shaky. But having done several talks now, it's getting easier. Yet I would never have volunteered to do that.
I sort of hope they will assign me to play piano in relief society someday or something. They would have to give me one song at least a month in advance, and let me practice it. Then the next time I played a song would have to be at least 3 weeks later, and so on. Then gradually I might even get good. That would be cool!
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:1 AND in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and cwisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip•, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
quote:I'm really trying to envision where I'd be placed. Do they have a class for well-meaning but out-of-control hyperactive children? I think that's where I'd show up.
The nice thing is you end up doing everything. No one holds any one calling for a long time - the longest is bishop or stake president, which is for 5 -7 years - and it means that those who used to be the leaders will step aside and other people will fullfill the responsibilities. It's also a way to grow - the only way to know if you can handle responsibility is to be given some.
quote:She hasn't the patience for it and she hasn't been given the gift for it.
Whom God calls, he qualifies. It's not forever, and there's no work in the church that's beneath anyone.
Didnt say the way your church does things is wrong. Just said I dont think it's right to assume everyone can fit into every ministry.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Added: Well no, they are not really, because that would assume that the callings are not being directed. They usually are. In that sense, it's wonderful.
quote:I think it's wrong to assume that everyone should be pulled out of their comfort zone and asked to do things just because someone else thinks it's a good idea
posted
Yes, the selections for different callings definitely bear that stamp, that I've seen. They are inspired choices. Certainly mine have been. Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is where protestant and LDS theology diverge.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in protestant theology prophets were no longer needed after Christ. Now we have the full Word, and that is all that is needed.
This influences how protestant churches are run. There is no man that has the authority to receive revelation on behalf of a people, or act in the name of God. That is what a prophet is. Since there is no authority from God implied in being a reverend or minister, they do not have the power to call someone in and ask them to minister in a needed capacity. They must rely on the personal revelation the members of its congregation receives in regards to how to fill the needs of the church.
Since LDS people believe there are prophets, this concept of revelation on behalf of those under the leader's responsibility goes all the way down the organization. A bishop acting on behalf of his ward has the responsibility and the authority to ask God and the capacity to recieve an answer as to who would best serve and best be served in a certain position. This revelatory power and responsibility falls on all those in leadership positions.
Bishops generally serve for only about 5 years. Then a new bishop is called by the Stake President.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has there ever, in the history of the LDS church, ever been a calling that, in retrospect, looked to be a mistake?
You'll all forgive me, I hope, if I say that this sounds like much backward glancing to "prove" that everything turned out the way God intended it.
I fear I might be treading on a very important tradition in your church without knowing it, or meaning to be particularly offensive.
But I keep thinking of the choir director who turned into Attila the hun and drove everyone out, or the secretary who got power-mad and ran a little influence peddling operation instead of facilitating people's access to the pastor. Or the janitor who refuses to open up the sanctuary on Saturdays so the guitar group can practice, etc. etc.
I gather nothing like that ever happens in the LDS congregations.
And, frankly, I find that so contrary to human nature that I disbelieve it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, of course your guess is correct that not everyone "magnifies their calling" equally well. I hope there is no thought that we are trying to say that everything is perfect always in the church. From OSC in Lost Boys to mine and kat's discussions about things going on in our wards, I think the board gets pretty much the full story.
I guess the direction that God guides us is not always the one of least strife or zero troubles. Maybe it's the one of greatest growth. Everyone has their free agency, still, even when we operate within His guidelines. I would think if we had wanted the smoothest existence, with the least trouble and strife, we would have opted to stay in heaven. What we tend to get here is the maximum learning and growth potential. Part of that is sometimes failing.
posted
If I understand correctly from a friend, a protestant reverend has the knowledge and training, and hopefully the spirituality to teach, make temporal decisions, and counsel the members of the congregation but they cannot recieve authoritative revelation from God.
In other words, revelation calling someone to do a particular job, because God wants them to.
However, within that they do have the Spirit to guide them as to what to teach, what to do, and how to counsel members.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Within that idea are leaders all the way up to General Authorities who fail in their callings. Being called does not mean that you will now no longer make poor decisions or are suddenly perfect. This failure would also affect their ability to recieve revelation on callings, so that they could concievably call the wrong people.
But should the choir director turn into Atilla the Hun, they would be dismissed as soon as their behavior was known. Christlike behavior is held in higher regard than musical ability.
posted
Sorry folks for a THIRD reply, but more thoughts:
This system is more than tradition. It is a major aspect of LDS organization. There is no professional clergy. There is no college. There is no special training. Everyone is called in this manner.
Even the Prophet, or President of the church gets to his position by being called as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve by the current prophet and then living long enough to be the eldest member of the Quorum when the previous Prophet dies.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes the ideas just flow out separately, and it can be difficult to read as one long post. Though the practice does seem to bother some people, it's quite low on my radar of things to get annoyed at.
I'm much more irate about those dratted pun threads. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, two thoughts – first “reverend” is a title, not a noun. Using it the way you did is the equivalent of referring to a woman as a Mrs.
Second, if you mean “receive authoritative revelation” in the sense of receiving an instruction that is binding on the whole denomination, than no, we don’t. But there is a huge difference between that and having “no authority from God.” I understand that you don’t believe that non-LDS leaders have that authority, but please understand that not everybody shares that belief. The word “authority” is in our ordination service, and we believe it comes from God, no less than you believe so about your church’s priesthood.
Edit: and the “job description” of ordained clergy is sometimes abbreviated “preacher, pastor, prophet.”
Edit again: In the UMC, the appointment of clergy is much like the LDS call system as it has been described here. The Bishop and the cabinet pray for guidance and then appoint the various available clergy to the various open churches, where we serve for 5-12 years before being sent somewhere else. We do, btw, believe this process is guided by God.
I’m sorry if this is starting to sound hostile, but I really get the impression that many LDS believe that protestants believe God has quit speaking to people. Just because we don’t have one person assigned to receive revelation doesn’t mean we don’t think God speaks and guides the church!
quote: Has there ever, in the history of the LDS church, ever been a calling that, in retrospect, looked to be a mistake?
Sure, there have been callings that didn't turn out well. Once you are called, you still have your free will, and you can choose to behave badly. But just because somebody messes up doesn't mean that they didn't stand a chance.
You might not go along with me theologically here, but I'll present it anyway. I don't believe that Judas Escariot was called to be an apostle just so that he could have Christ killed. He was a full apostle, and was called so because he had the gifts required. But he still chose evil in the end.
But the Bible is full of stories where what looks like a tragedy turns out for the best. The murder of Christ, the selling of Joseph, etc..
quote: I’m sorry if this is starting to sound hostile, but I really get the impression that many LDS believe that protestants believe God has quit speaking to people. Just because we don’t have one person assigned to receive revelation doesn’t mean we don’t think God speaks and guides the church!
Thanks for sharing. While that flies in the face of what many protestant friends of mine have shared, its good to understand you better.
We also do not believe that there is one person assigned to recieve revelation. We believe that each person has the right and authority to recieve revelation according to his calling. Parents have the right and oblogation to recieve revelation concerning thier family. A sunday school teacher recieves revelation concerning how/what to teach. A Bishop recieves for his ward, etc. etc.. But there is one person who has the right/duty to recieve revelation for anything/everything in the church. That is the President or the Prophet. And of course, we believe that it's not just administrative revelations that he can recieve, but anything that the Lord wishes. It might be somthing as simple as telling us to shun pornography or something as life-changing as we all need to pack up and move again (this hasn't happened for a long time).
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the UMC, the appointment of clergy is much like the LDS call system as it has been described here. The Bishop and the cabinet pray for guidance and then appoint the various available clergy to the various open churches, where we serve for 5-12 years before being sent somewhere else. We do, btw, believe this process is guided by God.
Okay. *confused* That sounds exactly like how all callings are done in the church - every job gets prayed about and someone is asked.
In that case, I'm not sure where the disagreement comes in. Except I do think that implying that the jobs are assigned according to a leader's random whim raised hackles. It doesn't happen like that.
Coincidentally enough, this is what church was all about yesterday. Seriously, a talk in sacrament meeting, Sunday School, and RS were all about callings and magnifying (doing your best) in them and what it means. The bishop clarified some things in Relief Society.
He said sometimes there are definite clicks in the brain and heart - this person MUST go here. And sometimes...it doesn't really matter. There are some people that don't feel right, but there's a pool of jobs that need to be done, and a pool of people that need jobs, and he matches them up. He was apologetic while telling us this, as in "Please no one rest your testimony on your bishop's ability to listen." but that does make sense. In terms of decisions in our lives, sometimes it matters terribly what you do next, and sometimes whatever you want to do is fine. Even when it comes to spouses, some people report have practically an angel tell them this was the one, and for other people, the Lord said, "Sure. That's what you want, then go for it. That'd be fine."
No, callings aren't perfect, but nothing executed by man is. I resent the implication that they are handed out according to whim and to satisfy individual agendas, though.
----
Dana, I think some of the confusion is because there is disagreement about what seems to be major points of doctrine. I mean, maybe the thinking is that if God is still talking, wouldn't he bring this up?
Could you explain the role of revelation, general and personal, in your church then? *listening*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, I don't think dkw, or anyone, was saying that LDS church assignments were just handed out randomly. Maybe I haven't been reading closely.
I think there is a tendency among Mormons to think that no other Christian church believes in revelation. It is more accurate, I think, to say that Mormons are among the few who believe in an open canon of scripture.
Is that a more correct estimation of the Protestant view, dkw? That personal revelation, and authoritative revelation (i.e., callings for preachers to preach in Africa, Chicago, etc) from God is alive and well in the doctrines of Protestant Christianity, but that the scriptural canon is closed?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word Calling means recieving a call from God to do something. The problem seems to be whether God would relay that call through a third person. If I am called to do something by God, I would assume that his voice would be loud enough that I would hear it. On the other hand, I can well imagine that many people don't hear it, or ignore it in favor of their own internal desires.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I am called to do something by God, I would assume that his voice would be loud enough that I would hear it.
Okay, as far as I can tell, it's a difference between the systems again. The LDS church has a central authority and a distinct line of authority. For an official position within the church, it comes through the person with the authority to fill that. For other things, do what the Lord tells you.
The only calling I can think of where the individual prays first and applies for it is being a missionary. Even with being a missionary, though, the actual call comes from the First Presidency. Not everyone who wants to go is ready or able to. On the other hand, if you don't submit your papers, you won't be called to go.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, callings aren't perfect, but nothing executed by man is. I resent the implication that they are handed out according to whim and to satisfy individual agendas, though.
kat, I hope you didn't think I was implying this at all. The thought never occurred to me. I believe that there's a lot of intellect and maybe a fair amount of "direction from God" in these types of assignments. In no way does that mean I think that they are made at random or capriciously.
I just have a hard time imagining as rosy a picture as it seemed the various LDS people here were describing and I wanted to see if I was just missing something.
Essentially, your church sounds like every church I've ever belonged to. And what people believe is the process and the "rightness" of it is often a function of what they want to believe versus anything rooted in reality. Much of it "turning out right" is really revisionist history in my experience.
That doesn't mean it is arbitrary. It just means that there's a lot of looking back in retrospect and saying "God wanted it this way for a reason" when as often as not I think people are just hoping that's true.
I wouldn't say that about someone's call to be a preacher, but for the fact that I've met some pretty terrible preachers. And, obviously, someone who hasn't worked out their own ethical issues in life might also be accused of faking their calling. But that's just my cynical opinion and is nothing specific to the LDS.
I realize everyone likes to put the best foot forward, but sometimes things people say about LDS just don't pass the smell test for me. It's a wonderful religion, and I admire most of its adherents that I have met personally. But when it starts to sound like it is somehow better than other good religions out there, I get skeptical.
Maybe it's a group that accentuates the positive, but I also hear an undertone of something I don't like in some religions -- that they're doing it "right" and everyone else falls short.
Basically, I can't really detect a substantive difference in how the LDS handles most things, and maybe what's going on is that y'all don't know about any other ways of doing it so yours seems best to you.
It's like having a discussion of alternatives to democratic rule with a bunch of Americans. What do we know about living under a different system. We can't even imagine it (most of us, anyway).
I truly meant no offense. And I hope I'm not crossing some line here -- especially with our hosts. I repeat again that I really do admire most of the LDS members I've ever interacted with. And you have all been very patient with me in the past when I've stepped on toes.
But bottom line is we are all human and we mess up and I'd rather see people of faith recognize that than say "isn't it great that God made it work out this way" when things go horribly wrong.
For example, I will never believe that we as a world would've been worse off if we'd somehow managed NOT to kill Jesus. I'm thinking God had an alternate plan that would've been even better had we shown ourselves to be mature and faithful enough to avoid killing his son. To say that Judas' actions "worked out for the best" just makes me cringe.
Actually, if you think about it, the entire doctrine of Original Sin is predicated on the idea that God would prefer us to act differently than we did in a whole lot of situations, and that His planning would've accommodated that result just fine. So to say that "things work out for the best" is really sort of bizarre to me.
NOTE: I'm speaking for the Church of Bob here, btw, so don't take my ravings to mean anything about what a "non-LDS Christian" would believe.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But bottom line is we are all human and we mess up and I'd rather see people of faith recognize that than say "isn't it great that God made it work out this way" when things go horribly wrong.
Well, it does go wrong sometimes. My bishop when he was telling about the process of filling callings was very emphatic that he'd hate to have any base their testimony on the process, because he KNEW how fallible he was and how it was sometimes simply a judgement call.
I don't think every calling I've had was meant to be and divinely inspired. I have had one experience where I wanted to make a change in my life and I didn't know how and prayed for an opportunity for it, and the next Sunday I was called to a position that gave me that opportunity. That was very, very cool. It didn't work out only in retrospect - it was very direct, immediate, and exactly what I needed.
I have to admit the reason I was defending the process was because of the statements earlier in the thread how asking someone to fill a position instead of waiting for volunteers wasn't "what God intends."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My current calling is Ward Choir Director. Before that I was the chorister in sacrament meeting. Somehow I've been part of the Musicerati in the ward since we moved in. I'm not sure how I got into the Musicerati. Maybe it's because I know how to wave my arm in 4/4.
If everybody took responsibilities upon themselves because they felt called to, every ward would have 200 bishops, 100 Sunday School teachers, and no one to teach Young Mens. There are 2 very good reason why callings are made through the channels of authority the Church has set in place. One is that no person can take upon themselves authority; it must come through proper, recognized channels. Two is that there are many responsibilities in each congregation that need to be filled in order for everything to function well.
When I get a calling I don't particularly feel well suited for, I try to think of the mighty oak dropping an acorn. Eventually there will be another mighty oak standing there. Callings are for strengthening your weaknesses and helping you grow. When you get comfortable and good at a calling, you usually get released and called somewhere else where you need to grow.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
