What Disqualifies Someone To Be A Bishop?

[Coreyb]

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?

If you are asking if there is some sort of mark or flag placed on the records of members who have admitted to serious sins, the answer is yes. I know this because most all of the mormon men in my family have been or are currently subject severe church discipline. My Dad was rebaptized and endowed over 25 years ago and has been devout ever since. He has never been called to priesthood leadership and has been told that is why.

[omni]

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. 

 

Man I'm feeling a little gypped.  As I was reading your post I was expecting it to end with the HP group leader being called as bishop and that during the anouncement, "hearts were lifted, tears were shed".  Peppered with anecdotal stories of how he was able to relate so well to those in need of repentance or who were inactive.  Oh well...

[Kenngo1969]

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.

Hey, short-sleeved white shirts, ties, slacks, and name tags were the uniform of the California San Diego Mission, circa 1988-1990.  We wore jackets to church, Zone Conferences, and a few other places, but that was it.

[Duncan]

What the hell is a "YSA" ward?

 

 

Young Single Adult and it could be H-E double hockey sticks!

[Kenngo1969]

Man I'm feeling a little gypped.  As I was reading your post I was expecting it to end with the HP group leader being called as bishop and that during the anouncement, "hearts were lifted, tears were shed".  Peppered with anecdotal stories of how he was able to relate so well to those in need of repentance or who were inactive.  Oh well...

As anyone who has ever listened to President Monson knows, your quote needs a triplet, not just a couplet, e.g., "Hearts were lifted, testimonies were strengthened, tears were shed." Nice use of the passive voice, though.

[Kenngo1969]

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. ...

 

Who does?!

 

This is simply one of 1,500,250,125,075 reasons why I'll never be called as a Stake President, but if I were, and if someone ever told me, upon receiving the call, "Oh, that's cool!  I've always wanted to be a Bishop!", I'd pat him on the shoulder and say, "Wonderful!  First order of business, we need to refer you for a psych eval ..."

[omni]

As anyone who has ever listened to President Monson knows, your quote needs a triplet, not just a couplet, e.g., "Hearts were lifted, testimonies were strengthened, tears were shed." Nice use of the passive voice, though.

 

Yeah, I'm a little rusty...I guess that's a result of having been "busy" during the last few GC's. 

[Kenngo1969]

Yeah, I'm a little rusty...I guess that's a result of having been "busy" during the last few GC's. 

You're always welcome to tune in; or at least, to catch it when the "book" comes out!

[rongo]

If you are asking if there is some sort of mark or flag placed on the records of members who have admitted to serious sins, the answer is yes. I know this because most all of the mormon men in my family have been or are currently subject severe church discipline. My Dad was rebaptized and endowed over 25 years ago and has been devout ever since. He has never been called to priesthood leadership and has been told that is why.

This is generally inaccurate (if we're talking about a broad group of "priesthood leadership," not only bishops and stake presidents). Annotations are placed on membership records (which clerks and bishopric members can see; they're on the bottom) for limited things, such as child abuse or homosexuality (some will contest this, but I've seen it myself in cases where there was still a record to pull up --- i.e., not excommunicated, and no child abuse involved). And the office of the First Presidency would have record of anyone who's been excommunicated or disfellowshipped (because forms and transcripts are sent to the Office of the FP for those), which would affect calls as bishop or stake president. But, there is no "blacklist" for such callings as bishopric counselors, EQP/HPGL (we easily had a brother who had been disfellowshipped called as HPGL, as mentioned above) + counselors/assistants, high councilors, etc. Possibly not stake presidency counselors, because the presiding authority might check with Salt Lake when calling them along with the stake president (while in town on that weekend). For the most part, "priesthood leadership" callings are local and don't involve Salt Lake at all.

 

It's possible that local leadership may impose their own informal "ban" on members who have been, at any time, received formal Church discipline, and I suspect that this is the case with your extended family, Coreyb. But, this would be a strictly local decision. I've attended stake disciplinary councils where high councilors have hugged people who were just excommunicated, and told them that they've been through it, and offer support and encouragement.

Edited January 8, 2015 by rongo

[Duncan]

This is generally inaccurate (if we're talking about a broad group of "priesthood leadership," not only bishops and stake presidents). Annotations are placed on membership records (which clerks and bishopric members can see; they're on the bottom) for limited things, such as child abuse or homosexuality (some will contest this, but I've seen it myself in cases where there was still a record to pull up --- i.e., not excommunicated, and no child abuse involved). And the office of the First Presidency would have record of anyone who's been excommunicated or disfellowshipped (because forms and transcripts are sent to the Office of the FP for those), which would affect calls as bishop or stake president. But, there is no "blacklist" for such callings as bishopric counselors, EQP/HPGL (we easily had a brother who had been disfellowshipped called as HPGL, as mentioned above) + counselors/assistants, high councilors, etc. Possibly not stake presidency counselors, because the presiding authority might check with Salt Lake when calling them along with the stake president (while in town on that weekend). For the most part, "priesthood leadership" callings are local and don't involve Salt Lake at all.

 

It's possible that local leadership may impose their own informal "ban" on members who have been, at any time, received formal Church discipline, and I suspect that this is the case with your extended family, Coreyb. But, this would be a strictly local decision. I've attended stake disciplinary councils where high councilors have hugged people who were just excommunicated, and told them that they've been through it, and offer support and encouragement.

 

 

yes, in this stake we had a counselor in a Bishopric serve who had been excommunicated years before

[Traela]

Sometimes a man is not chosen to be a bishop because TPTB think his wife isn't trustworthy. Or so I've heard. Not that I'm suggesting it's a factor in this case.

[omni]

yes, in this stake we had a counselor in a Bishopric serve who had been excommunicated years before

Duncan,

I'm beginning to think all you need is a pulse in order to serve in leadership in your stake. Your divorce may very well not keep you from becoming a bishop some day.

[Duncan]

Duncan,

I'm beginning to think all you need is a pulse in order to serve in leadership in your stake. Your divorce may very well not keep you from becoming a bishop some day.

 

 

hahahhahahhahhaha! well, you might be right! in a branch here they called the 2 elders as clerks and in our ward 2 elders are pseudo YM counselors, we just have nobody else, our YM Pres and EQ Pres. both don't have any counselors

[Freedom]

Bishops are called by revelation and their name is submitted to Salt lake for approval by the president of the church. The only people who know what names are considered are the members of the stake presidency and perhaps the stake executive secretary and clerk. most often, only the presidency knows the names. Any rumors of a first choice would be false but if you are really curious, go ask the stake presidency. My understanding is that, when Salt Lake rejects a name they do not explain why. They simply instruct the stake presidency to select a different name. Revelation trumps any information the stake presidency may have of a candidate. 

[Svawd]

Revelation sure has had it's bad apples.

[The Nehor]

Revelation sure has had it's bad apples.

Judas Iscariot was just misunderstood.

I suspect God allows people to have callings they will fail at or sin in because he refuses to punish for sins in advance.

[strappinglad]

Yes, it's called a pre-emptive strike . The scriptures advise against such.

[Coreyb]

This is generally inaccurate (if we're talking about a broad group of "priesthood leadership," not only bishops and stake presidents). Annotations are placed on membership records (which clerks and bishopric members can see; they're on the bottom) for limited things, such as child abuse or homosexuality (some will contest this, but I've seen it myself in cases where there was still a record to pull up --- i.e., not excommunicated, and no child abuse involved). And the office of the First Presidency would have record of anyone who's been excommunicated or disfellowshipped (because forms and transcripts are sent to the Office of the FP for those), which would affect calls as bishop or stake president. But, there is no "blacklist" for such callings as bishopric counselors, EQP/HPGL (we easily had a brother who had been disfellowshipped called as HPGL, as mentioned above) + counselors/assistants, high councilors, etc. Possibly not stake presidency counselors, because the presiding authority might check with Salt Lake when calling them along with the stake president (while in town on that weekend). For the most part, "priesthood leadership" callings are local and don't involve Salt Lake at all.

 

It's possible that local leadership may impose their own informal "ban" on members who have been, at any time, received formal Church discipline, and I suspect that this is the case with your extended family, Coreyb. But, this would be a strictly local decision. I've attended stake disciplinary councils where high councilors have hugged people who were just excommunicated, and told them that they've been through it, and offer support and encouragement.

I did not intend to say that there is some sort of a "blacklist" as it were, only that membership record numbers must have associated with them a mark denoting a members history in regards to church discipline, which is available to the local leadership. I don't know in what way these are kept or used because I have not been in any of those positions, but the evidence tells me such information is considered. I made the assertion that this is the reason my father hasn't been in leadership not based on an assumption, but because he has been told as much by leaders who happened to also be friends. The cause for his discipline does not fall into either of the categories you stated, and he has lived in several different stakes and even states during this period. As far as I know he doesn't care, and neither do I. My interest in this story is just to understand how things happen in the church. Obviously people with past discipline are put in leadership positions. I think if a person has lived in an area for quite some time where his leaders knew his current disposition and the past situation well, his "record" likely wouldn't affect their decision. I think you can see how someone like my Dad who has moved around May not necessarily have that same benefit. Of course, all bishops and stake presidents go about calling people differently, so how can we really know.

Another such example of the marking of records comes from my own mission. In one of my areas we missionaries had a large binder of information about all the members of our ward. It contained the standard information that all our ward lists contained, i.e. Names, addresses, contact info., gender, and birth dates, but it also contained priesthood offices, status in regard to ordinances, and current and past excommunications of individuals. Yes, it had dates of excommunications and reinstatement dates if they had been rebaptized. I don't remember if it had disfellowship info or not, because I didn't think much of it at the time, but many of the bishops I worked with in various wards told us of members that had been disfellowshipped. Who on earth put that binder together and gave it to the missionaries or why I have no idea?! It was given to elders before I got there and they had just put in a new Bishopric in the ward. Yes I do think that is to much info for nineteen years old missionaries, but like I said, at the time I didn't think much about it.

[Stargazer]

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? 

 

So, you just lurk on the board looking for places to put your private interpretations of the scriptures, right?  Even if the topic is only loosely related?

 

Well, guess what?  If you have two wives, then you also have one wife.  I'm saying that the scripture gives a minimum, not a maximum. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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? 

One Jewish commentator says that this means "faithful to his wife," and does not refer to any rule against polygamy.  David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, 5th ed. (1996).  Indeed, as he points out, leaders in Judaism were expected to be married.

[Robert F. Smith]

If you are asking if there is some sort of mark or flag placed on the records of members who have admitted to serious sins, the answer is yes. I know this because most all of the mormon men in my family have been or are currently subject severe church discipline. My Dad was rebaptized and endowed over 25 years ago and has been devout ever since. He has never been called to priesthood leadership and has been told that is why.

It may be of concern to some leaders, but it certainly isn't to others.  I have known of plenty of exceptions.  Perhaps the Spriit advises those preparing to make a call.  They are entitled to such advice.

[Boanerges]

This is generally inaccurate (if we're talking about a broad group of "priesthood leadership," not only bishops and stake presidents). Annotations are placed on membership records (which clerks and bishopric members can see; they're on the bottom) for limited things, such as child abuse or homosexuality (some will contest this, but I've seen it myself in cases where there was still a record to pull up --- i.e., not excommunicated, and no child abuse involved). And the office of the First Presidency would have record of anyone who's been excommunicated or disfellowshipped (because forms and transcripts are sent to the Office of the FP for those), which would affect calls as bishop or stake president. But, there is no "blacklist" for such callings as bishopric counselors, EQP/HPGL (we easily had a brother who had been disfellowshipped called as HPGL, as mentioned above) + counselors/assistants, high councilors, etc. Possibly not stake presidency counselors, because the presiding authority might check with Salt Lake when calling them along with the stake president (while in town on that weekend). For the most part, "priesthood leadership" callings are local and don't involve Salt Lake at all.

 

It's possible that local leadership may impose their own informal "ban" on members who have been, at any time, received formal Church discipline, and I suspect that this is the case with your extended family, Coreyb. But, this would be a strictly local decision. I've attended stake disciplinary councils where high councilors have hugged people who were just excommunicated, and told them that they've been through it, and offer support and encouragement.

 Your point is well taken, the question is specifically about a bishop and could include a stake president because those have to be approved by the First Presidency. In the case of the guy I refer to, there is no annotation, etc. on his local record because he was never excommunicated or disfellowshipped. I am sure the stake president is not aware (or at least was not aware) of his disciplinary council many years ago in a different place. That said, your point does play into my question - why is it OK for a bishop's counselor, high councilor, or elder's quorum president (or a relief society president) to have had a disciplinary council in his background but not a bishop or stake president? Are they forgiven of their sins  and are they "remembered no more" or not? It seems like a double standard.

[Boanerges]

Bishops are called by revelation and their name is submitted to Salt lake for approval by the president of the church. The only people who know what names are considered are the members of the stake presidency and perhaps the stake executive secretary and clerk. most often, only the presidency knows the names. Any rumors of a first choice would be false but if you are really curious, go ask the stake presidency. My understanding is that, when Salt Lake rejects a name they do not explain why. They simply instruct the stake presidency to select a different name. Revelation trumps any information the stake presidency may have of a candidate. 

Any rumors of first choice would be false? What prevents a member of that august body from being a blabbermouth? Perhaps he believed he was saying something in confidence to his spouse or a friend and the spouse/friend didn't keep the confidence (not that he should have shared it in the first place)? It's not so black and white as to be able to say the rumors are false just because that's not the way it's supposed to work. If everything worked as it's supposed to we would all be like the City of Enoch.

[Kenngo1969]

Any rumors of first choice would be false? What prevents a member of that august body from being a blabbermouth? Perhaps he believed he was saying something in confidence to his spouse or a friend and the spouse/friend didn't keep the confidence (not that he should have shared it in the first place)? It's not so black and white as to be able to say the rumors are false just because that's not the way it's supposed to work. If everything worked as it's supposed to we would all be like the City of Enoch.

If it was shared with him in confidence, and he, in turn, shared it with someone else "in confidence," then, by definition, he broke the first confidence.  (I'm not saying no such third-party sharing occurs; if-and-when it does, I think people who do it are going to be pretty uncomfortable standing at the Judgment Bar trying to explain themselves.) 

[Rain]

The rumor of there being a first choice would always be false because the "second" choice man is actually the Lord's first choice. It doesn't matter about anyone else's first choice and if they think it does then they are forgetting this is the Lord's church.

It sickens me that this rumor is going around. Why would someone even pass it on? It is hurtful to all parties involved.