HappyJackWagon Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I find it interesting that full repentence of past sins doesn't remove the stain from church records. I've been told before that previous excommunication will forever disqualify a man from serving as bishop. Even for temple workers there are limitations. For example, if a person has been divorced or had their blessings restored they must wait at least 5 years before serving in the temple...at least that's true for our local temple.
cesc101 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I find it interesting that full repentence of past sins doesn't remove the stain from church records. I've been told before that previous excommunication will forever disqualify a man from serving as bishop.Even for temple workers there are limitations. For example, if a person has been divorced or had their blessings restored they must wait at least 5 years before serving in the temple...at least that's true for our local temple. Whatever happened to remembering their sins no more?
ERayR Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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. More gossip and rumor.
ERayR Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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 Oh the joys of living in a branch. One time when I lived in a branch everybody had at least two callings. Those were the days. 1
ERayR Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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. That is sometimes a problem in a small town.
ERayR Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I find it interesting that full repentence of past sins doesn't remove the stain from church records. I've been told before that previous excommunication will forever disqualify a man from serving as bishop. Even for temple workers there are limitations. For example, if a person has been divorced or had their blessings restored they must wait at least 5 years before serving in the temple...at least that's true for our local temple. I do not think it is. I personally know/knew (deceased now) a man who was excommunicated but later served as a bishop(I think twice) and in a Stake Presidency. Edited January 8, 2015 by ERayR 1
Freedom Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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.I have never heard a true rumor. Rumors by their very nature are distortions. They are spread because they are sensational and because it brings attention to the one spreading them. Consequently, they quickly get more and more sensational. it starts by a member of the stake presidency saying ' this person was not my first choice' meaning he came up with one name but as they discussed it another name came to prominence, and it morphs into 'our first name was rejected because we found out he was an evil axe murder and thank heavens we found out just minutes before issuing the call so we were forced to call the less than qualified guy out of desperation'. 2
rongo Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I have often thought that World World 2-era posters along the lines of "Loose Lips Sink Ships!" would be good to have in Church hallways (I'm just kidding, of course, but still . . .). We had an EQP called who, after his interview and call, posted on Facebook thinly-veiled comments overtly hinting at what was coming on Sunday. I was very, very disappointed in this. And, it always takes like .2 seconds after new handbook #1s come out before they are spread around the internet. It's so fast, that I don't think it is a counselor somewhere --- I think the leak originates at the Church Office Building. Mormons, even ones who should know better, are sometimes not good at keeping confidences. 2
rongo Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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. The temperament, and sometimes baggage, of a wife is definitely a factor preventing some men from serving in some callings. That also needs to be taken into account.
rongo Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) My interest in this story is just to understand how things happen in the church. That's my interest as well. It is interesting to discuss anecdotal experiences and compare them with our own. Edited January 8, 2015 by rongo
rongo Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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.I don't think it has anything to do with assumptions that people's sins aren't really forgiven in the context of certain high callings. Rather, I think it has to do with the fact that there really is a high bar for these callings. As opposed to the supposed "raised bar" for missionaries. When applied to missionaries, the "raised bar" is really just talk ("The days of the repent and go missionary are over"). When applied to bishops and stake presidents, past transgressions really do disqualify them (in most cases --- I'm sure there have been FP exceptions to policy granted, but probably rare) from certain high callings. 1
cinepro Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Whatever happened to remembering their sins no more? No one is saying that this person can't be forgiven and receive exaltation. That, the greatest gift God gives, is available to everyone*. Callings such as Bishop or Stake President are not. *Yes, I know, "sons of perdition" and all that excepted. Edited January 8, 2015 by cinepro 2
omni Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 What is the purpose of receiving approval from the FP? Shouldn't a SP's inspiration on who to call as BP be just as valid as the FP? 1
stemelbow Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 What is the purpose of receiving approval from the FP? Shouldn't a SP's inspiration on who to call as BP be just as valid as the FP? Revelation is a tricky thing. It needs many verifications because, if it were not so, we'd be fooling ourselves. Using revelation as a means for truth is not foolproof. 1
rongo Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The keys to authorize that have not been delegated to stake presidents. That doesn't really answer your next question ("Why?"). I don't know the answer to that, and would be interested in insightful comments from others. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Would anyone here want to be a Bishop or Stake President? It seems like a heavy burden and high expectations to perform your calling well.
Avatar4321 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Would anyone here want to be a Bishop or Stake President? It seems like a heavy burden and high expectations to perform your calling well.id want to be prepared if the call came. But no, I want the calls. I just want to serve the Lord the best I can.I highly doubt I will be called to such responsibilities so long as my wife is not a member
Kenngo1969 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 What is the purpose of receiving approval from the FP? Shouldn't a SP's inspiration on who to call as BP be just as valid as the FP?The First Presidency has stewardship over the entire church, including the stake over which the stake president presides (and over the stake president himself). Thus, the stake president's inspiration is subject to that of the people who preside over him. It's the same in a ward. The bishop has stewardship over the entire ward. Thus, if I were a ward Sunday school president, and I received what I felt to be an impression from the Spirit that Brother Hickenlooper should be called as one of my counselors, the bishop has stewardship either to ratify that request and to make the call, or to ask me to seek further inspiration on the matter.
rockpond Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The First Presidency has stewardship over the entire church, including the stake over which the stake president presides (and over the stake president himself). Thus, the stake president's inspiration is subject to that of the people who preside over him. It's the same in a ward. The bishop has stewardship over the entire ward. Thus, if I were a ward Sunday school president, and I received what I felt to be an impression from the Spirit that Brother Hickenlooper should be called as one of my counselors, the bishop has stewardship either to ratify that request and to make the call, or to ask me to seek further inspiration on the matter. I agree and to drill down even more in your answer, I think that it's a Bishop's calling as "Judge in Israel" specifically that might drive the need for FP approval (but this is me speculating).
omni Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The First Presidency has stewardship over the entire church, including the stake over which the stake president presides (and over the stake president himself). Thus, the stake president's inspiration is subject to that of the people who preside over him. It's the same in a ward. The bishop has stewardship over the entire ward. Thus, if I were a ward Sunday school president, and I received what I felt to be an impression from the Spirit that Brother Hickenlooper should be called as one of my counselors, the bishop has stewardship either to ratify that request and to make the call, or to ask me to seek further inspiration on the matter.The SP has stewardship over his stake, so wouldn't this be like requiring the SP's approval every time the bishop extends a ward calling such as Primary teacher?
stemelbow Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The SP has stewardship over his stake, so wouldn't this be like requiring the SP's approval every time the bishop extends a ward calling such as Primary teacher? Yeah but primary teachers aren't as important as Bishops. You could err and call a bad guy to primary teacher, but to do that with the calling of bishop is hugely problematic...I guess.
omni Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Yeah but primary teachers aren't as important as Bishops. You could err and call a bad guy to primary teacher, but to do that with the calling of bishop is hugely problematic...I guess.Doesn't seem to be a lot of faith in our SPs and their ability to recognize inspiration in extending callings.
Avatar4321 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 The bishop needs approval of the stake for any melchesidek priesthood leadership callings since the stake president has the keys and responsibility for that. Calling bishops is responsibility of the general authorities, but as the first presidency and twelve can't come visit every candidate for bishop they delegate authority to the stake president to recommend choices for bishop to them. And then when the call is made delegate the authority to the stake to ordain and set them apart.at least that is my understanding. Same reason for why the stake president delegates to the bishop the responsibility to pray and make recommendations to the stake.
Stargazer Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I have never heard a true rumor. Rumors by their very nature are distortions. They are spread because they are sensational and because it brings attention to the one spreading them. Consequently, they quickly get more and more sensational. it starts by a member of the stake presidency saying ' this person was not my first choice' meaning he came up with one name but as they discussed it another name came to prominence, and it morphs into 'our first name was rejected because we found out he was an evil axe murder and thank heavens we found out just minutes before issuing the call so we were forced to call the less than qualified guy out of desperation'. I am personally acquainted with a man who was a stake president in a stake local to me (not mine), and he told me that the GA who called him said on the stand when introducing him that he hadn't really wanted to call him because of his occupation as a Church facilities employee. But he was the Lord's choice and so he was overruled.
Avatar4321 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Doesn't seem to be a lot of faith in our SPs and their ability to recognize inspiration in extending callings.not a matte of faith. It's a matter who has the keys to call a bishop. It's not the stake president
Recommended Posts