Same 10 people (STP)

[zil2]

57 minutes ago, laronius said:

Here's an initial list though I'm sure there is more:

Not sure all that represents efficiency in my mind, but I also don't think it's worth the time to try hashing it out.

[Carborendum]

On 4/21/2025 at 10:01 PM, zil2 said:

• the kind of person who is in the scriptures daily
• the sort of person who communes with God
• the sort of person who loves to God with all their heart
• the sort of person who serves others when they can
• the sort of person who cares for their body as a temple for the Holy Ghost

Men need to find

• a woman who will love him with all her heart.
• a woman who can cook.
• a woman who will rear wonderful children.
• a woman who is good ... ahem...
• a way to make sure these women never meet.

[Carborendum]

On 4/21/2025 at 7:19 PM, zil2 said:

• Never volunteer
• Always volunteer
• Volunteer if they believe no one else can / will step up instead of them

I have thought that I was in the third category.  But after pondering this thread, I believe I'm in a different category.

I will try to volunteer, but things get in the way.  

e.g.: Church cleanup assignments. Some interesting things happened.

• They didn't expect me, so they sent me home since all the assignments were taken care of.
• I arrive only to find no one has a key to the doors.
• I arrive only to find that we're out of most of the regular cleaning supplies.  I tell them that I can go to the store and get some for the week.  They agree.  When I get back from the store, everyone is gone and the building is locked.
• I arrive and find out that there was a major water main that had burst and was flooding a certain area of town.  We have no water at the building.

I really am cursed in this regard.

[Vort]

18 hours ago, LDSGator said:

When asked how many people work at the Vatican, Pope John XXIII said “Eh, about half of them.” 

For some reason, this reminded me of an incident with my third son maybe fifteen years ago. We were reading as a family in Matthew 7, and he read v. 16: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" But instead of reading the question as two independent rhetorical questions, my son with his vocal inflections read it as a choice: Do men gather grapes of thorns, or do they gather figs of thistles instead? I burst out laughing, and still chuckle to myself when I think about it.

[zil2]

56 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I have thought that I was in the third category.  But after pondering this thread, I believe I'm in a different category.

I will try to volunteer, but things get in the way.  

e.g.: Church cleanup assignments. Some interesting things happened.

• They didn't expect me, so they sent me home since all the assignments were taken care of.
• I arrive only to find no one has a key to the doors.
• I arrive only to find that we're out of most of the regular cleaning supplies.  I tell them that I can go to the store and get some for the week.  They agree.  When I get back from the store, everyone is gone and the building is locked.
• I arrive and find out that there was a major water main that had burst and was flooding a certain area of town.  We have no water at the building.

I really am cursed in this regard.

An introvert would say this is proof of God's mercy and kindness and go home celebrating.  (It's all about perspective. )

[Carborendum]

50 minutes ago, zil2 said:

An introvert would say this is proof of God's mercy and kindness and go home celebrating.  (It's all about perspective. )

I'm not an introvert.

I don't understand how "not being allowed to do something good" is a kindess.

[zil2]

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not an introvert.

I didn't mean to suggest you were.

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't understand how "not being allowed to do something good" is a kindess.

That's because you're not an introvert.

I am partly joking here, but also very serious about how an introvert would respond to the events you described.  An introvert might like you and even look forward to the time you planned to get together, but then something comes up on your end and you call the introvert and say, "Sorry, I have to postpone."  The introvert will make sympathetic noises, express concern for whatever came up, say they're disappointed, but as soon as you hang up the phone, they'll sigh in relief.  Their feelings and words will be sincere, but they'll still be relieved at not having to get together (most of the time, and assuming they're more than just mildly introverted).

[Vort]

On 4/23/2025 at 9:20 AM, zil2 said:

I didn't mean to suggest you were.

That's because you're not an introvert.

I am partly joking here, but also very serious about how an introvert would respond to the events you described.  An introvert might like you and even look forward to the time you planned to get together, but then something comes up on your end and you call the introvert and say, "Sorry, I have to postpone."  The introvert will make sympathetic noises, express concern for whatever came up, say they're disappointed, but as soon as you hang up the phone, they'll sigh in relief.  Their feelings and words will be sincere, but they'll still be relieved at not having to get together (most of the time, and assuming they're more than just mildly introverted).

I am an extrovert with pronounced introvert tendencies. No, that is backward. I am an introvert with sincere predilections toward extrovertedness. I like many people and enjoy my sociality with them, because it enriches my life. This discussion list is a minor example of exactly that. But interacting with people comes with a cost, and I admit that when I'm not required to pay the cost of personal interaction, a part of me is often relieved not to have to stomach up to the encounter.

Rationally, I realize that such interactions usually make my life better in a long view, and often even in the immediate view, but it's taxing to have such interactions. It's not so much that I have to put on a front, but almost the opposite: I cannot just go about my routine or follow my desired pursuits, but instead I have to concentrate on being honest and authentic while simultaneously not offending people or coming across as a fool. Many people thrive on such social exposure; my youngest son is so much an extrovert that, if I were married to someone else instead of my actual wife, I might wonder if there was a milkman wandering around my neighborhood. Those of us who tend toward introvertedness, even mildly, are not necessarily excited at that prospect, even when we desire it.

tl;dr—I agree with zil.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I am an introvert with sincere predilections toward extrovertedness.

I don't believe this is possible.  An introvert is not someone who dislikes people, or prefers to be alone, or is shy, or is socially awkward, or is anti-social.  (Although such things are often a part of introverts, they're not inherent.  Rather, they're present because the introvert grew up without knowing what they were or how to manage their introversion - or worse because no one around them knew the cause of their reactions to over-stimulation and treated them as if they were purposely misbehaving.)

Introversion and extroversion aren't preferences or choices, they are inbuilt personality types that can be controlled and pushed beyond their limits to a degree, but we're stuck with them for life.

That said, introverts sometimes "act like extroverts" either to function in a world more designed for extroverts, or because they are doing something they love / are excited about. But this "state" has a "limited duration" (and a price).  ("Act like extroverts" is in quotes because that's not really what's happening, it's just what it looks like, mostly because society at large still seems to think these are choices / behaviors, not inbuilt energy charging/expending methods and default mental stimulation levels. If someone wishes, I can expound.)

So if "predilections toward extrovertedness" just means that you enjoy being around / interacting with people, that's not "predilections toward extrovertedness" - that's just enjoying being around / interacting with people.

1 hour ago, Vort said:

But interacting with people comes with a cost, ...

...it's taxing to have such interactions.

This is introversion. Interacting with humans is draining, while at the same time sending an introvert's brain into overdrive.  It takes hours for the brain to "come down" to normal function (which is an extrovert's overdrive), and more hours to "recharge" before being ready for more human interaction.

Extroverts find interacting with others energizing, and time alone draining. They need others in order to reach optimal mental stimulation, and quickly get bored or depressed when in isolation.

FWIW.

[JohnsonJones]

I've found the exact opposite.

There are many people willing to do things, but only certain people are asked to do things.

Or...the same 10 people are always put in leadership positions and asked to do things and everyone else is always ignored.

I constantly have callings and asked to do things, but I have friends who never get asked and don't even have callings!

They get to sit back in their old age...but not I! 

I think one problem that we see is that we don't ask people enough to be able to do things.  People are more than willing, if only they were asked to do so.  It's amazing how many show up to clean the ward house if you personally call them the week they can help out.

But when you don't personalize it, you get the same 5 people every week.

I find it horrible how we have the same person called to be a Elder's quorum president, the Bishop or Bishopric, High counsel, and Stake leadership.  There are people that were in my ward that were worthy that never were called to such positions.  Sometimes they were far more worthy than some of those I have known in leadership positions (I've known some pretty bad thieves in the Stake Presidencies and High Counsels, some rather dishonest individuals among those groups, and have horror stories that ensue due to that)!

I feel the Church would be a more just and fair place if we gave everyone equal opportunities to attain the same blessings of high callings as each other.  Instead, sometimes it turns into a nepo party (nepotism) or just a plain party of who's popular and who's not, and that's unfortunate.

I would gladly enable some of the older brethren who have always been Elders (and no reason they should not have ever been a High Priest, some of them are the best people I know!) to be given the opportunities that they have been denied.

However, I surely and truly hope that the Lord is right and honest when he says the first shall be last and the last shall be first, and it applies to heaven.  I would imagine there will be some pretty high and lofty leaders that are the last in heaven, and some of those who were never given these blessings and opportunities in this life that will be first in heaven.

I, myself, know that I am not close to being as righteous as some of these members who have been denied these blessings in this life.  I strive to be better, but I am still far too worldly to compare to many of them. 

[laronius]

On 5/2/2025 at 4:27 AM, JohnsonJones said:

 

I think one problem that we see is that we don't ask people enough to be able to do things.  People are more than willing, if only they were asked to do so.  It's amazing how many show up to clean the ward house if you personally call them the week they can help out.

But when you don't personalize it, you get the same 5 people every week.

There is a difference though between those who show up because they are personally asked to and those who show up because they are simply made aware of a need. And it's a significant difference. If we only ever acted because the Spirit specifically told us to the Lord would not be pleased. Is it better than not responding at all? Of course. But it falls short of what the Lord is asking of us 

[Carborendum]

On 4/25/2025 at 5:39 PM, Vort said:

I am an extrovert with pronounced introvert tendencies. No, that is backward. I am an introvert with sincere predilections toward extrovertedness.

On 4/25/2025 at 7:32 PM, zil2 said:

I don't believe this is possible. An introvert is not someone who dislikes people, or prefers to be alone, or is shy, or is socially awkward, or is anti-social.

That is normally how it is characterized.  But certain social scientists define it a different way:

• If it takes more energy to be social than the energy one receives from being social, that person is an introvert.
• If one receives more energy by being social than it takes, that person is an extrovert.
• Many people are not stuck in either tendency forever.  Sometimes, people can change back-and-forth throughout their lives.

IOW:

On 4/25/2025 at 5:39 PM, Vort said:

... interacting with people comes with a cost, and I admit that when I'm not required to pay the cost of personal interaction, a part of me is often relieved not to have to stomach up to the encounter.

Here is how it manifests in me:

I'm not good at "mingling." This is usually the common setting that people socialize.  When I was single, I was never good at "dates." There were only two exceptions to that rule.  My (now) wife was one of them.  

I have always been good in "forced interaction" like when we go to work, or a class.  I've excelled at public speaking and group discussions (both as a leader as well as a participant).

"Well, aren't social gatherings/mingling just a group discussion?"

Yes, I suppose they are.  But usually a "classroom" situation puts some order and focus to it.  This very forum has some "order" to it.  In a group where you're mingling, there is no order to the discussion.  You can't really get your point across or fully explore a question in the midst of chaos. 

It seems that for both Vort and me, the question is this: Is it energizing or enervating?

For me, I change back and forth because of the type of encounter.  If it is ordered, it takes less energy from me.  If it is chaotic, it takes more energy from me.  Additionally, the individual(s) I'm with will also require more or less energy to be around them.

What about just playing?

I never learned to play when I was young*.  So, unfortunately, I see games as a competition.  And that's not why people play games.  I don't know how to "play".  So, it is always enervating.

If it is an actual competition (OTOH) then I'm in.

*I did play with my kids when they were younger.  But that was where there was a special dynamic that we just don't have in the world of those over 10.  I simply can't apply that same attitude to peers.

Edited May 5 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

I grew up in an amazingly productive family.  On occasions I am recognized as ambitious and productive but in my family, I am the least of such things.   I am not attached to things or very many people.  I am not convinced that attachments, especially to things, requires a lot of wasted energy.  As much as I do not like to be told what to do – I dislike telling others what they have to do.

My parents had the attitude that there were two kinds of people.  Minimum and maximum producer.   Growing up and even as an adult my parents often would ask me if I was going about as a maximum or minimum producer.   I developed that attitude of only being a maximum producer when I thought it to be important, interesting or worthwhile.

My wife says I take too long when cleaning the chapel.  If something is worth doing it is worth doing right.  My wife’s answer is that I should put as much effort into people.  I think people can choose for themselves.  I think it is a mistake to care more for people than they are willing to care for themselves.  Sometimes when someone I care about seems to be unwilling to take care of themselves – I will ask if I can help them with it.  I seldom get a positive response.  But there are times that someone will be grateful for a helping hand – usually this is when they are so frustrated that they are somewhat giving up.

My wife is much better at reading people.  She has that knack.  She is also able to motivate me and is able to get things going without offending others.  I do not know what I would do without her.

One thing that always bothers me about the same persons taking responsibility.  Basically I believe Christ is always going beyond the necessary to take care of things.  The only complaint I find coming from Christ is about those that complain about others.  Perhaps this is a oxymoron but I think there is a point about being a maximum producer and not taking credit for what others are doing.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I developed that attitude of only being a maximum producer when I thought it to be important, interesting or worthwhile.

I've thought about this for a bit and I find a little bit of a paradox here:

If you "only do the important things" isn't that an attitude of minimalism?  

Consider:

• What we NEED to be done.
• What we WANT to be done.

If we only do what NEEDS to be done, isn't that minimalism?  Isn't "important, interesting, or worthwhile" another way of saying "Needs to be done"?  What would differentiate that from a minimal producer?

Isn't a minimal producer someone who puts their efforts towards things that THEY believe NEEDS to be done?  Otherwise, why are they doing it?

What we're really saying is that a maximum producer has a different set of values than the minimal producer.  One way of delineating these would be:

• The minimal producer does what he thinks is necessary for his survival.
• The medium producer does what is necessary for survival AND what he wants above and beyond that.
• The maximum producer does all the medium producer does AND serves others.

[Ironhold]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That is normally how it is characterized.  But certain social scientists define it a different way:

• If it takes more energy to be social than the energy one receives from being social, that person is an introvert.
• If one receives more energy by being social than it takes, that person is an extrovert.
• Many people are not stuck in either tendency forever.  Sometimes, people can change back-and-forth throughout their lives.

High-Functioning Autistic: unless you're with a group of people who know that you're autistic and accept you for who you are you can burn so much mental energy pretending to be "normal" that you're left mentally and perhaps even emotionally exhausted by the time the night's over. 

This rather blurs the introvert / extrovert definitions, in that people who are high-functioning can take great delight in social interactions provided they're free to be themselves, but far too often they aren't and so this has led to the overall misconception that those with autism are naturally introverted.

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Ironhold said:

This rather blurs the introvert / extrovert definitions

It seems to be exactly what I said. 

The point you're making is that "in some circumstances" or "in certain circles" you find that you don't need to spend as much energy as in others.

Edited May 5 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've thought about this for a bit and I find a little bit of a paradox here:

If you "only do the important things" isn't that an attitude of minimalism?  

Consider:

• What we NEED to be done.
• What we WANT to be done.

If we only do what NEEDS to be done, isn't that minimalism?  Isn't "important, interesting, or worthwhile" another way of saying "Needs to be done"?  What would differentiate that from a minimal producer?

Isn't a minimal producer someone who puts their efforts towards things that THEY believe NEEDS to be done?  Otherwise, why are they doing it?

What we're really saying is that a maximum producer has a different set of values than the minimal producer.  One way of delineating these would be:

• The minimal producer does what he thinks is necessary for his survival.
• The medium producer does what is necessary for survival AND what he wants above and beyond that.
• The maximum producer does all the medium producer does AND serves others.

You have a lot incommon with my wife.

 

The Traveler

[HaggisShuu]

I have some thoughts on this concept of "Same 10 people" In my ward at least, it is 100% the case. The current Bishopric, YW presidency, EQ presidency and Primary presidency are all comprised of not just the same 10 people, but the same family (This happens to be my wife's family, so I guess I'm also part of the same 10 people). This is a serious issue in our ward, and I'm not sure how much of it is other people rejecting callings, or if it is uninspired nepotism. 

From studying the addiction recovery steps I've come into some uncomfortable truths. For those who don't know, each step in the ARP has a purpose, and the chapters consist of a general description of what you can expect while working on this step. A section of Action points (changes you can implement in your life right now) and a study and understanding section, which gives each step grounding the scriptures. I'm currently on step 6 which is to have a "change of heart." One of the action points is to build connections with people at Church. Which is something I've struggled with lately. 

I happen to be on the inner circle of that "same 10 people" and at times it has lead to some toxic attitudes. The more you see nobody else accept a call, run an activity, or even help to clean up after the activity, it begins to feel less and less like service, and more like a joke is being played. This is not the only issue, other members of the ward tend to criticise the family for hogging leadership positions, or being too insular, which then leads to resentment among the family, and other members of the ward. 

What's worse is there doesn't seem to be a clear path out of this current situation. I remember when our current bishop was called and people groaned, which was a tad cruel. 

I think the point I'm trying to make is the "Same 10 people" syndrome, leads to toxic attitudes of entitlement and resentment, and should be avoided wherever possible. But it is also not the fault of the same 10 people to some extent. The Elders Quorum and Bishopric are both callings that come from Stake, and so the Stake should try its best to help break up the cycle, because for people trapped in it, it's exhausting. There is one man in the family, who attends church now, but won't take the sacrament, won't accept an assignment or calling and won't socialise, because he feels he has been taken advantage of and treated improperly from spending years on what I call "the calling merry-go-round"

[Omergideon]

I am part of a small branch (30-40 each week) where we have good people but not many of them. We are all very familiar with the issue of using the same few people for assignments, talks, callings and the like. I am the Elder's Quorum President but teach Sunday School as often as not. And in my Quorum there are only a few active, available brethren who could lead the lesson and avoid it being the EQP power hour.

To some extent it is natural. You need to have speakers for example and so having reliable people who are willing and able to step up is a useful thing. Brother So and So and Sister Whomever are great people and we can rely on them. So in a pinch you do. But fighting the urge and temptation is important. Making sure you take the time to specifically include people who are outside the normal list.

 

I remember when discussing callings in a Bishopric meeting (I was Clerk then) they starting by writing up every single eligible person in the Ward. We then logically went through discussing names, pros and cons and whittling it down. And then we prayed about it and would not issue the calling unless all 5 of us felt able to support it. That was a lesson to me in how to do things. At the very least writing down EVERY name and going through them one by one was time consuming but worth it. We had to talk about every single person and it helped us avoid just the people we knew were generally helpful and willing.

I won't say we ever got a thunderbolt revelation, but I did feel surprisingly strong confirmations of choices I had not been in favour of on occasions.