Custom Callings Guidelines or Direction

[jamesonbastow]

I am having a hard time identifying where in the handbook or elsewhere that there is information regarding the appropriateness of custom callings, such as when they should be used and when they should not.

Any idea where I can find it?

[russellhltn]

You're right. I'm not finding any guidance either. I'd expect it to be in Section 30 - Callings in the Church, but I'm not finding it.

There are however some considerations. Custom calling have no access to LCR, and with few exceptions, no additional rights to any electronic resources. As such, it's not a good idea to use a custom calling when special access is needed to accomplish the task.

That can be tricky as leaders are not always aware of what the general membership is limited to. For example, the general membership can't see the names of youth or children from other wards in member tools. So a custom calling at the stake level to work with them would just cause frustration. But a custom calling to work with the youth leadership could work out. (Keeping in mind that they may not be able to see leaders that have set their privacy higher then "entire stake".

There's also the issue that members working with youth and children need to take the children and youth protection training and renew it every three years. But I don't think custom callings will display their status to the leadership like it will for members in standard callings.

[sbradshaw]

Building off of russellhltn's reply, I'd add that digital access is applicable for a lot of callings – beyond what you might expect for the "leaders" of the ward (bishopric, ward council).

For example, ward temple and family history consultants have access as helpers in FamilySearch; ward technology specialists have access to manage broadcasts at Meet.ChurchofJesusChrist.org; building representatives can schedule building events on the calendar; Sunday school teachers can record attendance; and ward music coordinators, leaders, and accompanists can edit sacrament meeting hymns in Gospel Library. Also, several callings have access to calling-specific mailing lists from Church headquarters.

Using standard calling names also allows the person being called to look up their calling in the General Handbook or on the Church website to find up-to-date guidelines and resources.

So I'd consider it a good practice to prefer standard callings if there is an unfilled standard calling that's close in meaning to the calling extended. For example, don't mindlessly create a "ward music chair" calling because that's what your ward has always called it, when there's a standard calling for "ward music coordinator."

If the calling being extended doesn't have a standard equivalent, then adding a custom position in Leader and Clerk Resources is appropriate.

[BrianEdwards]

So I'd consider it a good practice to prefer standard callings if there is an unfilled standard calling that's close in meaning to the calling extended. For example, don't mindlessly create a "ward music chair" calling because that's what your ward has always called it, when there's a standard calling for "ward music coordinator."

Agreed. Another potential reason to try and leverage standard callings, is that this often helps align efforts along existing structures. So if a Bishopric determines they'd like a specialized effort to take place that the EQ will be delegated ongoing stewardship over, instead of creating a ward-level custom calling, perhaps leveraging an existing standard calling inside the EQ org (service coordinator, activity coordinator assistant, etc.) can help align everyone's efforts. Doesn't always apply, but something to consider.

[jknacnud]

My ward has run into the problem of LCR access for custom callings also. One possible workaround is to assign a role that has the access that the individual needs, even if that role is not one of their callings. It will at least give them the access they need. Extra callings will show in their list, which is messy, but it is a functioning solution.

[davesudweeks]

My ward has run into the problem of LCR access for custom callings also. One possible workaround is to assign a role that has the access that the individual needs, even if that role is not one of their callings. It will at least give them the access they need. Extra callings will show in their list, which is messy, but it is a functioning solution.

I advise extreme caution in this method. You will be granting access to potentially sensitive information to someone who does not hold the proper calling the church requires to access it. I don't believe access by calling is arbitrarily implemented and this may give them access to sensitive information beyond what you want. I suggest providing feedback with a business case for what data is needed and by whom so church leadership can consider granting access properly without workarounds. Another avenue is to ask your stake president to bring up the need in the coordinating council he is a member of with his presiding general authority.

[BrianEdwards]

I don't believe access by calling is arbitrarily implemented...

Agreed. Many confuse a need for information, with a need to have direct access to that information. For example, often stake youth leaders will ask why they don't have access to youth information for their callings. In that case, any information they need should be provided by the local unit leaders who have access to that info. There are many ward callings (standard and custom) that fall into these same type of circumstances.

Granted, of course it would be much easier if certain callings (standard and custom) were given direct access to different pieces of information, instead of having to go through a clerk or secretary to have them provide what's needed. And often this is a recurring need, since info changes regularly. But in my experience, although it does add an additional layer of effort, most always it's fairly easy to set up a working solution to provide whatever info a custom calling might need, instead of trying to give them direct access to the info.

[jamesonbastow]

Thank you all. I agree with these remarks. I think, as said before, the main access that people want is to "Send Message". Which this should be bypassed by the ward email communication specialist.