How inspired are callings?

[Aprhys]

So I was at work. Another slow evening. So I was looking at the churchs website at the new leadership both male and female and I noticed a lot of credentials listed in each biography. What I didnt see were any blue/gray collared people listed. Is it possible for an honest and worthy individual to enter leadership (outside of local)within the church? Now, I have heard the comments about education and leadership etc. which I find to be nonsense as I know more financially successful people who made it on their own rather than through the corporate ranks. I know numerous men who could lead a relief society group to war in battle who have never set foot on a college campus. Is leadership in the church a closed/elite group or are these people actually called by revelation? Are there any leaders (70s and above or female equivalent) that were called out of nowhere, without connection or clout?

[JK4Woods]

So I was at work. Another slow evening. So I was looking at the churchs website at the new leadership both male and female and I noticed a lot of credentials listed in each biography. What I didnt see were any blue/gray collared people listed. Is it possible for an honest and worthy individual to enter leadership (outside of local)within the church? Now, I have heard the comments about education and leadership etc. which I find to be nonsense as I know more financially successful people who made it on their own rather than through the corporate ranks. I know numerous men who could lead a relief society group to war in battle who have never set foot on a college campus. Is leadership in the church a closed/elite group or are these people actually called by revelation? Are there any leaders (70s and above or female equivalent) that were called out of nowhere, without connection or clout?

I have noticed for years now, that “ Birds of a Feather Flock Together”.

Church leadership wants to make a good impression on their particular bosses.

Both high and low leadership doesn’t want to get in trouble with whom they report to. So in their respective responsabilities, they staff their subordinates with people who are predictable, have decorum and generally won’t make waves or rock the boat.

That is the tried and true method of climbing the church’s career ladder.

Consequently, one often sees the “ Same Ten People” shuffled around from leadership calling to leadership callings.

True “inspiration /revelation” really isn’t practiced very often. Bishoprics consider certain individuals and since they are worthy already, and likely to do a decent job of not leading the flock down the wrong road, of course the Bishopric gets a “confirming” feeling about the right person.

We’ve had Bishops who wouldn’t call any woman to a leadership position if they hadn’t served a mission. (That pool of candidates is way smaller than general church membership).

Now with the reduced number of Ward level callings, the fringe members have pretty much been eliminated from any opportunity of holding a calling.

I bet you’ll never hear, in this day and age, of an inactive church member being visited and challenged to give up smoking, return to church and within a year or so becoming the Bishop.

The church bueararcracy does not like, nor will they empower, the twenty percent of active church members who are “odd”. It can’t happen because of the organizational behavior of the leadership.

It’ll be interesting to see if the tight grip of control falls apart if/when church growth in China or India grows like a tsunami...

[lundbaek]

Are there any leaders (70s and above or female equivalent) that were called out of nowhere, without connection or clout?

The calling by President Heber J. Grant of J. Reuben Clark to the First Presidency is a story I found interesting. My report of it here, which I included in a 2009 sacrament meeting talk, is out of two books: "This is J. Reuben Clark: The Public Years", and "This is J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years" by Michael Quinn and Frank Fox, and published by the Brigham Young University Press in 1983.

President Clark was very disturbed that he would be called to the First Presidency of the Church. One needs to know a little bit about the background of J. Reuben Clark at that time as far as the Church was concerned, to appreciate what a shock this was to him and probably to others as well. He hadn't been where he could be active in the church for 20 to 25 years. In Washington, D.C., where he lived and worked from 1906 until 1930, you could go to a little Sunday evening affair that Senator Smoot held, but that was all. He paid his tithing, but there wasn't any Church, very often, to go to. Then from 1931 to 1933 he served a U.S. Ambassador to Mexico. He'd never been a Bishop, never been a Stake President.

Then he suddenly found himself telling Bishops and Stake Presidents how to do their jobs, how run their Stakes and their Wards. Concerning his calling to the First presidency, J. Reuben Clark reportedly said to President Grant, "Don't you make these choices by inspiration?"
President Grant said, "Yes, we do."
J. Reuben Clark said, "I can understand why a lawyer of international prominence and so forth, like myself, may add to the prestige of the Church. But I don't know what I am doing here. I am doing things that I never was trained to do. I'm instructing people. I feel very inadequate."

Well, according to the story that I read, President Grant said, "That's not why you were chosen as a counselor."
Brother Clark asked, "Well, why was I chosen?"
President Grant told him, "You were chosen because the Constitution of the United States is in jeopardy. The Church needs to be aroused, the country needs to be aroused, and we've got to start training our people to defend that Constitution before it's shredded and lost."
"Oh, really?!"
"You are the best Constitutionalist in the Church."
And those of you who might remember President Benson’s talks and writings about our Constitution should be impressed by his having once referred to President Clark as "The eminent Constitutional authority".

President Clark’s speeches about the importance of the US Constitution in Church General Conferences and in public were received with derision and contempt by many. But of all his statements in support of the U.S. Constitution, one that he made in the April 1935 General Conference stands out the most in my mind.
He said: "To me...that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself. This makes the Constitution the word of the Lord to us. That it was given, not by oral utterance, but by the inspiration of his mind and spirit upon the minds of men, inspiring them to the working out of this great document of human government, does not alter its authority.

[Rick Grimes]

Not really. Sometimes they hit the ball right out of the park, but just rarely in my opinion. Church leadership likes to recruit and work with people that are like themselves. Usually dentists, doctors, lawyers, or any number of highly educated people who tend to be financially stable with more freetime on their hands are the obvious picks. That's not inspiration, that's convenient and close minded. I am reminded of instances in the early Christian church were servants or even slaves were serving as bishops or other leadership callings where they were placed over the very people they served. (Bond and free had a place in the church) you will never see that anymore, until men stop aspiring for higher offices or callings, things Joseph Smith often lamented about, but here we are.

[dewajack]

Whether we like it or not it's a corporation, which is why you see their "credentials" listed in the church news when stake, mission, and temple presidents are called. Martin Harris rather than Joseph would have been earmarked for leadership roles. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion though that it's all nepotism and be overly cynical, although that happens.

People are called by inspiration, when I've been inspired to suggest names, the bishopric takes it seriously, although many factors are at play. I'm sure at times, your church "resume" is looked at.

Recently, we moved into the new ward and the bishop asked me what I had done and what I wanted to do. I told him to please not put me somewhere unless he felt to do so. He seemed really bugged by that. I don't think we clicked at first. However, I watched how he loved the ward and Lord, and when he was released my family visited and told him of our love.

Point is, we're all human and leadership is not to be envied. I've been greatly blessed by local leaders. I do my best to sustain and try not to assume they're there for any reason other than inspiration, but we all know it happens at times.

[inho]

Ward callings are sometimes more due to desperation than inspiration. E.g., there are only few who can play piano. In small wards and branches there are usually more callings to be filled than active members to fill them.

For leadership callings, such as stake leadership and higher up, there is often more alternatives. This should allow the callings to be based on inspiration. I think that those extending the callings at least thrive to do that.

[PressingForward]

Education level and Church Pedigree is everything. Very little inspiration.

[Rick Grimes]

Ward callings are sometimes more due to desperation than inspiration. E.g., there are only few who can play piano. In small wards and branches there are usually more callings to be filled than active members to fill them.

For leadership callings, such as stake leadership and higher up, there is often more alternatives. This should allow the callings to be based on inspiration. I think that those extending the callings at least thrive to do that.

Correct on the first part, but not even at the stake level. Its whoever is known and liked by leadership. They will be from Utah or one of those states, they will have similar backgrounds and may even know the same people by extension, at least. Point is, they will make the same callings to the "same 10" all the time.

[Obrien]

Some callings are based on inspiration. I was called into an EQP once without any real capacity to perform the work required...I was very young and inexperienced. However, in connection with with that call, the name of the man who was to be EP president was revealed to me 6 hours before the stake president called me to see if I could come in to an interview (yes, this occurred long before cell phones, email, internet, social media and at a time when stake presidents made phone calls to congregants).

Since then, none of the over 20 calls I've had were inspired. I know because I asked the fellas that have extended the calls, and they eventually told me the calling was not inspired, but filled a logical, utilitarian need.

[JK4Woods]

A blue collar guy like Simon Peter would never be called from his daily toil to a significant level of leadership.

Right from the fishing boat to Apostle. Never again.

IMO the qualifying factor is the ability to hear the Lord speaking to oneself.

Who cares if the candidate ran an excercise equipment manufacturing company?

[ajax]

They are as inspired as the person receiving the call makes it.

[Obrien]

They are as inspired as the person receiving the call makes it.

Disagree...I believe there are occasionally real honest to goodness bona fide inspiration based callings. I only disagree b because of the circumstances briefly recounted above. Lacking that experience, I would agree with you 100%.

[ajax]

They are as inspired as the person receiving the call makes it.

Disagree...I believe there are occasionally real honest to goodness bona fide inspiration based callings. I only disagree b because of the circumstances briefly recounted above. Lacking that experience, I would agree with you 100%.

I don't disagree here, but from my experience of extending callings to hundreds of people
(I once had to organize an entire ward bottom up in one week) it's all pretty much logic and utility. So called "inspiration" which is vague, undefinable and different from person to person was pretty well useless. Even some of the so called "inspired" callings ended up being duds due to the candidate really not performing well and being uninspired in their duties.

I think people put too much into this and we put too much undo pressure on people thinking God has spoken. It should be properly viewed as, "hey, I'm extending you this job, do you want it or not?" And if they say no, no biggie. If they say yes, "God bless, go forth and inspire"

[ChooseTruth]

They are inspired to the extent the person issuing the call allows them to be. If based on that persons own thoughts and wisdom, they aren’t inspired. If that person truly seeks inspiration and is committed to listening to it and following it, they will be inspired.

I’ve observed that this is more common on a local level and that as you move up the calling chain, they tend to fit the mold prescribed in numerous posts here of certain professions and financial success. It’s still very hit or miss depending on the person choosing/issuing the call and who they are answering to.

[DesertWonderer2]

Some are inspired and some aren’t. We live in the telestial world. Get over it.

[Alexander]

I wonder how much of a difference for the better it would be if callings were voluntary. One would receive revelation that they must have x calling in their ward, and would volunteer. Maybe this would be more inspired and meaningful, as the members would take pride in knowing x or y calling is what the lord wants them to do.

Your question is a very good one. We used to have a stake president who would make you take callings, as in you were called and there was no questions asked. I think a huge part of a calling being inspired is for each individual to receive their own revelation as to what the Lord wants them to do (to take the calling or not). This is also important for how long one would hold that calling. If it is "inspired" on the leadership side, then it is our duty to ask the lord if it is. Nobody should be forced into a calling. I can say for sure that those who fully subscribe to everything in the church are more likely to receive specific callings. If one isn't a "safe" fit for a specific calling in the eyes of the leaders, that person won't get the calling. There are a lot of "safe" moves among the bretheren.

[Cadbo]

I have to wonder why people think that a person using their own thoughts and wisdom isn't being inspired. Does every calling need to be spelled out by the Lord? Wouldn't that make us slothful servants? Sure there are times when we really need a position, or someone needs us in that position at that time, but not always, and the work still needs to go on.

[Alexander]

I have to wonder why people think that a person using their own thoughts and wisdom isn't being inspired. Does every calling need to be spelled out by the Lord? Wouldn't that make us slothful servants? Sure there are times when we really need a position, or someone needs us in that position at that time, but not always, and the work still needs to go on.

I can see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree on the way D&C 58:26 is being used or interpreted in your comment.

“Some may think we shouldn’t expect daily guidance from the Spirit because ‘it is not meet that [God] should command in all things,’ lest we become slothful servants. This scripture, however, was given to some early missionaries who asked Joseph Smith to obtain revelation they should have received for themselves. In a preceding verse, the Lord told them to come to the mission field ‘as they shall counsel between themselves and me.’
“These missionaries wanted a specific revelation about their travel plans. They hadn’t yet learned to seek their own direction in personal matters. The Lord called this attitude what it is: slothful. Early Church members may have been so happy to have a true prophet that they were in danger of failing to learn how to receive revelation themselves. Being spiritually self-reliant is hearing the Lord’s voice through His Spirit for one’s own life.
“Alma advised his son to ‘counsel with the Lord in all thy doings.’ To live in this way--what we often call ‘living by the Spirit’--is a high privilege. It brings a sense of calm and certainty as well as fruits of the Spirit such as love, joy, and peace.” (Elder Larry Y. Wilson, Of the Seventy, April 2018 General Conference)

I think for something to truly be inspired, we should counsel with the lord, just as Alma directs.

[inho]

I have to wonder why people think that a person using their own thoughts and wisdom isn't being inspired. Does every calling need to be spelled out by the Lord? Wouldn't that make us slothful servants? Sure there are times when we really need a position, or someone needs us in that position at that time, but not always, and the work still needs to go on.

I can see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree on the way D&C 58:26 is being used or interpreted in your comment.

We should also remember D&C 9:7

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.