Bishops, Presidency's and why bother asking?

[bsjkki]

Update...communication occurred and going forward, things will be done differently.  It's amazing what a face to face, cards on the table, type meeting can accomplish.  

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Update...communication occurred and going forward, things will be done differently.  It's amazing what a face to face, cards on the table, type meeting can accomplish.  

I'm so glad! 

[BCSpace]

We've done it two ways.  We've asked for suggestions of counselors from the president.  We've provided suggestions for counselors and had the president choose from the list.  In either case, we all and counseled together with an ingoing president about reasons why a particular person would or would not make a good counselor.

[Duncan]

Here's a question, what do you do if you find out someone is being strongly considered for a calling but you think it would be awful all over the place but you aren't in a position to say so?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Here's a question, what do you do if you find out someone is being strongly considered for a calling but you think it would be awful all over the place but you aren't in a position to say so?

You are always in a position to say something.  If there is a real issue (not just "this person will be awful") you should ask to have a confidential conversation with the bishopric counselor responsible for that organization.

Though, I've got to ask:  How do you know someone is being strongly considered for a calling?  That type of info should not be widely known.

[Duncan]

Just now, rockpond said:

You are always in a position to say something.  If there is a real issue (not just "this person will be awful") you should ask to have a confidential conversation with the bishopric counselor responsible for that organization.

Though, I've got to ask:  How do you know someone is being strongly considered for a calling?  That type of info should not be widely known.

Have to split here but bro is stake clerk and he asked me what I thought about so and so for a stake calling and I told him what I honestly thought about them. Now I am like "if they are being considered for a chief muck a muck calling you have to stop this because if they are called you deserve everything you get" for reasons I clearly told him so who knows if it will occur but heaven forbid it does, IMO

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Have to split here but bro is stake clerk and he asked me what I thought about so and so for a stake calling and I told him what I honestly thought about them. Now I am like "if they are being considered for a chief muck a muck calling you have to stop this because if they are called you deserve everything you get" for reasons I clearly told him so who knows if it will occur but heaven forbid it does, IMO

This happened to me when my term was about up as bishop. The SP told me they were considering calling a man who had openly and publicly removed his family from the ward years earlier. His family had offended a huge segment of the ward at the time and over the years had resisted urges by ward and stake leadership to return to his assigned ward.

I told the SP why I thought it was a bad idea for those reasons, plus a number of others (which are private but more significant IMO). SP knew how unhappy I was with the calling and he literally begged me to sustain the new bishop publicly in the meeting in which he was called. I did, as a matter of sustaining the SP, but part of me still regrets it. While it hasn't been as disastrous as I feared, it has not been good...at all.

All of that to say, that I believe it is our responsibility to honestly express concerns with leadership, especially before hand if we have that opportunity. Still, be prepared for the leadership not to accept your opinion

 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/11/2016 at 8:42 PM, bsjkki said:

When serving as a President of an organization in the church is it normal for the Bishop to assign your counselors without input?  Our Bishopric is making the habit of not informing the president when a member under jurisdiction is being released.  The Bishopric counselor makes a token request for names for replacement but doesn't actually want any advice because they already have a person to call.  I think it would be better not to bother asking for names to be submitted when there is such a clear pattern that they don't really want any input.  This has been a year long pattern of behavior and it seems to be a huge waste of time to pray and fast about staffing when your recommendations are always dismissed.   Not occasionally or regularly but always ignored and not even discussed. I realize Bishop's can do what they want so why do they waste everyone's time pretending.  

Worse that that is when First Presidency make themselves absolutely unavailable to the general Membership, talk about "shooting yourself in the foot" as an organization.

[ksfisher]

30 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Worse that that is when First Presidency make themselves absolutely unavailable to the general Membership, talk about "shooting yourself in the foot" as an organization.

Yes, all 15 million members of the church should be able to drop in when they want.

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm so glad! 

Whoot!!  Good for you!!

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/14/2016 at 9:30 AM, ksfisher said:

Yes, all 15 million members of the church should be able to drop in when they want.

Great, please continue the way you do....

Poster removed to prevent derail

[The Mean Farmer]

In the 1990s we had a Stake President that was notorious for calling a HPGL, EQP, Bishopric, etc... and informing them who their counselors would be.

He simply stated that if you wanted to know if these names are correct just pray for a confirmation that he is the Stake President.  If you sustain him as Stake President then you shouldn't have any questions about your, or your counselors, callings.  He would also reach down and assign RS presidents and counselors and who knows who else.

This practice was passed down to his Bishops as well, but not in such grand fashion that I remember.

 

It was only one of the couple dozens of ways he pushed the people in my area in new and odd/troubling ways.  I was pretty glad when he was released but his influence has still in the area in some ways. 

 

 

[Guest]

On September 11, 2016 at 9:42 PM, bsjkki said:

When serving as a President of an organization in the church is it normal for the Bishop to assign your counselors without input?  Our Bishopric is making the habit of not informing the president when a member under jurisdiction is being released.  The Bishopric counselor makes a token request for names for replacement but doesn't actually want any advice because they already have a person to call.  I think it would be better not to bother asking for names to be submitted when there is such a clear pattern that they don't really want any input.  This has been a year long pattern of behavior and it seems to be a huge waste of time to pray and fast about staffing when your recommendations are always dismissed.   Not occasionally or regularly but always ignored and not even discussed. I realize Bishop's can do what they want so why do they waste everyone's time pretending.  

When I served in the Bishopric, we did the same. When asking for those names, that is imput. The assumption is that the person who submits the names has already prayed concerning those individuals. Then the Bishopric prays concerning the submitted names. In short, whomever the Bishopric approves from the list, are people you want. 

[Guest]

On September 14, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

Worse that that is when First Presidency make themselves absolutely unavailable to the general Membership, talk about "shooting yourself in the foot" as an organization.

I have met a lot of GA's, in Regional, Stake and Ward activities (meetings) Three Prophets of the Church, seven different Apostles, members of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church, and so one. Your comments just is not true. 

[bsjkki]

5 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

When I served in the Bishopric, we did the same. When asking for those names, that is imput. The assumption is that the person who submits the names has already prayed concerning those individuals. Then the Bishopric prays concerning the submitted names. In short, whomever the Bishopric approves from the list, are people you want. 

I realize my original post wasn't clear and to save you from reading through all the posts--there has been a satisfactory resolution.  The issue was the Presidency was not submitting names nor even given the chance to pray over suggested names.  The people were already chosen for him.  It's worked out and clear communication is the key to successful relationships.  In some ways, being accommodating to the Bishopric's suggestions, led to an untenable situation that caused a lot of frustration. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 9/14/2016 at 7:38 AM, Duncan said:

Here's a question, what do you do if you find out someone is being strongly considered for a calling but you think it would be awful all over the place but you aren't in a position to say so?

Of course you are in a position to say so.  Cast a non-sustaining vote and offer to air your concerns after the meeting with the presiding authority.

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Of course you are in a position to say so.  Cast a non-sustaining vote and offer to air your concerns after the meeting with the presiding authority.

From what I read Duncan as saying, it's not that the person isn't worthy, it's just that Duncan doesn't think the person would do a good job in the calling.  In that case an opposing vote would not be appropriate.  An opposing vote would be appropriate if you have first hand knowledge of a worthiness issue, not just because you don't think the person would do a good job.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

From what I read Duncan as saying, it's not that the person isn't worthy, it's just that Duncan doesn't think the person would do a good job in the calling.  In that case an opposing vote would not be appropriate.  An opposing vote would be appropriate if you have first hand knowledge of a worthiness issue, not just because you don't think the person would do a good job.

it's borderline worthy in this case but I voiced my concerns so I hope the stake presidency at least knows about it and if they don't then whatever happens, hey I told them so

[Scott Lloyd]

On September 16, 2016 at 10:16 AM, ksfisher said:

From what I read Duncan as saying, it's not that the person isn't worthy, it's just that Duncan doesn't think the person would do a good job in the calling.  In that case an opposing vote would not be appropriate.  An opposing vote would be appropriate if you have first hand knowledge of a worthiness issue, not just because you don't think the person would do a good job.

Agreed. 

Not liking an individual or thinking someone else would be better for the calling is insufficient reason for casting a negative vote, in my opinion. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On September 16, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Duncan said:

it's borderline worthy in this case but I voiced my concerns so I hope the stake presidency at least knows about it and if they don't then whatever happens, hey I told them so

Having made your concerns known, you have discharged whatever responsibility you might have in this instance and should let it go from here on out. Go ahead and cast your sustaining vote and pray for the person who has been called. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On September 16, 2016 at 10:16 AM, ksfisher said:

From what I read Duncan as saying, it's not that the person isn't worthy, it's just that Duncan doesn't think the person would do a good job in the calling.  In that case an opposing vote would not be appropriate.  An opposing vote would be appropriate if you have first hand knowledge of a worthiness issue, not just because you don't think the person would do a good job.

As a practical matter, I would probably abstain from voting and then consult with the presiding authority after the meeting. I'm not one who likes to make a public scene. 

[Avatar4321]

we received some stake training on the matter within the last year. The counsel we received was to find out who is available before submitting names.

otherwise say I'm the Sunday school president and want brother so and so for my counselor. He is currently serving in the young men's presidency, by requesting him I'm reaching beyond my stewardship because I'm saying the ym presidency, which I have no authority over, needs to be reorganized. I cannot get revelation for reorganizing the yms presidency. Only the Sunday school.

but the bishop should be trying to accommodate your stewardship as much as possible. Just don't try to interfere with his or the stake presidents.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

we received some stake training on the matter within the last year. The counsel we received was to find out who is available before submitting names.

otherwise say I'm the Sunday school president and want brother so and so for my counselor. He is currently serving in the young men's presidency, by requesting him I'm reaching beyond my stewardship because I'm saying the ym presidency, which I have no authority over, needs to be reorganized. I cannot get revelation for reorganizing the yms presidency. Only the Sunday school.

but the bishop should be trying to accommodate your stewardship as much as possible. Just don't try to interfere with his or the stake presidents.

When i was called as the YW's president and the RS president both bishops told me that people already called in presidencies were not available for my counselors unless i felt really really strongly about it.  Under those circumstances the bishop said he would pray about it before deciding what would be done.  

It's always good to be reminded that being a president doesn't mean your inspiration trumps other people's.  

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

When i was called as the YW's president and the RS president both bishops told me that people already called in presidencies were not available for my counselors unless i felt really really strongly about it.  Under those circumstances the bishop said he would pray about it before deciding what would be done.  

It's always good to be reminded that being a president doesn't mean your inspiration trumps other people's.  

I think having clear guidance is very valuable.  Clearly understanding the preferred process for filling callings in an organization would avoid many issues.  Because only the Bishop, knows all the concerns in a ward, he clearly has the final say.

Some people have a hard time when they wonder why they had clear inspiration to fill a calling only to be told 'no.'  They wonder if they are not spiritually in tune or are not interpreting the spirit correctly. 

I have heard it explained that sometimes, a person gets a confirmation because that person is worthy and would fulfill the calling.  Other leaders could have that same confirmation too for the same reasons.  The Bishop prays and decides what is best for the Ward.