On a recent metro ride, I was reading an article in the Ensign about a woman in Japan, who, with many of her eight sons, was converted to the Gospel. I am always amazed to hear conversion stories of people who come from non-Christian backgrounds, and so I quite enjoyed reading her story. But there was one line in this article to which I took offense (don't worry; I'll not leave the Church over it). Speaking about the eight sons, the author wrote, "Among those converted, one is now serving as a stake president, some are high councilors, and some are bishops." And the author's point is....? The fact that the author said "among those" implies, to me, that there are other sons whose callings were not mentioned. Why? Why not just say that all the converted sons are serving faithfully in their wards?
Aren't we always told that all callings are equal? If that's true, then why do we have to mention only these callings? Why not say, "One is now serving as a stake president, two are high councilors, two are bishops, and one is the assistant scout leader." Or, "...the ward librarian." Or, "...the teacher's quorum advisor." If all converted sons were serving as primary teachers, would their callings even be mentioned?
So does this hierarchy of callings exist in the Church? If you learn that someone you know was called as Elders' Quorum President, would you be more impressed than if that same person was called as a ward missionary? To what extent do you believe righteousness has to do with someone given a particular calling?