HappyJackWagon Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 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.Interesting. I've been told by my SP that this is true but I wonder when it became a policy. It seems to be current policy unless my SP was wrong or it is not a universal policy throughout the church. I suppose exceptions could always be made as well. But generally policies are developed over time to address problems so it seems likely that this policy may have developed over time as well. 1
Stargazer 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. I've been a branch president. That's as close as I wish to come to the "hot seat".
Boanerges Posted January 8, 2015 Author Posted January 8, 2015 I think people who do it are going to be pretty uncomfortable standing at the Judgment Bar trying to explain themselves.Aren't we all?
ERayR Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 not a matte of faith. It's a matter who has the keys to call a bishop. It's not the stake president Nope a Stake Presidents keys in this matter extends only to making recommendations. I remember a time when such callings were made in person by a GA. They would travel to the ward in question and personally interview the SP recommendations and then make the call. All in the matter of two or three days. There are some very interesting stories from those times..
HappyJackWagon Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Nope a Stake Presidents keys in this matter extends only to making recommendations. I remember a time when such callings were made in person by a GA. They would travel to the ward in question and personally interview the SP recommendations and then make the call. All in the matter of two or three days. There are some very interesting stories from those times..How long ago was that? I expect that someday we'll remember the days when Apostles or other GA's came to interview SP candidates. As the church grows it becomes much more difficult for the GA's to manage in a personal way. That's not a criticism, just a reality of size and distance. 1
Boanerges Posted January 8, 2015 Author 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. Ah, but branch presidents are pretty important and essentially do all the things a bishop does. Yet a branch president does not need FP approval.
stemelbow Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Doesn't seem to be a lot of faith in our SPs and their ability to recognize inspiration in extending callings. why not? The SP doesn't want to consider every primary teacher consideration. Most people are good enough to babysit with another grownup for an hour a week. Sp's know that. Plus, I've been in my ward and stake for years and currently have a stake calling, but if I were walking down the street and happened upon my SP he would have no clue who I was. He's walk on by if I were not kind enough to reach out to him and say hi. How would I know that, you may ask? Well, it's happened a few times. The FP has an electronic evidence on people who aren't good enough to be bishops and SPs. So they don't need to know the individual. But that poor SP doesn't have anything on me. Edited January 8, 2015 by stemelbow
Avatar4321 Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I think he was referring to letting the stake make the decision on who the bishop is
stemelbow Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Ah, but branch presidents are pretty important and essentially do all the things a bishop does. Yet a branch president does not need FP approval. Not a big enough problem. If a whole branch goes down the toilet, then no big deal. It's tiny. It means very little. Take the risk on any old person to a BP. If a good one shows up that branch may turn into a ward. Lucky us...that branch hasn't grown in years.
The Nehor Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 Aren't we all?At the Judgement Bar my plan is to call the Savior as my first witness and then sit down, cross my fingers, and hope. 1
Guest Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 I think your whole Ward is going to hell for being gossips.Not to mention, how did they know he was not the first choice...and if not maybe the first choice (if there was one) just refused the calling. So I agree with you, but not just hell, but the seventh circle of hell.
BCSpace Posted January 8, 2015 Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) 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? The Church does annotate membership records in disciplinary cases. In some cases, those annotations are supposed to be removed. There is also the fact of institutional memory especially where there isn't much turnover of membership. In addition, it sometimes happens that a bishop will warn/appraise a member's new bishop (such as when they move) of issues or a bishop will contact the old bishop of a member basically as a reference check. I think the case against having someone serve as Bishop who previously had a disciplinary problem is found in the scriptures, specifically 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:7 relative to the requirement for a Bishop to be blameless. For example, current ward members might not trust or react well to knowing of past problems. The Church might also have trust issues in those cases, especially in the case of sexual sins. Stake presidencies, bishoprics, and others in leadership are warned/reminded on a regular basis that Satan has great "desires to sift them as chaff" and how careful they must be to avoid any impropriety especially during interviews of women and children; situation where they might be alone with them. There are indeed cases where some individuals have falsely accused Bishops etc. to get back at them personally or to attack the Church. Relative to apostasy, the Bishop has the responsibility for doctrine in his Ward so prior discipline for that might also be worrisome. I would certainly agree that such thinking goes against the notion of forgiveness and forgetfulness but I don't know how to reconcile it or retain the notion of trust in terms of Stake and Ward leadership otherwise. "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." and "Trust but verify." ...are both true and eternal principles imho. Perhaps knowing the Lord forgives and forgets while the earthly Church has to be carerful is good enough. Edited January 8, 2015 by BCSpace
Stargazer Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 How long ago was that? I expect that someday we'll remember the days when Apostles or other GA's came to interview SP candidates. As the church grows it becomes much more difficult for the GA's to manage in a personal way. That's not a criticism, just a reality of size and distance. Here in a couple weeks we will have two GAs at our stake conference to change our stake presidency! One Q12 and one 1Q70 ! It will be fun! Especially since I will not be called.
Avatar4321 Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Here in a couple weeks we will have two GAs at our stake conference to change our stake presidency! One Q12 and one 1Q70 ! It will be fun! Especially since I will not be called.lucky!
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I wouldn't be surprised if someone would turn down the calling of being Bishop. It can be a very scary calling I assume.
Stargazer Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 I wouldn't be surprised if someone would turn down the calling of being Bishop. It can be a very scary calling I assume. Having observed many bishops over the course of my life, I can tell you that the calling is quite intense, but it has a lot of rewards, too. I served as a branch president for a year in a serviceman's branch overseas, and for all the responsibility and the time needed to do the job, I felt extremely blessed by the calling. For one thing it was finding out that the Lord knows who I am! And loves me anyway. 4
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Stargazer I'd give you a rep point if I was allowed to give them. haha
stemelbow Posted January 9, 2015 Posted January 9, 2015 Stargazer I'd give you a rep point if I was allowed to give them. haha I gave him one for ya. Did you get in trouble with moderators or something? Why can't you give rep points? Seems like a weird penalty to impose on someone.
Boanerges Posted January 9, 2015 Author Posted January 9, 2015 I gave him one for ya.Did you get in trouble with moderators or something? Why can't you give rep points? Seems like a weird penalty to impose on someone.Yes, and now his record is annotated and he can never be a moderator. 2
Avatar4321 Posted January 11, 2015 Posted January 11, 2015 How do you know you won't be called as stake president?
Boanerges Posted January 12, 2015 Author Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) I have a little update. Yesterday was stake priesthood meeting with leadership meeting attached. Apparently the stake president heard some of these rumors and addressed it in both meetings. In the regular meeting he talked about the process of calling a bishop (it was very informative, actually) and testified about the revelation involved, that the Lord chooses one guy, etc. In the leadership meeting he was a bit more direct and while he didn't say they submitted more than one name in this case, he did say there were several names considered and re-emphasized only one is chosen by God, framing all of this in the talk in the other meeting. Briefly giving an overview of the process he talked about, he said the stake presidency made a list of all possible candidates from the ward then narrowed that down to a few. They prayed and fasted over the list and came back together in a week where they came to agreement on a name to submit. He said the First Presidency then prays about the name and they received a letter back authorizing the stake president to extend the call, do the sustaining, and set him apart (after choosing counselors and getting them approved by the high council, of course). He said the whole process took about a month. And I did speak with my friend today. He said he had no idea if he was considered or not, but that recently he had noticed a change in the way he was being treated by the stake president - kind of more standoffish. Edited January 12, 2015 by Boanerges
Stargazer Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) And I did speak with my friend today. He said he had no idea if he was considered or not, but that recently he had noticed a change in the way he was being treated by the stake president - kind of more standoffish. Years ago our stake president lived in our ward -- when a new bishop was needed, I got this odd feeling a few times when I happened to be around the SP, like he was subtly taking notice of me. It wasn't creepy or anything. Later someone else was called. I believe that I had been on the list of candidates, and I am very happy I didn't make the cut, let me tell you. Edited January 12, 2015 by Stargazer
Freedom Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Who can issue a call is determined by priesthood keys. A bishop holds the keys of the Aaronic priesthood. As such, he cannot issue callings in the Melchizedek priesthood. A bishop cannot call an Elders quorum president, High Priest Quorum first assistant or a ward clerk. This must be done by the stake. a stake president cannot call a primary teacher because he does not hold the keys to do so. These keys reside with the bishop. Likewise, the stake president does not hold the keys to call a bishop or another stake president. these keys reside with the first presidency. A Stake President does, however, hold the keys to call the councilors in a bishopric. A Stake President does not have the authority to dictate what callings a bishop issues within the ward. A Stake president can advise but not dictate. The exception to this that the stake has priority over callings so if the stake calls a women to be the stake relief society president, they advise the bishop that this woman will have to be released from being the 2nd councilor in young women's. Normally the stake provides the ward some notice so they can be prepared in advance. 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) A Stake President does not have the authority to dictate what callings a bishop issues within the ward. A Stake president can advise but not dictate. The exception to this that the stake has priority over callings so if the stake calls a women to be the stake relief society president, they advise the bishop that this woman will have to be released from being the 2nd councilor in young women's. Normally the stake provides the ward some notice so they can be prepared in advance. I disagree. The basic unit of the Church is the stake, not the ward . The ward is an appendage of the stake. The stake president has the authority to tell a bishop how the ward is to be organized except, perhaps arguably, the priests quorum. (The current manual has a table which shows who extends calls and makes decisions, but when it comes to the sisters, the priesthood and the youth, the stake president's power is delegated to the bishop, a delegation he can revoke.) The D&C talks about stakes, not wards. "Ward" is merely name that applied to a segment of a city, and the stakes in Nauvoo were organized along municipal ward lines. In Nauvoo, the stakes didn't necessarily have bishops. An ancestor of mine was a bishop for 25 years in Payson. In each ward, in addition to a bishop, there was a ward president. The ward president reported to the stake president and organized weekly meetings. The bishop was the Church's agent for property and tithing. Edited January 13, 2015 by Bob Crockett
mtomm Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure if this is pertinent but when my husband and I were called to meet with the stake president before his call as bishop they took him first alone. I don't know if I know all of the questions they asked him but he told me the first one was: have you ever had an affair? After they had asked all of their questions I was invited in and the call was extended. So there is that. Since his name would have already been presented to the FP it's probably a good thing he could answer no. Edited January 13, 2015 by mtomm
Recommended Posts