Boanerges Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 We recently got a new bishop. I think the guy is fairly well liked and I like him. I also like his counselors. However, there is a rumor floating about that he was not the first choice. I'm not sure he would have been my first choice either. The rumor mill has it that the first guy was not approved by the FP. I have not heard a name associated with whoever it supposedly was but I can guess. There is a very well liked and very capable leader in the ward who has served in bishoprics and the high council who I happen to know as a young man had a disciplinary council but was not ex'ed or disfellowshipped. This guy is in his 50s now, grown family, all sons on missions, and so forth. So I got thinking if the rumor mill is true and if this is the guy would that disciplinary council 30 years ago have prevented FP approval? Part of me goes with the "I will remember your sins no more" and part of me sees that part of the church that would most definitely hold something like that against a guy for as long as he lives regardless of his accomplishments or service or whatever. Could that be a reason or might there be other reasons someone wasn't approved? Other than revelation, what criteria does the FP look at when they get a potential bishop's name?
Popular Post The Nehor Posted January 7, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 7, 2015 I think your whole Ward is going to hell for being gossips. 19
Alan Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 We recently got a new bishop. I think the guy is fairly well liked and I like him. I also like his counselors. However, there is a rumor floating about that he was not the first choice. I'm not sure he would have been my first choice either. The rumor mill has it that the first guy was not approved by the FP. I have not heard a name associated with whoever it supposedly was but I can guess. There is a very well liked and very capable leader in the ward who has served in bishoprics and the high council who I happen to know as a young man had a disciplinary council but was not ex'ed or disfellowshipped. This guy is in his 50s now, grown family, all sons on missions, and so forth. So I got thinking if the rumor mill is true and if this is the guy would that disciplinary council 30 years ago have prevented FP approval? Part of me goes with the "I will remember your sins no more" and part of me sees that part of the church that would most definitely hold something like that against a guy for as long as he lives regardless of his accomplishments or service or whatever. Could that be a reason or might there be other reasons someone wasn't approved? Other than revelation, what criteria does the FP look at when they get a potential bishop's name? I doubt it.
Duncan Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) well, in a YSA ward apparently being divorced disqualifies someone. Other then that I can only think of excommunication preventing someone from serving, but I agree if God forgives them then why should some policy prevent someone from serving? I think in some cases God and the Church need to get on the same page Edited January 7, 2015 by Duncan 1
Popular Post rockpond Posted January 7, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 7, 2015 We recently got a new bishop. I think the guy is fairly well liked and I like him. I also like his counselors. However, there is a rumor floating about that he was not the first choice. I'm not sure he would have been my first choice either. The rumor mill has it that the first guy was not approved by the FP. I have not heard a name associated with whoever it supposedly was but I can guess. There is a very well liked and very capable leader in the ward who has served in bishoprics and the high council who I happen to know as a young man had a disciplinary council but was not ex'ed or disfellowshipped. This guy is in his 50s now, grown family, all sons on missions, and so forth. So I got thinking if the rumor mill is true and if this is the guy would that disciplinary council 30 years ago have prevented FP approval? Part of me goes with the "I will remember your sins no more" and part of me sees that part of the church that would most definitely hold something like that against a guy for as long as he lives regardless of his accomplishments or service or whatever. Could that be a reason or might there be other reasons someone wasn't approved? Other than revelation, what criteria does the FP look at when they get a potential bishop's name? I remember years ago in my first ward as a newly married guy. A new bishop was called. He was a very quiet man. Not one of the men that most people in the ward would have "picked" as the next Bishop. He called me as his executive secretary. I didn't know him at all when he called me, but came to know and love him as I served with him. He was an amazing person and I learned so much from him. There are many reasons why someone might be chosen or passed by at a given time. I think it's best to not assume that your current bishop is a "second choice". Maybe he's the Lord's first choice but it took the SP an extra moment or two to figure that out. 5
Boanerges Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 well, in a YSA ward apparently being divorced disqualifies someone. Other then that I can only think of excommunication preventing someone from serving, but I agree if God forgives them then why should some policy prevent someone from serving? I think in some cases God and the Church need to get on the same page I agree. If the rumors are true and if this guy is the guy he has been a model Mormon since that time. Fully active thithe payer, married in the temple, TR holder, many callings including bishoprics, YMP, HC, all kids to BYU, all sons served missions, etc., etc., etc. It happened in a different ward/stake many years ago and he doesn't normally share it with peopl - I think his wife and maybe only two or three others here know about it. Idon't think his kids know.
ERayR Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I don't give much credence to gossip. Even if someone was turned down by the FP it would not be revealed to anybody but the Stake President and unless he broke confidentiality. . . .
Boanerges Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 I don't give much credence to gossip. Even if someone was turned down by the FP it would not be revealed to anybody but the Stake President and unless he broke confidentiality. . . . I would guess his counselors also know since I think it is a process involving the presidency as opposed to just the president. The more hands in the pie, the more chance of confidentiality being violated. And were confidentiality broken it wouldn't be the first time.
ERayR Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I would guess his counselors also know since I think it is a process involving the presidency as opposed to just the president. The more hands in the pie, the more chance of confidentiality being violated. And were confidentiality broken it wouldn't be the first time. I guess the old adage that it is only a secret if nobody knows is correct.
cursor Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 well, in a YSA ward apparently being divorced disqualifies someone. Other then that I can only think of excommunication preventing someone from serving, but I agree if God forgives them then why should some policy prevent someone from serving? I think in some cases God and the Church need to get on the same page What the hell is a "YSA" ward?
intra Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ..(1 Timothy 3:2) that disqualifies a number of bishops in LDS history, doesn't it? 2
Garden Girl Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I think your whole Ward is going to hell for being gossips. My sentiments exactly... I find it deplorable that these rumors are circulating. And the prospect of confidentiality being broken if another "person" was the first choice... GG
strappinglad Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Young Single Adult. The world of acronyms has spred from the military to the rest of us by way of twitter. Then again, cursor, the young kids don't know what MIA stands for. ( Hint kids, it's not Missing in Action ).
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ..(1 Timothy 3:2) that disqualifies a number of bishops in LDS history, doesn't it? IT would if we lived back in Pauls day. But we don't. I am confident that this point will be lost on you.
ERayR Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ..(1 Timothy 3:2) that disqualifies a number of bishops in LDS history, doesn't it? Not necessarily that could be interpreted that he had to be married. (The husband of at least one wife)
cinepro Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ..(1 Timothy 3:2) that disqualifies a number of bishops in LDS history, doesn't it? That's a statement of policy, not doctrine. 1
cinepro Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 We recently got a new bishop. I think the guy is fairly well liked and I like him. I also like his counselors. However, there is a rumor floating about that he was not the first choice. I'm not sure he would have been my first choice either. The rumor mill has it that the first guy was not approved by the FP. I have not heard a name associated with whoever it supposedly was but I can guess. There is a very well liked and very capable leader in the ward who has served in bishoprics and the high council who I happen to know as a young man had a disciplinary council but was not ex'ed or disfellowshipped. This guy is in his 50s now, grown family, all sons on missions, and so forth. So I got thinking if the rumor mill is true and if this is the guy would that disciplinary council 30 years ago have prevented FP approval? Part of me goes with the "I will remember your sins no more" and part of me sees that part of the church that would most definitely hold something like that against a guy for as long as he lives regardless of his accomplishments or service or whatever. Could that be a reason or might there be other reasons someone wasn't approved? Other than revelation, what criteria does the FP look at when they get a potential bishop's name? Wow. I feel really, really bad for the supposed "first choice". Our ward recently got a new Bishop, and before the switch a bunch of people had all guessed it would be our EQ president, who never, ever wears a suit coat and always wears short-sleeved white shirts. The only time I've seen him wear a suit coat is when he was set apart as EQP. So when we walked in to the chapel that morning and the EQP was sitting there in his short-sleeved shirt, I just chuckled. But what would have been awesome is if he had his coat hidden, and put it on just as the announcement was made.
Popular Post rongo Posted January 7, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 7, 2015 A visiting Seventy told us at stake conference about a recommendation for bishop that was denied by the First Presidency while he was a stake president. The denial was a simply "no" without explanation. He was puzzled because the man was worthy in every way --- there were absolutely no apparent reasons why it would not be approved. He submitted another name which was quickly approved. Four months later, the "first choice" who had been denied by the First Presidency had to move suddenly for work, and he moved to the East Coast in an area with very little Church presence. He was quickly called to be a branch president in his new area. The Seventy told this experience specifically to make the point that some bishop calls are denied because of inspiration --- not because of concerns or worthiness issues. Judging from my own experiences that resemble this one, I would bet that usually in these cases the First Presidency doesn't even know why, but just feels that something isn't right or should be denied. I think this should be kept in mind with respect to the "first choice" gossip in the OP's ward. There are a number of "good" reasons why God would prompt that a bishop recommendation should be turned down (as opposed to "badness" reasons, like unworthiness, past transgression, etc.). My question with this gossip is: how in the world would anyone know who the "first choice" was? I doubt that very many stake presidents would share that information. I think those people are projecting their own expectations and speculation into established fact. 8
Popular Post omni Posted January 7, 2015 Popular Post Posted January 7, 2015 Wow. I feel really, really bad for the supposed "first choice". I think we may all be looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps the "first choice" was being blessed for his years of righteousness by not being called as bishop. 5
rongo Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 Interesting in connection with this topic: when my stake president, in releasing me, asked for my thoughts about who the next bishop perhaps should be, one name I floated was our HP group leader. He had been reinstated from disfellowshipment after 13 years of complete inactivity. One Mother's Day, he told his wife that his Mother's Day gift to her was to attend Church every week with her again (she was thrilled, as you can imagine --- she was my daughter's primary teacher). No amount of efforts on our parts had borne fruit at all, but he overnight became an active attendee. His self-conversion was deep and powerful, and it did not take long to lift his disfellowshipment (which required that he meet with the stake president, of course). We recommended him to be our high priest group leader when the former one was released, and he served well. Such a loving, capable man! The stake president agreed that he would make an excellent bishop, but doubted that he would be approved, given his disfellowshipment --- even after many elapsed years. I think he was probably right.
Boanerges Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 I think we may all be looking at this the wrong way. Perhaps the "first choice" was being blessed for his years of righteousness by not being called as bishop. Ha ha, good point. I don't think he really wanted to be bishop anyway. To others, I don't know how the rumor got started or who started it. The change in bishops was a total surprise to most of us. The prior guy had only served just over 4 years, isn't moving away, and was called to a stake calling at the time he was released. Given the surprise nature, none of us had preconcieved ideas on who would be called as has happened in the past. Perhaps that was part of the plan in surprising us. The current stake presidency is fairly new, just over a year and this is the first bishop change in the stake since they've been in place. I am unaware of any confidentiality issues with them, but from personal experience I can say a prior SP at least on one occassion violated my own confidentality, so it does happen.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 So when we walked in to the chapel that morning and the EQP was sitting there in his short-sleeved shirt, I just chuckled. But what would have been awesome is if he had his coat hidden, and put it on just as the announcement was made. I didn't realise God still uses actual mantles as symbols of authority ...
Kenngo1969 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) What the hell is a "YSA" ward?I could be wrong; in some ways, I might be this Board's answer to J. Golden Kimball, but with due respect, why does it seem you're coming in here with all four barrels in both guns blazing over such a trivial matter as an initialism? Why not just ask? It stands for "Young Single Adult." You're welcome. Glad I could help. Sorry you apparently woke up on the wrong side of the bed, or whatever. P.S.: It's nothing a ten-second Google search wouldn't have revealed (without any fasting or prayer even being required. ) Edited January 7, 2015 by Kenngo1969
stemelbow Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 I think your whole Ward is going to hell for being gossips. Most likely the first choice has been engaged in an affair with a ward member for many years, secretly. Only the 1st Presidency are close enough to the Spirit to know that, though. Might as well add some spice to the rumors since they're already floating around.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ..(1 Timothy 3:2) that disqualifies a number of bishops in LDS history, doesn't it? It's too bad we haven't had anything revealed since the Holy Bible was compiled. Oh, wait ...
Recommended Posts