My first and only Sam Young resignations*

[why me]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Have you returned to being an active member?  (You don't have to answer that if it's too personal....just curious.... as your posts indicated you're back! ).

I just believe in fairness. At times, exmembers are not fair when they write about their former membership. I have been down this road many times on the boards as you know. I am still the same guy that I was well over 10 years ago when I first came on the internet. 🙃

Edited September 25, 2018 by why me

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

You're right about the high risk/high reward factor. I remember my first counselor in another ward asking sometimes, "How daring are we?" And I would say, "Pretty daring. What do you have in mind?"  Even if it doesn't work out, it can be good for the person. It can also be catastrophic. Revelation is very important, along with logic and reason. And, past success in discerning isn't a guarantee in the here and now. One of the thrilling and terrifying parts of the mortal experience. 

However we, as a culture, are moving to very low risk demands. That is we accept less and less risk each day. Heck, people aren't even willing to let their kids play outside anymore. I think you see that in the Church as well. There's less and less tolerance for the risk of a leader who doesn't do a good job. I understand the mindset, truth be told. The costs can be high if the leader is very bad. I think what's going on in the various Sam Young threads ultimately is tied to that demand for low risk. Obviously we can mitigate some of the risks with better training, rules, etc. But again rules are only as strong as enforcement and monitoring.

[Ginger Snaps]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

No, the stake encompasses a city (seven wards). We are one of the larger wards, numerically, and on paper, we are fine with numbers of MP holders. It's when the rubber hits the road in terms of selecting a man to be bishop that I can see it giving pause. But, there are also at least 7-10 possibilities who would be fine, I think. It's not like there are no options at all. 

This is an issue faced in spades in branches of the Church outside of the intermountain west. Sometimes, you do the best you can with the hand you are dealt. 

We have the same problem in our area. During the last round of Bishop selection in our ward, our Stake President interviewed several  men who *could*  be Bishop material, but aren’t quite there yet.  He had hopes of lighting a fire under them and getting them to prepare for future service. He also called some of them as high counselors for the same reason. 

Edited September 25, 2018 by Ginger Snaps

[rongo]

Just got a phone call. The bishopric situation will be taken care of this Sunday (approved by the FP, and call accepted). Now, for an EQP . . .  

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by rongo

[Walden]

20 hours ago, why me said:

Have you been to Europe? Many mormon socialists in france and in britain. Not to mention in other parts of europe. I said that if more people were mormon that the world would be a better place. I did not say that the whole world would be mormon.

I know that there are many Mormons around the world who are politically socialists, my inclusion of "liberals" in my previous response was more geared towards social acceptance of "non-standard" lifestyles; for instance, gay marriage. Unless the European Mormon model is accepting of "alternative" lifestyles, I stand by my original point. I still don't believe that having more Mormons in the world would make the world a better place, anymore than I believe having more Buddhists, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, etc. in the world would make it a better place. 

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

Just got a phone call. The bishopric situation will be taken care of this Sunday (approved by the FP, and call accepted). Now, for an EQP . . .  

Out of curiosity for those of us not quite knowledgeable about the bureaucracy here, do all Bishopric calls need FP approval and in practice what does that mean? I can't see them having enough time to really look at such things individually, so I assume it's primarily their staff doing this. Do they just have some check against literature or files on problematic figures?

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

In LA constantly changing demographics are a real challenge.

I'd have to imagine it's a problem in much of California where the middle class is squeezed out due to housing costs. From what I hear from friends in the Bay area in particular you have stakes that have very little new blood coming in with young people who can be the new leaders. 

Edited September 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[rongo]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Out of curiosity for those of us not quite knowledgeable about the bureaucracy here, do all Bishopric calls need FP approval and in practice what does that mean? I can't see them having enough time to really look at such things individually, so I assume it's primarily their staff doing this. Do they just have some check against literature or files on problematic figures?

Bishop only. Counselors don't need FP approval. I think that you're right that not everyone is personally reviewed and approved by the FP themselves. I know from experience in other areas that other things that need FP approval are never seen by them, and seem to be fully approved or declined by secretaries. 

 

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

Bishop only. Counselors don't need FP approval. I think that you're right that not everyone is personally reviewed and approved by the FP themselves. I know from experience in other areas that other things that need FP approval are never seen by them, and seem to be fully approved or declined by secretaries. 

I'm more curious as to the criteria they are using to approve.

Of course it might just be a rubber stamp but requiring people send in approval gives them the capability to deny it if they take an interest in a certain location or person.

Edited September 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[rongo]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm more curious as to the criteria they are using to approve.

Of course it might just be a rubber stamp but requiring people send in approval gives them the capability to deny it if they take an interest in a certain location or person.

Then again, there are instances where the First Presidency directly rejects an application, sometimes by the Spirit. A visiting GA told us of a man who was declined when he was a stake president. No reason was given. He was befuddled, because he was salt of the earth with no peccadilloes or skeletons in his closet. He resubmitted another name, and it was quickly approved. Out of the blue, two months later, the original candidate was transferred unexpectedly to the East Coast for work, and he was promptly called (and approved) as a bishop there. 

I think it's like mission calls. There is real, bona fide inspiration and revelation with some of them, and a lot of logistics and needs and timing with others (what missions need how many missionaries this week when we're considering these applicants). 

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm more curious as to the criteria they are using to approve.

Of course it might just be a rubber stamp but requiring people send in approval gives them the capability to deny it if they take an interest in a certain location or person.

I would not be surprised at all --- and wouldn't have a problem with it at all --- if a credit and background check were part of the routine consideration. 

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would not be surprised at all --- and wouldn't have a problem with it at all --- if a credit and background check were part of the routine consideration. 

That's a good point. Background checks in particular would be something I'd be happy to find out they are doing.

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

Then again, there are instances where the First Presidency directly rejects an application, sometimes by the Spirit. A visiting GA told us of a man who was declined when he was a stake president. No reason was given. He was befuddled, because he was salt of the earth with no peccadilloes or skeletons in his closet. He resubmitted another name, and it was quickly approved. Out of the blue, two months later, the original candidate was transferred unexpectedly to the East Coast for work, and he was promptly called (and approved) as a bishop there. 

But again that seems to work only if they're reviewing the names sufficiently so as to have the spirit be able to act on them. Given the growth of the Church, the increased demands on the First Presidency combined with age makes me wonder how common that is. There are just practical problems involved with checking names. The number of Bishops today must be much, much larger than when I was young. It's also clear Pres. Nelson is planning of making a lot of big reforms which takes even more of his time.