Question about Bishops/EQP's/HP Group Leaders

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I don't think anyone is claiming that it's an auxiliary leader's role to call as opposed to simply recommend. Waters' complaint, which I echo, was about playing "guess what's on my mind" when your in a recommendation role - which you've just agreed isn't a good thing for a bishop to do. I'm just not seeing that the various comments indicate that there's a "principle that's being lost". In other words, I think your offer to teach a seminar was premature.

The offer was predicated on many more discussions than just the one in this thread.

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

However, if you do want to teach a seminar then you might want to consider how many Bishops often overstep their bounds when it comes to a Elder's Quorum President's authority to make an in-quorum calling. The Bishop doesn't make the call or set apart an Elders Quorum instructor or a Home Teaching District Supervisor or even a quorum committee chairperson. The Bishop should have veto power for reasons of a candidate's worthiness; however, aside from candidate worthiness the Bishop technically doesn't have priesthood stewardship over the Elders Quorum. Unfortunately, many Bishops in the church effectively emasculate their EQP by insisting (unrighteously, I think) that the Bishop gets who the Bishop wants in the internal EQ callings. Perhaps thats a principle that's being lost that you can address in your seminar?

I'll add it to the list of break-out sessions.

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

The Bishop should have veto power for reasons of a candidate's worthiness; however, aside from candidate worthiness the Bishop technically doesn't have priesthood stewardship over the Elders Quorum. Unfortunately, many Bishops in the church effectively emasculate their EQP by insisting (unrighteously, I think) that the Bishop gets who the Bishop wants in the internal EQ callings. Perhaps thats a principle that's being lost that you can address in your seminar?

That's a great point. Although when it comes to callings it gets a bit more complicated because the Bishop may have something else in mind for that person and/or not want them to be released from where they are at in another organization. For example, if you want to call a guy as your EQ Secretary who is currently a YM advisor, the Bishop would have "veto power" over that. This is not unlike a Bishop wanting to call Brother Smith as the YM President but Brother Smith is currently on the High Council and the Stake says no.

But leave callings out of it for a minute. I have seen a situation where the Bishop wanted to approved every home teaching assignment. This is wrong. Counseling with the Bishop about families, etc. is one thing. But at the end of the day, the Bishop's stewardship in this is whether a brother is worthy to be a Home Teacher.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

As I said before, the moment you've decided that this person is "IT"--that's been confirmed by revelation that they are THE MAN--you have overstepped your bounds.

This is priceless. You're supposed to anticipate when the bishop, who has requested a recommendation, is going to go with someone else, so that you can be sure not to pray and receive a confirmation of the person you recommend? Or do you believe Mike was wrong to recommend someone prayerfully? Or was he supposed to just not receive an answer?

Do you really think through some of this stuff?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

This is priceless. You're supposed to anticipate when the bishop, who has requested a recommendation, is going to go with someone else, so that you can be sure not to pray and receive a confirmation of the person you recommend? Or do you believe Mike was wrong to recommend someone prayerfully? Or was he supposed to just not receive an answer?

Do you really think through some of this stuff?

That's not what I said. Maybe you need to look up the definition of the word recommend.