We need to stop using that word. We can say:

Commands
Demands
Orders
Veiled Threats
Assignments


But "callings"? Callings are felt from within, not gotten literally from a guy on the other end of the telephone who basically tells me how I'm going to spending 4 or more hours a week.

Seriously, can anyone think of why we should continue using a decent word when we know there's some kind of implied coercion going on?

Veiled threats sounds about right. But then again they could be called 'flaming swords'.

"Sister Genie, an angel with a flaming sword commanded me in no uncertain words to tell you he wants you on doggy poo patrol in the car park (or insert appropriate command here). If you don't obey, he will kill me."

Wait Wait Wait....
If I don't obey, god will kill YOU???
I see no downside for me here.
What kind of fucked up logic is that??

Great suggestion, and I particularly like either using Veiled Threats in the place of Callings.

This, Veiled Threats, sums up the whole deal nicely. I know some TBM's who are so AFRAID of using the 'No' that they have probably never used it one LDS connection.....sure I will make a meal for the Gray Family even though I have two broken arms and two broken legs....you get the picture.

(I was never in this category, most likely due to my upbringing, and I have always found it terrifying that people react this way.
I had a lot of autonomy and freedom in my youth. so much that when friends said that HAD to attend church, I almost wanted to laugh at the ridiculousness of it).

Assumptions?

They always assume you'll do whatever ridiculous thing they say.

I dunno... for me, "callings" seems to roll off the tongue much easier than, say, "slave labor"...

AMEN!

They really aren't CALLINGS. Once again, the Mormon church--like other cults--likes to mess with the meanings of words to get compliance from members.

From an online dictionary:

"Simple Definition of calling
: a strong desire to spend your life doing a certain kind of work (such as religious work)
: the work that a person does or should be doing
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary"

When you get 'called' to teach in the nursery, or lead the singing in church, it's just a temporary assignment, not something that's necessarily your authentic desire, or something you even care about.

Saying that it's a 'calling' also implies that GOD made the assignment. But I've been in multiple leadership meetings when the person in charge thought GOD wanted someone to serve in our organization, prayed about it, and felt it was truly inspired. But apparently the Sunday School or the YW felt that God wanted the same person to serve in their organization. And THEIR inspiration trumped our organization. Or maybe the person who got the call said "NO", and neither organization got them. Personally, I never felt inspired about any of them, thank the FSM. (Flying Spaghetti Monster)

The last 'calling' I served in the church probably contributed to me leaving, because it was precisely the worst calling they could have given me at that time in my life.

Why bother? It's a familiar word that is carried over from time spent in mormonism. Anyone familiar with it instantly knows what the meaning is. Makes it easy to communicate about it.

What's the next word to change? Blessing? Should we change it to karma? Celestial Kingdom? Should that be referred to as Sky Daddy's crib?

I guess if you want everyone that comes on the BB to have to learn translations, go for it.

But again. Why bother?

My answer usually is: "And what is it that you want me to do for free?

Servitudes

How about Jobs!????

Why not call them what they really are - "slave labor" without remuneration.

Right. When I was in EQ leadership and in WC meetings, it wasn't about praying and getting answer to whom the "calling" should got to, it was about "who" would actually do anything. It always ended up being the same handful of people that got all the "callings". I guess they felt special and that "gawd" found favor in them. Ha, little did they know its because they were the suckers that would do all the jobs!

angelgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Callings are felt from within,
> not gotten literally from a guy on the other end
> of the telephone who basically tells me how I'm
> going to spending 4 or more hours a week.

I could feel something from within that would show from the outside depending upon what that guy on the other end of the telephone is telling me how to spend those 4 hours.

His calling would make something of mine sure.

I seldom heard the word "callings."

At family events everyone would ask, "What jobs are you doing for the church?"

I'm not sure it this was singular to where I lived or if "callings" wasn't yet the established term it is today.

I agree, it doesn't fit because no one feels the calling from within. It's always foisted on them or they connive somehow to get what suits them. I think church functionaries like it because it sounds like Almighty God does the "calling" which means no one has a right to decline lest they be damned.