Question: List of previous callings?

[kisaac]

So, ask my ward clerk?

There may be some paper trails. Some wards save annual or semi-annual lists of ward callings with their ward histories, and the ward conference sustaining sheets should be there as well for presidencies and other leadership callings that are included on them. But, sometimes ward histories are not as complete as you might wish.
It's worth noting that this questiondoes resurface, so there is interest in such a list.

[johnshaw]

We have discussed maintaining a history of all callings, but that is really a 'business' decision not a developer decision. So we will have to wait until the time that they see value in doing so.

Who is this they that you refer to, and how can my Stake President get ahold of these 'they'. I can't think of a month that has gone by in the last 3 years where it hasn't been brought up in a Presidency meeting. At the ward level it was discussed as well. I can see both sides of why we would want or not want to keep this list. But there are real needs to know who in our stake have been in Stake Presidencies, or Bishoprics --> If I am considering a couple of women to be our new Young Women's president, there is no reason that looking at past callings to see whether one has done that in the past or not would be helpful. We, as humans, and at times, have a tendency to be inspired in very specific ways... (Same Ten People, 80/20 rules, etc...) How do we create our groundswell efforts to have this added?

Is there any kind of program out there that allows for Bishops and Stake Presidents to contribute to what they'd like to see in the development? In the last 10 years I've been either an ExecSec or a clerk, I haven't heard of that happening, maybe it does, but it doesn't feel like it.

[lajackson]

Who is this they that you refer to, and how can my Stake President get ahold of these 'they'.

I believe in this case, your stake president would contact the "they" by going through his area seventy to the presidency of the quorums of the seventy. And if they are not the "they", you should be able to easily figure out who is.

[lajackson]

I can't think of a month that has gone by in the last 3 years where it hasn't been brought up in a Presidency meeting. At the ward level it was discussed as well. I can see both sides of why we would want or not want to keep this list. But there are real needs to know who in our stake have been in Stake Presidencies, or Bishoprics -->

Since it has been discussed for three years, and since everyone you would probably want to have on the list comes to visit with one of the presidency every two years, I would imagine that there could be a pretty good list by now, . . .

That's how we did it. [grin]

[johnshaw]

Well you found a way to invest a great deal of administrative time while doing so. It is a way to get it done.

[lajackson]

Well you found a way to invest a great deal of administrative time while doing so. It is a way to get it done.

A great deal of administrative time? Nope. One question while you are visiting with them in a temple recommend interview.

[johnshaw]

And that information is then recorded somewhere, then shared likely with an ExecSec or Clerk where it is recorded in a 'trusted source' and maintained weekly. Often interviews in our stake are accomplished in Units as the SP visits our stake. It isn't always immediately available to be recorded and things can get lost. If I were to add up all that time, granted it is only a few minutes for each person in the stake and it takes 2 years to complete, and is perpetually out-of-date as people may move in with any number of months 1-24 before they see a Stake Presidency member - and then do the same thing (or a similar thing) in each stake across the world - the administrative time involved, in my own opinion, justifies a larger consideration for a better process by those they that we have spoken of.

I just take your process, think about how it might work in my stake, then think about the thousands of stakes that need to do the same thing if they want that information. It becomes a great deal of time invested (speaking of all church units collectively, and not any one individual unit.)

[lajackson]

And that information is then . . .
If I were to add up all that time, . . .
. . . the administrative time involved, in my own opinion, justifies a larger consideration for a better process by those they that we have spoken of.

I hear you. And it would be nice to do it differently.

In actual practice, we mention things to the executive secretary who keeps notes, but we seldom use the information. When we are considering who to call, we rarely concern ourselves with their prior experience. If they have a current recommend, are active, and are willing to serve, we let the Spirit confirm the decision and move right along. It does not seem to matter to the Lord what specific callings they have had before, so we do not normally let it bother us, either.