Releasing from callings, "those who need to know"?


NeedleinA
 Share

Recommended Posts

Currently working with a highly frustrated Primary President.
She is 'upset' because primary teachers are both called and released without her knowledge. She recently lost her nursery leader and only found out during sacrament.
I'm trying to:
A. Comfort and encourage her
B. Help a Bishopric understand the situation and frustration that has built up
I have my thoughts, but looking to see what your thoughts are AND your interpretation of Handbook 2 - Releasing Members from Church Callings
Who, in this situation do you believe/know (please cite a source/quote) constitutes, "those who need to know"?

Quote

19.5  Releasing Members from Church Callings

Releases from Church callings should come by inspiration, except when a person’s change of residence necessitates a release or when a calling is for a specific time period, such as full-time missionary service...

Releases from Church callings are made by the same level of authority that extended the callings. To issue a release, an authorized leader meets with the member personally, informs him or her of the release, and expresses appreciation for the service. The leader also asks the person to return any current, usable materials so they can be given to the successor. Only those who need to know are informed of a release before it is announced publicly.

The part in bold is the hiccup. Is the Primary President on the need to know list when releasing the nursery leader? If so, citation please. Primary is part of my high council assignment, thus a citation would be extra helpful to talk with both parties. Thanks in advance.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a "use your judgement situation".

I would say that is is a good / polite thing to let the Primary President know that she's going to be short helpers one teams that she's worked so hard to build/maintain.  Kids also bond with their teachers.  Its BEYOND frustrating to work so hard building those teams only to have them yanked out suddenly as if you and your program don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

I have my thoughts, but looking to see what your thoughts are AND your interpretation of Handbook 2 - Releasing Members from Church Callings
Who, in this situation do you believe/know (please cite a source/quote) constitutes, "those who need to know"?

The part in bold is the hiccup. Is the Primary President on the need to know list when releasing the nursery leader? If so, citation please.

The Primary president needs to know when someone under her purview is being released or called. I have no citation for this beyond obvious common sense, nor do I believe any other citation is needed. This seems about as duh as it gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Handbook 2 Section 19.1.1 (bold mine):
 

Quote

Leaders keep information about proposed callings and releases confidential. Only those who need to know, such as an organization president who has responsibility for the person, are informed before the person is presented for a sustaining vote. A person who is being considered for a calling is not notified until the calling is issued.

The Primary President should absolutely be notified in advance that someone in the primary will be released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I'm with the Primary President, hands down.  That said, in order for you to better help mediate this situation let's consider what each side might potentially be thinking:

Bishop doesn't inform the Primary President because (potentially):
    - the release is due to worthiness issues
    - the release is due to the person being called to a new position which he feels shouldn't be announced yet
    - he's busy and informing the Primary President is simply one more thing to do.  
    - it was just an oversight, he'll try not to do it again

Primary President is upset because (potentially):
 - As JaneDoe said: Its BEYOND frustrating to work so hard building those teams only to have them yanked out suddenly as if you and your program don't matter.
 - It undermines her authority as the primary president as if she were nothing more than a figure head
 - It leaves her short staffed with no notice
 
The Bishop should let the Primary President know in advance.  He doesn't have to explain the reason for the release, simply to say, "Sister Doe, I wanted to let you know we will need to release Sis. Smith from the Nursery.  I wanted to let you know so you can begin to prayerful consider a replacement."   

This situation reminds me of Elder Ballard's council on councils.  That advice applies here as well.   He started out by talking about cars, the pleasure in a well-tuned car and the contrast of one that is not functioning well.  He compared that to wards.  

"Unfortunately, some wards in the Church are hitting on only a few cylinders, including some that are trying to make do with just one. The one-cylinder ward is the ward where the bishop handles all of the problems, makes all of the decisions, and follows through on all of the assignments. Then, like an overworked cylinder in a car engine, he is soon burned out."

It sounds like this same issue is happening in the ward you are advising.  Apparently, this in not uncommon.  Perhaps well-meaning Bishops think this is what they are "supposed" to do.   Elder Ballard gave an example of this:

"During training sessions I have conducted in various locations since last general conference, I have focused attention on the ward council. As part of that training, I invited a ward council to participate. I gave to the bishop a theoretical problem about a less-active family and asked him to use the ward council to develop a plan to activate this family.

"Without exception, the bishop took charge of the situation immediately and said, “Here’s the problem, and here’s what I think we should do to solve it.” Then he made assignments to the various ward council members. This was a good exercise in delegation, I suppose, but it did not even begin to use the experience and wisdom of council members to address the problem.

"Eventually I asked the bishop to try again, only this time to solicit ideas and recommendations from his council members before making any assignments. I especially encouraged him to ask the sisters for their ideas. When the bishop opened the meeting to council members and invited them to counsel together, the effect was like opening the floodgates of heaven. A reservoir of insight and inspiration suddenly began to flow between council members as they planned for fellowshipping the less-active family.

"As I watched this same scenario played out before me time after time during the past six months, I decided that it would not be out of order to speak about the importance of councils once again. I speak not to scold those who did not give serious attention last time, but because we have an urgent need in the Church for leaders, particularly stake presidents and bishops, to harness and channel spiritual power through councils. Family, ward, and stake problems can be solved if we seek solutions in the Lord’s way."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1994/04/counseling-with-our-councils?lang=eng

While Elder Ballard was specifically addressing ward councils (and other councils) I think this advice applies well to your situation.   The Bishop and the ward will be more blessed if he councils WITH the Primary President in the Lord's way.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past few months, I've taken to pushing a policy (in our ward) that no one is sustained until their replacement is secured.

In some cases, that has ended up in, for example, the RS president requests someone from Primary. So we put the Primary and RS presidents together and tell them to resolve staffing across both organizations. If they feel like the solution is pulling someone from YW, then we get the YW president involved. Once they have a solution worked out that all of the organization presidents are happy with, we issue callings. In the extreme example, we denied the RS president a secretary for several weeks until Primary could be suitably staffed.

We might be a little strange in our ward, however, because as I write agendas for Ward Council, I put down any callings that are being considered seriously. Our entire ward council knows what is going on with our staffing decisions well before sustainings occur. And they give regular feedback on the process.  Very often, staffing issues are resolved by the organizations and the bishopric just approves it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone for your comments, I appreciate them, I do.
@Jane_Doe, yes, she is beyond frustrated and understandably so.
@e-eye yes, you are correct.
@Vort, agreed - pretty duh cut and dry
@rchorse - thanks, the citation nail I needed
@LiterateParakeet Agreed. "
The Bishop and the ward will be more blessed if he councils WITH the Primary President in the Lord's way."
@MarginOfError - some interesting concepts. I see several benefits, yet at the same time I can see some concerns with the circle of confidentiality growing unnecessarily too big and separately the potential to push out the guiding keys of the Bishop if, "Very often, staffing issues are resolved by the organizations and the bishopric just approves it".
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you spoken to the Bishopric yet?  I'd bet it goes something like this:

You: Sister X is about to go postal because you keep releasing her teachers and not telling her.

The Bishopric: Oh dang - we need to do a much better job at that.  Thank you for letting us know.

[Then it gets better, because the bishopric approach her understanding that she is understandably upset.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add a story from my past concerning callings.  Shortly after finishing college I was moved to the east coast for work.  My wife, myself and my young little growing family ended up in a very small struggling branch (that I called a twig).  The branch president was not much older than myself but from a very different background.  He was a convert to the church and for his entire religious experience he had only two callings - full time missionary and branch president.  About 80% of the branch were military - which meant that without any notice on any given Sunday it was no uncommon for half the active members to not show up without any previous notices.  It was not intentional that such members could not give notice nor find substitute replacements - it was a requirement of their military position.  It was obvious to me that the reason the specific individual was the branch president because, other than myself, he was the only Melchizedek priesthood holder that had a stable schedule and could regularly be at church.  Sadly he had very little clue and each Sunday was a wing it experience for him.

The only thing going for him was a great love of Christ and for his tiny flock.  He pored his heart out constantly but he made lots of mistakes - especially with callings and releases.   BTW we met in a very dirty basement of the local Methodist Church that was somewhat like our cultural halls.  But the Methodists never cleaned it - but all this is another story.  Within a year we were able to gather enough funds to build our own building for worship.  It was a small phase 1 concept the church was experimenting with in the early 70's.  We were able to complete the first phase of the building and move in.  With all the difficulties the branch was full of love.  Two things happened that has a profound effect on me and the little branch.

The First thing was than a new family moved into the branch.  The husband was older and wiser than anyone else.  He has served in many callings which included twice as a bishop.  He was best described as a "by the book" no nonsense kind of guy.  The other event was that both myself and the current branch president moved from the little town.  The branch president about 4 months before me.  About a month before I moved (I was the Sunday School president) there was a blow up in the gospel doctrine class that involved the wife of the new branch president.  I honestly do not remember what the particular doctrine of contention was - but being the SS pres I personally met at the end of the class with all involved and attempted to smooth out hard feelings.  I asked all to apologize to each other for the anger and contention.   They all did and I thought I had performed a miracle - I went home that Sunday thinking I the whole thing resolved.

Later that week I was called in by the new branch president to his office.  He was most upset with me for not siding with his wife - that he said was obviously correct concerning the doctrine in dispute.  I suggested that his view of the subject was not correct and that the feed back he had from his wife was not quite what I saw during the class (he was not in the class).  He got quite angry with me so I suggested we contact the stake presidency.  That seemed to calm him down but he thought I should be released from my calling.  I told him I was moving in a couple of weeks and would need to be released - never the less he released me and my wife (young women's pres) the next week.  Three week later we moved.

Unfortunately this little epoch did not end yet.  About 6 months later I received a phone call from the Stake President.  There would be 4 other calls from him.  Sadly the new branch president ended up not only released but both he and his wife were excommunicated.  The matter, at least to me, was somewhat like the breakup of the first presidency in the days of Joseph Smith - all over an argument concerning butter.

As I finish this little epoch of my life - I would first say that while in that little branch (twig) my wife and I went through some of our most profound spiritual experiences we have had in our church callings.  I do not know of a time we were more blessed and so richly rewarded for our church activity.  My wife and I talked a great deal about this time and the events.  We both concluded that the single most important element of a calling is a love for those we serve.  Without love - nothing else will matter.  Love is more important than following the handbook.  It is more important than serving "correctly".  I have determined that if a Saint of G-d cannot serve with love for those they serve (including leaders or those we minister to) it does not matter what else we get "right".  I suggest that if we cannot serve with a bishopric that makes mistakes and does thing wrong so that we become upset and especially angry - that we need to humble ourselves and not only ask G-d for forgiveness but we also need to apologize to our leaders we have harbored bad feelings for.  That the greater fault and spiritual failure is ours - even if the handbook says we were right.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Currently working with a highly frustrated Primary President.
She is 'upset' because primary teachers are both called and released without her knowledge. She recently lost her nursery leader and only found out during sacrament.
I'm trying to:
A. Comfort and encourage her
B. Help a Bishopric understand the situation and frustration that has built up
I have my thoughts, but looking to see what your thoughts are AND your interpretation of Handbook 2 - Releasing Members from Church Callings
Who, in this situation do you believe/know (please cite a source/quote) constitutes, "those who need to know"?

The part in bold is the hiccup. Is the Primary President on the need to know list when releasing the nursery leader? If so, citation please. Primary is part of my high council assignment, thus a citation would be extra helpful to talk with both parties. Thanks in advance.

Having been in two bishoprics, I would say the bishopric needs to make sure the auxiliary presidents know of releases happening. The key is stewardship. Does the primary president have stewardship over the primary. Yes, she does. Does she need to agree with changes? No; however, I would think it be best practice to consult with the primary president regarding people who will be serving and who will be released.

Stewardship. That is why she needs to be informed. I also think this type of action is why we have so many sisters who think they are less than the brethren.

If someone was being called/released from the Relief Society I would let the President know. If the president wants to inform the presidency that is up to her unless the bishopric asks that this not be so. The presidency doesn't need to know, but probably would be good to let them know also.

If someone was being released from the Elder's quorum, would the Elder's Quorum president be notified? If the bishopric would say yes, then that already answers the question also. You do not treat the primary president different from the EQP.

I think at times bishoprics release without informing because they don't want kickback.

A scripture that comes to my mind -- unrighteous dominion. I would think, when someone is called we respect the stewardship of that calling, otherwise, we will step very close to unrighteous dominion.

Handbook, "She submits recommendations to the bishopric for ward members to be called to serve as leaders and teachers in the Primary. In making these recommendations, she follows the guidelines in 19.1.1 and 19.1.2."

Notice who submits names. I would call that being more than informed.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Vort said:

The Primary president needs to know when someone under her purview is being released or called. I have no citation for this beyond obvious common sense, nor do I believe any other citation is needed. This seems about as duh as it gets.

Agreed. She doesn't always need to know the specifics, but she can't just find out in Sacrament meeting...it is terribly difficult to shuffle things around last minute. We never call or release anyone without letting the auxiliary presidents know that a change is coming and on what day. Sometimes we share the names, but most often we don't. Almost always we will first ask the president to pray and give us their recommendations before we make our move.

Now, that being said, we did have to issue an immediate same-day release on a Sunday several years ago due to a crime being committed, and this person no longer being able to work with children/youth. That, along with a token few other situations, are the rare exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

@MarginOfError - some interesting concepts. I see several benefits, yet at the same time I can see some concerns with the circle of confidentiality growing unnecessarily too big and separately the potential to push out the guiding keys of the Bishop if, "Very often, staffing issues are resolved by the organizations and the bishopric just approves it".

I can understand the concerns, and have some counterpoints:

As far as the circle of confidentiality: If we're going to notify organization presidents of changes with sufficient time for them to work on replacements, your circle of confidentiality has grown just as large. You've just expanded the circle later, which adds more stress to organizations that are losing people*.

With regard to organizations resolving staffing issues, sometimes the bishopric says no, too.  But more often than not, when the ward council has gotten together and figured out how to match people to open callings, the bishopric has found no reason to object.  Regardless, it's supposed to be the bishop's role to approve (or disapprove). If most of the callings are originating at the bishopric, the bishopric probably isn't focusing their time where it is needed the most.

 

 

* Expanding the circle later may have a benefit where there's less chance for word to spread before the sustaining.  In our ward, we tend not to care much about that, because as soon as all of the people have accepted their callings, we tell them to go ahead and start coordinating with anyone they need to. There aren't a lot of surprise sustainings in our ward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NeuroTypical - I'll talk with the Bishopric soon. I'll be having dinner with the Bishop in question in the next couple of days in fact.
@Traveler - Both a sad story (the bishop & his wife), but a great story that you loved your "twig" and grew from up. I had a similar twig experience.
@Anddenex - you always have solid ducks in a row, thanks. I've seen this before too, "
I think at times bishoprics release without informing because they don't want kickback."
@scottyg - sure enough, there are exceptions, but like you said, they should be "exceptions" not the rule.
 

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a past personal experience.  The one being released needs to know before it happens.  I was released as Primary President and didn't have a clue it was going to happen until they released me in Sacrament meeting.  I was devastated.  Not to mention extremely hurt  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:


@Anddenex - you always have solid ducks in a row, thanks.

As opposed to hollow ducks floating every which way in the bathtub.  Those solid ducks may not float, but they're much more orderly.

48 minutes ago, pam said:

I was released as Primary President and didn't have a clue it was going to happen until they released me in Sacrament meeting.

Ouch.  But better than not knowing you were being called as Primary President until they announced it in Sacrament meeting. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

 There aren't a lot of surprise sustainings in our ward.

Not a lot of surprises at the Ward Council level OR the general membership level?
I can see the need to expand the circle to involved organizations, if Primary (for example) is considering pulling from YW, but I don't see the need to grow the circle to encompass YM, Elders, RS, etc.
I understand the less stress factor, honestly I do, but how does expanding the circle in advance fall into harmony with outlined limitations expressed in Handbook 2 19.1.1

Quote

Leaders keep information about proposed callings and releases confidential. Only those who need to know, such as an organization president who has responsibility for the person, are informed before the person is presented for a sustaining vote.

All guidance I've ever received has been:
Bishopric & affected organization(s) = informed
Unaffected organizations = not informed, wait like others until sustaining vote.
 

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zil said:

As opposed to hollow ducks floating every which way in the bathtub.  Those solid ducks may not float, but they're much more orderly.

The shelf kind @zil. Every boy knows boats & GIJoes are for the bathtub.
index.jpg.705b885c5d70e99169b7e5f0f690be45.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our ward council discusses callings and releasings.  It was a good move on the part of our bishop.  Prior to that, the affected group leader was informed when they were losing someone to a new calling.  I'm unaware of anything in the handbook, this is just how our ward does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

@NeuroTypical - I'll talk with the Bishopric soon. I'll be having dinner with the Bishop in question in the next couple of days in fact.
@Traveler - Both a sad story (the bishop & his wife), but a great story that you loved your "twig" and grew from up. I had a similar twig experience.
@Anddenex - you always have solid ducks in a row, thanks. I've seen this before too, "
I think at times bishoprics release without informing because they don't want kickback."
@scottyg - sure enough, there are exceptions, but like you said, they should be "exceptions" not the rule.
 

I am a little sad concerning the popular notion of "falling" in love.  I do not believe love is an accident but rather a profound act of determination and discipline.   If love was so easy there would be no need to be commanded.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

Not a lot of surprises at the Ward Council level OR the general membership level?
I can see the need to expand the circle to involved organizations, if Primary (for example) is considering pulling from YW, but I don't see the need to grow the circle to encompass YM, Elders, RS, etc.
I understand the less stress factor, honestly I do, but how does expanding the circle in advance fall into harmony with outlined limitations expressed in Handbook 2 19.1.1

All guidance I've ever received has been:
Bishopric & affected organization(s) = informed
Unaffected organizations = not informed, wait like others until sustaining vote.
 

I think each person's view on this will be influenced by the reasons we believe the confidentiality is desirable. What, exactly, is the purpose of confidentiality in these deliberations?

For us, we consider the confidentiality important for two reasons.

First, it prevents confusion and chaos during the deliberations process.  We don't want people to be distracted by all of the discussion of who might take on a role until all of the decisions have been made. Believe it or not, we sometimes change course in that process, and if all of those details were widely known, it could cause some to begin questioning why or why they weren't called when they had been in named in the discussion before.

Second, we don't want people to find out that they are being called or released until someone in the bishopric notifies the person. It's frustrating and sometimes hurtful to find out through the wrong channels.  And so when we are making multiple changes, we tend to ask those involved not to discuss their calling with anyone until we have notified everyone.

However, once we've notified everyone, we give them all the green light to talk with people and coordinate transitions. We also tell them not to worry about keeping it confidential anymore. At that point, we stop caring about who knows. Not surprisingly, our rumor mill has died down quite a bit since going this route. Now that people don't consider it "inside information," no one wants to talk about it any more.

 

As for including the ward council in deliberations, there have been times when someone from an unaffected organization has spoken up and given insight to a calling that has been invaluable in the selection. I'll stand by our use of the Ward Council here. They may not be affected directly by the changes, but our ward is better by including them in the discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ward Council job is to council about the needs of the ward (its right there in the name)

This requires a certain amount of keeping confidential info well confidential... if they can not they should be released (I am not saying all the Ward Council needs all the nitty gritty details, but they need enough).

Both gossiping and not counseling in the designated council are wrong and need to be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
21 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I also think this type of action is why we have so many sisters who think they are less than the brethren.

It's like you read my mind.  My first thought when I read the OP was something like, "And they wonder why women feel second-class in the church."   Also, why I took time to try and see the Bishop's possible perspective to distance myself from that idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

As for including the ward council in deliberations, there have been times when someone from an unaffected organization has spoken up and given insight to a calling that has been invaluable in the selection. I'll stand by our use of the Ward Council here. They may not be affected directly by the changes, but our ward is better by including them in the discussions.

Following this logic, if seeking insight from 5 people is good, then surely asking 20 people must be better. Why stop at organization presidents, why not also involve counselors, secretaries, etc. from each organization? The circle just continues to grow in the pursuit of further invaluable insight. Interviews, by priesthood leaders, for prospective callings exist for a reason. Not all interviews result in extended callings. It is a great time for the individual, themselves, to 'personally' share their own invaluable insights. 

4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

What, exactly, is the purpose of confidentiality in these deliberations?

Here is another great reason why circles should be kept to a minimum:

On 5/8/2009 at 9:08 AM, MarginOfError said:

***Many times, confidentiality is a matter of protecting the member from the judgments of others who do not have a full understanding of the situation, or even from well-meaning members who try to do too much...
The fact of the matter is, people are horribly capable of turning a little information that should have been held confidential into an unnecessary and emotionally upsetting drama. Such has no place in the Church.

It would be nice if all members on a Ward Council were always of equal heart, might and mind but that isn't always the reality. Some are new and are quickly taken back by the conversations about 'others'. Some are tired of Brother/Sister so-and-so's opinion on every member discussed. Add invited visitors or fill-in counselors, who don't have the full story, to the mix and the circle grows even bigger and more susceptible to potential misinterpretation or drama.

If your Ward has some how cracked the code to avoid these issues that is honestly wonderful. However, with 30,000+ congregations, circles of confidentiality exist for a reason. The tighter the circle, the better.

***FYI: I didn't go hunting for your own words, there isn't any 'gotcha' malice intended. I honestly stumbled upon it and thought it was useful information. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share