LDS Freedom Forum

In another forum I just read about somebody complaining about being released and not being given another calling after expressing some of their beliefs to a Bishop. The thought floored me. It sounded like they want callings and not being given a calling is a punishment. That is so opposite of my personal views. I hate callings, wish it wasn't part of our culture. I grudgingly do callings but I would much rather not. And the thought of a leadership calling would just terrify me, but thankfully I am sure I will never be called to such. I am not part of the "ten same people" clique.

What are your thoughts? Do others really like callings?

I’ve had callings I’ve loved and others not so much. A Bishop has to be careful about putting someone who has unorthodox beliefs into callings where they can unduly influence others.

Your choice of words brings to mind a great quote by President Hugh B. Brown. "We are not as concerned whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox, so long as you have thoughts."

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:23 pm Your choice of words brings to mind a great quote by President Hugh B. Brown. "We are not as concerned whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox, so long as you have thoughts."

Yes...a person can have unorthodox ideas or thoughts. But when they start teaching their ideas as doctrine, that’s a problem. That’s what I meant. I tend to believe President Brown meant folks are free to have their own personal beliefs, but I don’t believe he would have been onboard teaching such beliefs to youth (for example).

jsk wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 5:22 pm

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:23 pm Your choice of words brings to mind a great quote by President Hugh B. Brown. "We are not as concerned whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox, so long as you have thoughts."

Yes...a person can have unorthodox ideas or thoughts. But when they start teaching their ideas as doctrine, that’s a problem. That’s what I meant. I tend to believe President Brown meant folks are free to have their own personal beliefs, but I don’t believe he would have been onboard teaching such beliefs to youth (for example).

Does unorthodox mean it's not true?

For example, many today do not believe that Jesus has literal seed , that he did not have a wife. To say so in church would sound strange. 100 years ago it wouldn't have been strange though. There's been no revelation on this topic, yet now it's unorthodox. Is it a problem if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

Apply that to other more important examples, like the second comforter and calling and election. A lot of people would consider it "Unorthodox" to teach the Second Comforter in class, but 100 years ago it was more common. Is it untrue if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

There are a lot of things that people might think are "Unorthodox" or "They are just your own ideas and doctrine" when it's actual real church Doctrine but people just don't discuss it much anymore.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 6:15 pm

jsk wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 5:22 pm

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:23 pm Your choice of words brings to mind a great quote by President Hugh B. Brown. "We are not as concerned whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox, so long as you have thoughts."

Yes...a person can have unorthodox ideas or thoughts. But when they start teaching their ideas as doctrine, that’s a problem. That’s what I meant. I tend to believe President Brown meant folks are free to have their own personal beliefs, but I don’t believe he would have been onboard teaching such beliefs to youth (for example).

Does unorthodox mean it's not true?

For example, many today do not believe that Jesus has literal seed , that he did not have a wife. To say so in church would sound strange. 100 years ago it wouldn't have been strange though. There's been no revelation on this topic, yet now it's unorthodox. Is it a problem if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

Apply that to other more important examples, like the second comforter and calling and election. A lot of people would consider it "Unorthodox" to teach the Second Comforter in class, but 100 years ago it was more common. Is it untrue if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

There are a lot of things that people might think are "Unorthodox" or "They are just your own ideas and doctrine" when it's actual real church Doctrine but people just don't discuss it much anymore.

You don't have to go back 100 years for calling and election. I have audio tapes from an Institute class in the early 1980's. While studying the New Testament, the instructor says "Everyone always talks about having your calling and election made sure, but no one talks about what it is and how you get it." I got these recordings around 2005, and so in less than 25 years we, as a church, had almost completely stopped talking about it. Did I mention that Seminary and Institute was "correlated" in the mid 1980's?

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 6:41 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 6:15 pm

jsk wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 5:22 pm

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:23 pm Your choice of words brings to mind a great quote by President Hugh B. Brown. "We are not as concerned whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox, so long as you have thoughts."

Yes...a person can have unorthodox ideas or thoughts. But when they start teaching their ideas as doctrine, that’s a problem. That’s what I meant. I tend to believe President Brown meant folks are free to have their own personal beliefs, but I don’t believe he would have been onboard teaching such beliefs to youth (for example).

Does unorthodox mean it's not true?

For example, many today do not believe that Jesus has literal seed , that he did not have a wife. To say so in church would sound strange. 100 years ago it wouldn't have been strange though. There's been no revelation on this topic, yet now it's unorthodox. Is it a problem if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

Apply that to other more important examples, like the second comforter and calling and election. A lot of people would consider it "Unorthodox" to teach the Second Comforter in class, but 100 years ago it was more common. Is it untrue if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

There are a lot of things that people might think are "Unorthodox" or "They are just your own ideas and doctrine" when it's actual real church Doctrine but people just don't discuss it much anymore.

You don't have to go back 100 years for calling and election. I have audio tapes from an Institute class in the early 1980's. While studying the New Testament, the instructor says "Everyone always talks about having your calling and election made sure, but no one talks about what it is and how you get it." I got these recordings around 2005, and so in less than 25 years we, as a church, had almost completely stopped talking about it. Did I mention that Seminary and Institute was "correlated" in the mid 1980's?

Correlated?

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:14 pm What are your thoughts? Do others really like callings?

A lot of people do.

A calling carries social status in Mormonism, let's not pretend otherwise. There's nothing quite so trite as the high councilor pretending aloud that they'd prefer to be in Primary.

Having a calling often means being plugged in to the social fabric of the ward in a practical sense, too. People socialize with those they work alongside. If you don't have a job you're missing out on those friendships, superficial and transitory as they may be. And sometimes they really do blossom into something genuine.

Finally, when you get together with Mormon friends or family outside your ward, inevitably the conversation turns to what callings everyone holds, and if you don't have one people will make assumptions. Asking about someone's calling is often just a veiled way to ask if they are active.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 7:38 pm Correlated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthoo ... on_Program

Correlation has been around for over a century, but usually when people mention it they are referring to the big changes in the 70s.

Many of the best experiences of my life came while fulfilling callings. I developed wonderful relationships with some teens when I was a Sunday School teacher, I had great insights preparing and teaching Gospel Doctrine lessons as well as Elders Quorum lessons that I would never have had sitting as a student, serving in an elders quorum presidency provided wonderful opportunities and much growth as I accomplished incredible things with the families in my stewardship.

I wish I had a good calling now. I've approached my bishop to ask about a temple calling because he won't give me a calling in my ward, but he refused to give my name to the stake president.

When I served as the YM president I think I enjoyed it more than them! It gave me the chance to be (or act) young again.
Preparing the activities, going camping, teaching lessons, playing football etc. It was great! I loved it. The camaraderie was thrilling.

By contrast serving as bishop was the loneliest calling I have ever had.

Right now I'm on the High Council and feel like I'm a spare part. I could go inactive and no one would know! I do my best but it's all under the radar. Never hear from the SP from one week to the next. But it gets me out of my own ward and, more importantly, out from under the feet of the new bishop.

So in the context of "who wants a calling" I guess it's a case of "all these things will give thee experience and be for thy good".

Stahura wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 6:15 pm

jsk wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 5:22 pm

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:23 pm Your choice of words brings to mind a great quote by President Hugh B. Brown. "We are not as concerned whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox, so long as you have thoughts."

Yes...a person can have unorthodox ideas or thoughts. But when they start teaching their ideas as doctrine, that’s a problem. That’s what I meant. I tend to believe President Brown meant folks are free to have their own personal beliefs, but I don’t believe he would have been onboard teaching such beliefs to youth (for example).

Does unorthodox mean it's not true?

For example, many today do not believe that Jesus has literal seed , that he did not have a wife. To say so in church would sound strange. 100 years ago it wouldn't have been strange though. There's been no revelation on this topic, yet now it's unorthodox. Is it a problem if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

Apply that to other more important examples, like the second comforter and calling and election. A lot of people would consider it "Unorthodox" to teach the Second Comforter in class, but 100 years ago it was more common. Is it untrue if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

There are a lot of things that people might think are "Unorthodox" or "They are just your own ideas and doctrine" when it's actual real church Doctrine but people just don't discuss it much anymore.

Again...no problem studying such topics and forming your own ideas. But it’s better to stick to the Manual when teaching in Church. There is still plenty of opportunity for stimulating discussion in my experience and many wonderful stories and things to share without wandering off the reservation and discussing controversial or speculative topics.

I didn’t say it explicitly, but we have a few people in our ward who are hobbyists concerning the Second Coming, women and the Priesthood and the gay issue. They are no longer permitted to teach because they can’t avoid teaching their opinions despite counseling to refrain. The Second Coming guy insists he’s figured out the month and year it’s going to happen.

I have a close friend who is Southern Baptist. She expressed to me how she loves going to Church on Sunday with no responsibilities, that she never has to speak, there is a paid minister who does that, also she can wear pants and comfortable clothing. Is that what we want or shall we do it the Lord's way? Callings are a challenge I agree, as are the people we work with sometimes, but we are building the Kingdom of God, we teach and learn, we sing with our children in Primary, build lifelong friendships with the youth, listen to them thank their teachers in their missionary farewell talks. I have achieved alot of growth from being able to serve, and more than enough blessings from it. I'm grateful!

captainfearnot wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 7:42 pm

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:14 pm What are your thoughts? Do others really like callings?

A lot of people do.

A calling carries social status in Mormonism, let's not pretend otherwise. There's nothing quite so trite as the high councilor pretending aloud that they'd prefer to be in Primary.

Having a calling often means being plugged in to the social fabric of the ward in a practical sense, too. People socialize with those they work alongside. If you don't have a job you're missing out on those friendships, superficial and transitory as they may be. And sometimes they really do blossom into something genuine.

Finally, when you get together with Mormon friends or family outside your ward, inevitably the conversation turns to what callings everyone holds, and if you don't have one people will make assumptions. Asking about someone's calling is often just a veiled way to ask if they are active.

And every last point you make runs completely opposite to my core feelings. So I guess the answer is lots of people do want callings. I personally cannot fathom why.

In my experience, nobody learns more than the teacher. I am thankful for the growth and knowledge that comes from studying a lesson I have to present.
I also believe there are people who need you, your unique life experiences, your personality etc.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 6:41 pm

Stahura wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 6:15 pm

jsk wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 5:22 pm

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:23 pm Your choice of words brings to mind a great quote by President Hugh B. Brown. "We are not as concerned whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox, so long as you have thoughts."

Yes...a person can have unorthodox ideas or thoughts. But when they start teaching their ideas as doctrine, that’s a problem. That’s what I meant. I tend to believe President Brown meant folks are free to have their own personal beliefs, but I don’t believe he would have been onboard teaching such beliefs to youth (for example).

Does unorthodox mean it's not true?

For example, many today do not believe that Jesus has literal seed , that he did not have a wife. To say so in church would sound strange. 100 years ago it wouldn't have been strange though. There's been no revelation on this topic, yet now it's unorthodox. Is it a problem if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

Apply that to other more important examples, like the second comforter and calling and election. A lot of people would consider it "Unorthodox" to teach the Second Comforter in class, but 100 years ago it was more common. Is it untrue if someone taught that in church today? How about 100 years ago?

There are a lot of things that people might think are "Unorthodox" or "They are just your own ideas and doctrine" when it's actual real church Doctrine but people just don't discuss it much anymore.

You don't have to go back 100 years for calling and election. I have audio tapes from an Institute class in the early 1980's. While studying the New Testament, the instructor says "Everyone always talks about having your calling and election made sure, but no one talks about what it is and how you get it." I got these recordings around 2005, and so in less than 25 years we, as a church, had almost completely stopped talking about it. Did I mention that Seminary and Institute was "correlated" in the mid 1980's?

Hi Lizzy,
Only recently did I realize how systematic this “correlation” was. It seems a worthy goal was to keep everyone on the same page (literally), but it also seems to hold people back, pretending that we “have” all we need to know already. How can this truly be the gospel - good news - if it’s all set, vain repetitions of old news? The recent switch to everyone focusing on Christ’s teachings in the New Testament is good, but it’s only this year - then it’s back to worshiping Mormonism. It seems that church leaders are trying to keep people loyal to Mormonism over Christ, otherwise they wouldn’t diss other “good ships.”

This podcast was informative...
https://www.mormonstories.org/?s=Daymon ... yerSpace_2

Notes from it:
The church “model is a bit schizophrenic where your revenue stream is not really connected to the product.” (The church is creating products they like rather than what members like?) Members’ donation is separate from the cost of producing manuals & church buildings etc. Members don’t “buy” church things or services. Few members change their tithing amount based on how well they liked the lesson that week.
#4:
All that which doesn’t build up the kingdom of God (like much of the church’s obsession with money) is building up another type of kingdom. It’s 1 thing for a business or individual to do that - but for a religion (esp one baring Christ’s name)?
Jesus never built business in Jerusalem but said his kingdom is not of this world & he had nowhere to lay his head (homeless).
The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

justme wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 4:14 pm In another forum I just read about somebody complaining about being released and not being given another calling after expressing some of their beliefs to a Bishop. The thought floored me. It sounded like they want callings and not being given a calling is a punishment. That is so opposite of my personal views. I hate callings, wish it wasn't part of our culture. I grudgingly do callings but I would much rather not. And the thought of a leadership calling would just terrify me, but thankfully I am sure I will never be called to such. I am not part of the "ten same people" clique.

What are your thoughts? Do others really like callings?

The biggest strength of our church involves callings which facilitate us applying one of the highest spiritual commandments: to love one another. This is relatively rare - maybe because it isn’t easy to accomplish getting everyone to volunteer. I think it’s generally awesome, though there are glitches because nobody’s perfect and our doctrine has some problems as well. But generally, I have appreciated serving in callings and benefiting from others’ service (it takes a village to raise a child).

Unfortunately, some in power, abuse it. Years ago, I argued with a sister about the new (then) Church’s City Creek Mall & years later she became bishop’s wife. The bishop called me in, just days before my child’s baptism, about what “he had heard” someone said I had said, & days before I was to speak in my child’s baptism, said he’d never let me speak or serve in callings again. Granted I spoke my mind in telling him he seemed to think he was king and was exercising unrighteous dominion. Most bishops I’ve known were much more Christ-like than that. But part of it is the system - they are following orders in prioritizing the church above all.

No 2 people see anything the same - but in our church, conformity is expected, and loyalty to church comes before God/truth. To navigate through respect to Mormonism while integrity to what I have discovered is true, I have focused on common ground basics, & tried (sometimes unsuccessfully) to only say what is both true and considerate of Mormon dogma. Though it’s taking me a while, I’m learning it’s ok to say no, & to trust in God above anyone.

The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

Where exactly do you get this? The world is a large place and I don't doubt some members somewhere suffer from hunger. But I very seriously doubt this is a systemic problem, particularly if they let their Bishop know. Recent Presidents of the Church have said they would liquidate the Church's assets before letting members starve...and they weren't referring to just members in Utah or the rest of the USA.

jsk wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:22 am The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

Where exactly do you get this? The world is a large place and I don't doubt some members somewhere suffer from hunger. But I very seriously doubt this is a systemic problem, particularly if they let their Bishop know. Recent Presidents of the Church have said they would liquidate the Church's assets before letting members starve...and they weren't referring to just members in Utah or the rest of the USA.

I am personally acquainted with someone serving their second senior mission in the Phillipines. She says there are a lot of members there who are chronically malnourished, especially women and children. These are baptized members of the Church, they have had serious problems with malnutrition and starvation from the time the first missionaries taught in the Phillipines, and the members who have enough to eat do not have enough extra than to make a small dent in the problem. The Liahona charitable group does what it can, but again, it's not enough. She says the Church claims that it cannot help. I'm wondering if her testimony will survive her mission.

jsk wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:22 am The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

Where exactly do you get this? The world is a large place and I don't doubt some members somewhere suffer from hunger. But I very seriously doubt this is a systemic problem, particularly if they let their Bishop know. Recent Presidents of the Church have said they would liquidate the Church's assets before letting members starve...and they weren't referring to just members in Utah or the rest of the USA.

"Recent Presidents of the Church" may have said that, but they haven't done it. My friend in the Phillipines stands as a witness.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:32 am

jsk wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:22 am The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

Where exactly do you get this? The world is a large place and I don't doubt some members somewhere suffer from hunger. But I very seriously doubt this is a systemic problem, particularly if they let their Bishop know. Recent Presidents of the Church have said they would liquidate the Church's assets before letting members starve...and they weren't referring to just members in Utah or the rest of the USA.

I am personally acquainted with someone serving their second senior mission in the Phillipines. She says there are a lot of members there who are chronically malnourished, especially women and children. These are baptized members of the Church, they have had serious problems with malnutrition and starvation from the time the first missionaries taught in the Phillipines, and the members who have enough to eat do not have enough extra than to make a small dent in the problem. The Liahona charitable group does what it can, but again, it's not enough. She says the Church claims that it cannot help. I'm wondering if her testimony will survive her mission.

But... viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51449

EmmaLee wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:34 am

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:32 am

jsk wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:22 am The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

Where exactly do you get this? The world is a large place and I don't doubt some members somewhere suffer from hunger. But I very seriously doubt this is a systemic problem, particularly if they let their Bishop know. Recent Presidents of the Church have said they would liquidate the Church's assets before letting members starve...and they weren't referring to just members in Utah or the rest of the USA.

I am personally acquainted with someone serving their second senior mission in the Phillipines. She says there are a lot of members there who are chronically malnourished, especially women and children. These are baptized members of the Church, they have had serious problems with malnutrition and starvation from the time the first missionaries taught in the Phillipines, and the members who have enough to eat do not have enough extra than to make a small dent in the problem. The Liahona charitable group does what it can, but again, it's not enough. She says the Church claims that it cannot help. I'm wondering if her testimony will survive her mission.

But... viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51449

Something something The Lord's thoughts...

Something something investments something something wisdom something future foresight success

jsk wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:22 am The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

Where exactly do you get this? The world is a large place and I don't doubt some members somewhere suffer from hunger. But I very seriously doubt this is a systemic problem, particularly if they let their Bishop know. Recent Presidents of the Church have said they would liquidate the Church's assets before letting members starve...and they weren't referring to just members in Utah or the rest of the USA.

Do you suppose that any given bishop can just request any amount of money anytime to help starving members and actually have that request fulfilled every time?

It's silly to me that any story that paints the church in a bad light is met with skepticism.

Stahura wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:58 am

jsk wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:22 am The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

Where exactly do you get this? The world is a large place and I don't doubt some members somewhere suffer from hunger. But I very seriously doubt this is a systemic problem, particularly if they let their Bishop know. Recent Presidents of the Church have said they would liquidate the Church's assets before letting members starve...and they weren't referring to just members in Utah or the rest of the USA.

Do you suppose that any given bishop can just request any amount of money anytime to help starving members and actually have that request fulfilled every time?

It's silly to me that any story that paints the church in a bad light is met with skepticism.

I know for a fact that Bishops can't request funds from Salt Lake whenever they have starving members and no money to help them. First of all there's my friend in the Phillipines who knows this, and also my parents had the same experience while serving in the Mission President's office, and in a branch, in a poor area in the US. Not only could they not request funds from Salt Lake, but my parents were instructed that they were not to give money to their branch leaders, or to individual members. The rationalization was that the members would get used to it, and then expect it from the next group of senior missionaries, who may not be able to help financially. It broke my mother's heart.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 11:11 am

Stahura wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:58 am

jsk wrote: ↑April 27th, 2019, 10:22 am The church is strict in certain aspects (no drinking, sexuality, demands on members etc) but they are lax in financial moral issues.
Church is spending so much on luxury while many - most members worldwide - are hungry.

Where exactly do you get this? The world is a large place and I don't doubt some members somewhere suffer from hunger. But I very seriously doubt this is a systemic problem, particularly if they let their Bishop know. Recent Presidents of the Church have said they would liquidate the Church's assets before letting members starve...and they weren't referring to just members in Utah or the rest of the USA.

Do you suppose that any given bishop can just request any amount of money anytime to help starving members and actually have that request fulfilled every time?

It's silly to me that any story that paints the church in a bad light is met with skepticism.

I know for a fact that Bishops can't request funds from Salt Lake whenever they have starving members and no money to help them. First of all there's my friend in the Phillipines who knows this, and also my parents had the same experience while serving in the Mission President's office, and in a branch, in a poor area in the US. Not only could they not request funds from Salt Lake, but my parents were instructed that they were not to give money to their branch leaders, or to individual members. The rationalization was that the members would get used to it, and then expect it from the next group of senior missionaries, who may not be able to help financially. It broke my mother's heart.

Is giving money the only solution to hunger? I've had two bishops send me to a bishop's storehouse. They didn't give me a dime but they gave me food that would be worth hundreds of dollars at full retail price.