Tech Forum

AdrianLP wrote:What calling could you have had that the current membership clerk (even if in a new ward/branch) should not be allowed to see that you had it?

I see it as two possibilities:

1) It's a work-level issue. The more you record, the more you have to check and fix and the more effort that takes. I've seen membership records simplified. There was a time you could see every priesthood ordination performed and who did it. That's all been dropped for only recording the most recent.

2) You need to treat people for what they are, not for what they have been. If the ward was able to see someone's past callings, they might treat them differently. To use the above example, I could look at a guy's record and tell you if he came from a faithful family (every ordination right near the birthday and done by the father) or not (levels skipped, different ordinations done by different people). It was tempting to try and write some of them off and not try to activate them.

RussellHltn wrote:2) You need to treat people for what they are, not for what they have been. If the ward was able to see someone's past callings, they might treat them differently.

Interesting. Personally I would say the bishop is no better, no more faithful, no more exerting then the usher. All people are equal right? Sure the branch president's calling takes more of his time, but it certainly doesn't imply he's a better member than any other non-branch president.

AdrianLP wrote:

RussellHltn wrote:2) You need to treat people for what they are, not for what they have been. If the ward was able to see someone's past callings, they might treat them differently.

Interesting. Personally I would say the bishop is no better, no more faithful, no more exerting then the usher. All people are equal right? Sure the branch president's calling takes more of his time, but it certainly doesn't imply he's a better member than any other non-branch president.

I doubt very much that Russell meant or believes that a church position makes one person better than another person. I think that what he is saying is that there could be a risk for a member to get "type cast" into a particular type of calling and perhaps not be given opportunities for growth in new areas.

Personally I think a person's prior callings would only have a small bearing on forming some sort of prejudment when such things as HT/VT stats, donation records, recommend status, etc. are available as well. Besides, I would think those in leadership positions wouldn't judge anyone by their past, good or bad.

I have to agree that a calling history might be helpful, especially in the cases of new Bishoprics, combining or splitting of Wards, or other such events.

...Or in my case where I'm behind on my personal history and can use all the help I can get.

danpass wrote:I doubt very much that Russell meant or believes that a church position makes one person better than another person. I think that what he is saying is that there could be a risk for a member to get "type cast" into a particular type of calling and perhaps not be given opportunities for growth in new areas.

So we should be ... secretive and misleading about past callings as to not get type cast? <grins>

It seems to me that leadership prays over what calling to give a person.

Their past callings should have zero bearing on future callings when prayed about diligently by the branch presidency.

And yes people can still get type cast (or even reinterpret_cast<clerk *>(SOME_FELLOW) ). The trouble there is not that someone knows their past callings, the issue is that either God wants them to be in that calling or someone is not praying to know where that person should serve.

danpass wrote:I doubt very much that Russell meant or believes that a church position makes one person better than another person. I think that what he is saying is that there could be a risk for a member to get "type cast" into a particular type of calling and perhaps not be given opportunities for growth in new areas.

Very well said. I agree with this statement 100%.

Brad O. wrote:Very well said. I agree with this statement 100%.

Personally I feel if someone is type cast, and God doesn't mean them to be (maybe God does), its the fault of the person giving the calling, and NOT accurate historical record keeping.

AdrianLP wrote:Personally I feel if someone is type cast, and God doesn't mean them to be (maybe God does), its the fault of the person giving the calling, and NOT accurate historical record keeping.

I've never participated in giving a calling to someone, so I don't know. I do know that I don't like the idea of someone looking at a list of my previous callings for the purpose of assigning me a new one.

Brad O.

Brad O. wrote:I've never participated in giving a calling to someone, so I don't know. I do know that I don't like the idea of someone looking at a list of my previous callings for the purpose of assigning me a new one. Brad O.

I've served many years in a Branch Presidency. Although we had a history of callings, I don't think we ever used it to determine a given person's next calling.

Although knowing the person just spent 10 consecutive years in primary might discourage us from calling them to primary again. So in this case it serves to do exactly hat you want.

When in comes down to it callings are fulfilled when leadership prays to know what calling they should have, or who should fill a calling. Having historical records should not change that, and if it does, the problem isn't with the historical records.

This is kind of a tough one because I can see both sides of the discussion. I think I'd be more inclined to lean toward having such a comprehensive history.

As for this discussion about the "misuse" of an individual's calling history, I think it is irrelavant. I would think when issuing callings, you are to take as much thought and consideration as possible about every single individual. D&C 9:7-9 gives the pattern for receiving revelation. You aren't suppossed to merely "take no thought save it were to ask" the Lord. If this is how it is being done, then that individual alone is responsible for their misguided efforts, not MLS nor it's record keeping.

The same thing is true of some of the data currently is MLS. Stuff like whether an individual is endowed or whether they served a mission could be misused in making decisions about a calling. But that doesn't mean that data should be locked down or even removed from MLS.

But I acutally think we are digressing. This is now becoming a discussion of policy. A novel idea has been submitted to the community at large and there has been an awesome discussion about the pros and cons of the suggestion. I think we have probably gone far enough and should leave it in the hands of Church employees to decide whether it should be adopted or not and the policies surrounding it.

If somebody does have a different idea or some new slant to add to the discussion, the please feel free. But I think this discussion about issuing callings has probably been exhausted. Thanks everyone.