Question: List of previous callings?

Is there a feature on LDS.org for me to see a list of the callings I've had? And when?

Thanks!

The CDOL has limited ability to do that. But you must hold a certain calling to access the CDOL.

Note that for many years the calling information did not go back to CHQ, was was strictly local.

So, ask my ward clerk?

bensonmcconkie wrote:So, ask my ward clerk?

It's worth a try.

Thanks! Will do.

RussellHltn wrote:The CDOL has limited ability to do that. But you must hold a certain calling to access the CDOL.

Note that for many years the calling information did not go back to CHQ, was was strictly local.

I'm afraid that the ward clerk doesn't have access to any historical calling information that may be in CDOL. At least I know that I don't. I don't think that anyone at the ward or stake level does.

eblood66 wrote:I'm afraid that the ward clerk doesn't have access to any historical calling information that may be in CDOL. At least I know that I don't. I don't think that anyone at the ward or stake level does.

I most certainly do have access to historical calling information, and I'm an assistant stake clerk. But I have a friend who is a ward executive secretary, and he doesn't. So maybe it is a stake permission.

I can click on a person's name and see other historical callings, but they seem to only include fairly important positions, such as bishop, stake presidency member, patriarch, etc. Even the calling of high councilor is not included.

I'm certain that my access to historical calling data is limited by my calling, but I don't have enough data to surmise exactly what those limitations are.

eblood66 wrote:I'm afraid that the ward clerk doesn't have access to any historical calling information that may be in CDOL. At least I know that I don't. I don't think that anyone at the ward or stake level does.

The stake clerk might. And I know that a counselor in the stake presidency can see some. But the information is very limited and, at least until recently, only included major standard callings that were included in CDOL (bishops, stake presidents and counselors, etc.) And this would be available only for individuals in the specific stake of the leader looking in CDOL.

I do not know how far they intend to go in CDOL in capturing former callings, and if the person does not have a present calling in CDOL, historical information specifically for that person's prior callings will not be available.

I suspect your personal journal will be the best source in this type of information, at least for the past.

Currently CDOL only stores historical callings for those that show on the main summary pages. For stakes that is the stake presidency, patriarch, exec. secretary, and clerks. For wards that is the bishopric, exec. secretary and clerk. Of those the exec secretaries, clerks and bishopric counselors are newer and so only recent ones are stored.
For stake level positions you can see historical callings in your stake and all the child units.
For ward level positions you can see historical callings in your ward.

eblood66 wrote:I'm afraid that the ward clerk doesn't have access to any historical calling information that may be in CDOL. At least I know that I don't. I don't think that anyone at the ward or stake level does.

Actually you do have rights to some historical callings you just have to find the right places to look for the callings you have access to. If you look on the organization summary page you will see a historical section that you can expand. If any of the positions that look at have historical callings that you can see, you will see them.

lajackson wrote:I do not know how far they intend to go in CDOL in capturing former callings,

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.

lajackson wrote: and if the person does not have a present calling in CDOL, historical information specifically for that person's prior callings will not be available.

That is not exactly true. It's just a bit harder to find it. If it is someone you know has a historical position in CDOL that you have rights to then you can search for them by name, or look in the historical section of the organization that they served in.

JonesRK wrote:Actually you do have rights to some historical callings you just have to find the right places to look for the callings you have access to. If you look on the organization summary page you will see a historical section that you can expand. If any of the positions that look at have historical callings that you can see, you will see them.

I actually looked at that section before posting. But going back I now see that there is a large vertical space between historical unit information and the historical assignment information. Because of the extra space I didn't think there was any more information and didn't scroll down to see it.

But now that I do I see it I can see the entire list of bishops for our ward (and one counselor who was released a bit over a year ago which is only recent change in the bishopric). Nice but unfortunately it doesn't really provide the information the OP wanted.

bensonmcconkie wrote: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.

JonesRK wrote: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.

JohnShaw wrote: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.

JohnShaw wrote: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]

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

JohnShaw wrote: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.

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.)

JohnShaw wrote: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.