1. I like to tell people the process we went through in issuing the calling. Usually it’s something like, ‘We had a need, and we thought about you because you seem to have the skills needed for this calling. As we thought about it and prayed about it, we felt like this was a good calling for you at this time.’ Or ‘The RS president mentioned you as someone who could do this, and after thinking about it and praying about it…’ In other words, there’s no harm in telling what ‘inpiration’ really means, and if it is something more significant, then by all means say so. But don’t pretend the magnets on the bishop’s wall get moved around like a Ouija board.

2. This is from the Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting: Building Up a Righteous Posterity:

Sister Tanner
I appreciate priesthood leaders who look at family situations before they make calls. I know calls are inspired, but they also require wisdom and judgment on the part of priesthood leaders.

So there’s a sort of ‘chicken inspiration’ from the HQ.

then I’m not so sure we’d get as hung up on whether or not they were “inspired” or not.

As rank and file members of the church, I feel it our right to get hung up on whether a calling is inspired or not, or even what the source of the inspiration was.

I’d like to give an instance to illustrate the point.

I was extended a calling by a member of the stake presidency to be the stake computer specialist. After he extended the call, I declined on the spot. He was taken back and then emphasized to me that the stake presidency was “inspired” to extend the calling to me. I informed him that I was moving out of the stake in less than a weeks time. Our discussion quickly ended.

Often, as members of the church, our well meaning leadership are all too willing to play the “inspiration” card when there either wasn’t any to begin with, or their source of inspiration came from somewhere other than the spirit. The rank and file, especially those raised in the church, are conditioned to always say yes, even if by doing so it would be the wrong thing to do. And when declining a calling, the leadership tends to pull out the “inspriation card” and beat us on the head with it.

If you’re going to use revelation or inspiration as a motive for offering a call, it better well be real. I grow tired of dishonest leadership who use “inspiration” to justify their spiritual lazyness. If it’s desparation, then say so. Just don’t lie to me.

I also think we need to revise our definition of what inspired means. I think the entire process of a lay ministry is a stroke of inspired genius. And I think that occasionally, our leaders do receive very strong promptings, but they are often unexpected and not the result of prolonged fasting and prayer. And I also think this post was inspired.

That said, I would appreciate candor in some callings–occasionally callings can be exactly the wrong thing for our lives, yet we accept because they were “inspired.” It would be better to know that they just need a warm body, so I can decline the calling that would drive me nuts.

I was once in a branch where I was given no callings for 7 months (!) and was going crazy, so I dropped some heavy hints about needing something to do. The next week, I was called in and given an “inspired” calling–I was literally told the Lord wanted me to teach youth Sunday School–I accepted, and then I was asked my name. Maybe the inspiration was visual?

It seems that most of our discussions about callings focus on us. If we were to shift that focus to the actual purpose of the callings (the service we render) then I’m not so sure we’d get as hung up on whether or not they were “inspired” or not.

I would have to agree here. I would say a many times callings are “confirmed” by the Lord, not necessarily “inspired” by the Lord. If there isn’t a reason why one couldn’t do something, why would the Lord, or anyone else, have a problem with it.

Now, there are two forces at work here, 1) God determining who would best fill a need and 2) the bishopric determining who would best fill a need. It’s nice to believe God called you because you can be assured that there is a profound reason behind it. I’ll let you in on a little secret, when the bishopric calls you out of desperation, there’s also a profound reason behind it, and it’s usually probably the same as Gods: there are people who need to be served.

It seems that most of our discussions about callings focus on us. If we were to shift that focus to the actual purpose of the callings (the service we render) then I’m not so sure we’d get as hung up on whether or not they were “inspired” or not. Ultimately, it’s all the same to God as long as we’re serving others.

If a bishop asked to be released on the grounds that he did not feel he was receiving inspiration for every single calling he issued, he would be laughed out of the stake president’s office. OK, not really, but he would be told to get over it and get back to work.

Okay, that’s probably too strong. I guess a better statement is that the one reminds me of the other. The vagueness of what gets to be called revelation came up, for example, in the first few comments on Kevin Barney’s Most Challenging Mormon Issues post on BCC a while back. Official Declaration 2 was based on a revelation. We’re clear about that. But since then, what is? The decision to build smaller temples? The Proclamation on the Family? The Perpetual Education Fund? The (I’m sure forthcoming) decision to reduce the 3 hour block to 2 hours?

Anyway, as I said, just a tangential connection.

ed (#8), thanks from the quote from Elder Eyring. I don’t know, but that sounds pretty far out to me. He really knows that not only have all callings at all levels of the Church been inspired, but all future callings will be too? Does this include the calling of markawhy (jessawhy’s EQP husband) who freely admits to making uninspired callings? I’m completely with Eve on this one–to claim that all callings are inspired requires that we loosen the definition of inspiration until it’s effectively meaningless.

But Elder Eyring’s quote nicely illustrates what may have motivated Eve’s bishopric member to correct himself: the worry that if members know how often we’re called primarily based on something other than inspiration, we’ll be less likely to take our callings seriously.