Downgrading of bishops

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Rubicon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1104

Downgrading of bishops

Post by Rubicon »

A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?

User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Fred »

I would be surprised if there is a Bishop on the earth that has not signed a recommend for a democrat. The democratic platform is clearly against the teachings of Christ. It is not possible for a democrat to answer question 7 truthfully without admitting that it is the party satan controls. Not that satan is not active elsewhere, but the democratic platform has no wiggle room. A satanic republican does so against the party platform.

So there probably isn't a Bishop alive that has not willfully, after much thought, and with knowledgeable intent, desecrated the temple. The same is likely true of Stake Presidents. We know for a fact that the Q15 belong to many organizations whose mantra is against that of Christ.

Who then, is worthy to lead?

User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1085
Location: A galaxy far, far away

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

Fred wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:36 pm I would be surprised if there is a Bishop on the earth that has not signed a recommend for a democrat. The democratic platform is clearly against the teachings of Christ. It is not possible for a democrat to answer question 7 truthfully without admitting that it is the party satan controls. Not that satan is not active elsewhere, but the democratic platform has no wiggle room. A satanic republican does so against the party platform.

So there probably isn't a Bishop alive that has not willfully, after much thought, and with knowledgeable intent, desecrated the temple. The same is likely true of Stake Presidents. We know for a fact that the Q15 belong to many organizations whose mantra is against that of Christ.

Who then, is worthy to lead?
I agree with you about the Democrat party, but anymore, there's not much between the Republicans and Dems. Both are corrupt.

User avatar
Subcomandante
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4411

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Subcomandante »

Rumpelstiltskin wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:46 pm
Fred wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:36 pm I would be surprised if there is a Bishop on the earth that has not signed a recommend for a democrat. The democratic platform is clearly against the teachings of Christ. It is not possible for a democrat to answer question 7 truthfully without admitting that it is the party satan controls. Not that satan is not active elsewhere, but the democratic platform has no wiggle room. A satanic republican does so against the party platform.

So there probably isn't a Bishop alive that has not willfully, after much thought, and with knowledgeable intent, desecrated the temple. The same is likely true of Stake Presidents. We know for a fact that the Q15 belong to many organizations whose mantra is against that of Christ.

Who then, is worthy to lead?
I agree with you about the Democrat party, but anymore, there's not much between the Republicans and Dems. Both are corrupt.
To be honest, you would be surprised. There are more bishops outside the United States than in it. My own bishop does not even know what a Republican or a Democrat is, and if I told him what they were, he wouldn't care (though he would recoil in horror if I explained the Democratic platform).

tribrac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4367
Location: The land northward

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by tribrac »

I just want to say I fully support all the changes, they are really neat, and I'm sure if we as members would just humble ourselves and be more obedient all of the ways the changes have completely gutted and broken wards will miraculously resolve.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by BeNotDeceived »

How are missionaries called nowadays, compared to 1830?

spiritMan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2277

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by spiritMan »

Rubicon wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:18 pm A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?
It was a mechanism to provide more "opportunities" for women to "lead" in the Church, that's all. Nelson has plenty of unfinished business . . .whether he will ever get to it before he dies is another story.

The flip-flopping on SS and ESP/RSP, that will go. The stupid division, non-division for YW will turn into something else.
I think we drop SS; can't have the members study the scriptures too much together.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by BeNotDeceived »

tribrac wrote: December 8th, 2022, 6:37 pm I just want to say I fully support all the changes, they are really neat, and I'm sure if we as members would just humble ourselves and be more obedient all of the ways the changes have completely gutted and broken wards will miraculously resolve.
Only if people have a willingness to believe revealed truth.

User avatar
FrankOne
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2829

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by FrankOne »

spiritMan wrote: December 8th, 2022, 6:43 pm
Rubicon wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:18 pm A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?
It was a mechanism to provide more "opportunities" for women to "lead" in the Church, that's all. Nelson has plenty of unfinished business . .
odd that the above statement made me think of Obama.

Image

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by gkearney »

Fred wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:36 pm I would be surprised if there is a Bishop on the earth that has not signed a recommend for a democrat.

Oh come on Fred, there are thousands of Bishops outside the United States who have never signed a temple recommend for a Democrat or even had the opportunity to do so.

Rubicon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1104

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Rubicon »

I got an email from a board member here asking about my screen name (Rubicon). The email didn't have a return email, and searching for the handle here didn't yield a way to PM the person.

If you're reading this, I actually did pick it from the Rubicon river in Italy. I've always liked the expression "cross the Rubicon" (meaning "point of no return" --- the Rubicon marked the frontier boundary between Roman and barbarian at one time, and crossing the Rubicon meant you had committed to an attack that would be met with full force and resources until resolved. In other words, as Jesus said, "count the cost." Crossing the Rubicon meant you were burning your ships on the shore, and full speed ahead).

Anyway, that's where it comes from! PM me so we can chat --- I'd love to hear about your time in Italy --- and more about the "little" Rubicon in our day! :)

ETA: I figured out how to email and respond. The email came from "info," but replying goes to the sender.

User avatar
Subcomandante
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4411

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Subcomandante »

BeNotDeceived wrote: December 8th, 2022, 6:40 pm How are missionaries called nowadays, compared to 1830?
Still by the Lord, albeit under a very different regime of organization.

Missionary goes to bishop and then to stake president to be recommended for service. First Presidency and the member of the Quorum of the Twelve that focuses on missionary work issue the call as to where said missionary will serve. Missionary is anticipated to serve for 24 months (though in my area there's one that has been off again on again for four years) in the called mission though that can change depending on local and global factors.

Back in 1830 when the Church was in its infancy, the call went directly from the Lord and the Prophet or other elders set apart the missionary, whereas today, that setting apart is done by the Stake President (or Mission President, if the missionary does not live in a stake).
Last edited by Subcomandante on December 8th, 2022, 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Fred »

gkearney wrote: December 8th, 2022, 7:14 pm
Fred wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:36 pm I would be surprised if there is a Bishop on the earth that has not signed a recommend for a democrat.

Oh come on Fred, there are thousands of Bishops outside the United States who have never signed a temple recommend for a Democrat or even had the opportunity to do so.
Agreed. But left is left, whether the label is democrat, socialist, communist, Marxist, or whatever.

User avatar
harakim
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2819
Location: Salt Lake Megalopolis

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by harakim »

Rubicon wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:18 pm A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?
I don't think there are many swings of the pendulum left.

User avatar
mudflap
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3227
Location: The South
Contact:

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by mudflap »

modern mormon bishops = youth pastors.

I don't think it's right, but it is where we're at.

User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Fred »

mudflap wrote: December 8th, 2022, 8:22 pm modern mormon bishops = youth pastors.

I don't think it's right, but it is where we're at.
Now that the youth are woke. Although comical, the old white guys with decades of experience and years of wisdom, don't appear to be doing a better job. Perhaps the youngsters will surprise us. If they had good parents they are far better followers of Christ than the Q15. Unlike the old fogies, the youngsters probably actually believe that following Jesus was and still is the correct plan. Maybe they even have faith and heal people from time to time. They might even think the BoM is adequate without changing the words to appease satan. They might even expect people to tell the truth at recommend interviews. All young people are not indoctrinated and confused about what sex they are.

CuriousThinker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1187

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by CuriousThinker »

Rubicon wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:18 pm A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?
As far as I know, ALL callings are to go through the Bishop still, whatever the auxiliary is.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Juliet »

I love it when the bishop is filled with the Holy Spirit and is guided in his actions.

User avatar
largerthanlife2
captain of 100
Posts: 180

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by largerthanlife2 »

In my wards, the Elders Quorum President does nothing. No interviews, no visits, no ministering assignments.

HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2600

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by HVDC »

largerthanlife2 wrote: December 9th, 2022, 12:45 am In my wards, the Elders Quorum President does nothing. No interviews, no visits, no ministering assignments.
Covid.

Trumps.

Everything.

People at work were complaining that some other people were "taking advantage" of the loopholes built into the Covid Policies and getting undeserved time off.

I laughed and said; we work for the Military Industrial Complex, the entire system is designed to take advantage of the loopholes and make undeserved monies.

Just an example of one slave blaming another for not slaving hard enough.

Your Elders Quorum President is just following the "prophet".

Keeping others safe is the highest law.

Using the loopholes for ones own benefit while doing so.

Is just cleverness.

Like rain.

The whip falls on the just and the unjust.

The unfairness of servitude.

Tears of laughter.

Freedom is but a thought away.

Our masters are not worried.

Thinking is the last thing on our minds.

Sir H

HVDC
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2600

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by HVDC »

More on "Crossing the Rubicom:

Image

On 10 January 49 BC, Roman general Julius Caesar defied an ultimatum set to him by the Senate. If he brought his veteran armies across the river Rubicon in northern Italy, the Republic would be in a state of civil war.

Fully aware of the momentous nature of his decision, Caesar ignored the warning and began to march south on Rome. To this day, the phrase “to cross the Rubicon” means to undertake an action so decisive that there can be no turning back.

The civil war that followed this decision is seen by historians as the inevitable culmination of a movement that had begun decades prior...

https://www.historyhit.com/why-did-caes ... e-rubicon/

Sir H

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Robin Hood »

Rubicon wrote: December 8th, 2022, 5:18 pm A development I'm not thrilled with is how many of the bishop's duties are being turned over to the EQP and RSP. This includes a lot of the counseling and pastoral duties, leading to the bishop just being a young men's president with some other duties. When I was a bishop (twice), I was not a good delegator, and did a lot myself. While I know that some argue that that leads to others not having opportunities to serve (or, like Jethro counseling Moses to share the load), I felt that the keys really did mean that the bishop was the best one to handle certain things.

Since moving, we have had two good bishops who do as they are being instructed to do*. They have the RSP counsel all of the women, and the EQP counsel all of the men. The RSP calls and releases her own teachers (not the bishopric). I don't think this state of things is actually best or good for the ward.

*I'm not sure that this interpretation is actually what the handbook lays out (now that it's solely online, I don't want to slog through it and read the most recent changes).

Our stake president says that this is the "true order" of things, perfected by President Nelson. According to him, bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, so leading the ward should be under the Melchizedek priesthood. To that end, for ward conferences this upcoming year, visits will be with the RSP and EQP --- not the bishopric at all. I pointed out (I'm on the high council) that the bishop is the presiding high priest of the ward --- that, in the absence of a direct descendant of Aaron, he **is** the presiding Melchizedek priesthood in the ward. But, his interpretation is that the bishop is really solely responsible for the youth.

I think that the pendulum will swing back the other way with this, eventually, as wards go to pot, but it is frustrating and sad (to me).

Thoughts?
I think there's a happy medium.
Obviously there are some things only the bishop can deal with. But there are many things I used to get bogged down with that really should never have got as far as me.

I take your point about the Bishop being a glorified YM president. I think the brethren have to decide whether the Bishop is operating within the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. Scripturally the office of Bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, but at the same time the Bishop is, apparently, the "presiding High Priest". So which is it?
The two roles are very different.

I tend to believe that if it ain't broke don't fix it. Abolishing the HP groups in each ward was unwise in my view. The new system doesn't appear to have improved anything. In fact, abolishing stake Seventy's Quorum was probably counterproductive too.

Here's an idea. How about the Bishopric consisting of the Bishop, with the EQP as first counsellor and RSP as second counsellor. I predict this will happen. Watch this space.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Robin Hood »

Subcomandante wrote: December 8th, 2022, 7:46 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: December 8th, 2022, 6:40 pm How are missionaries called nowadays, compared to 1830?
Still by the Lord, albeit under a very different regime of organization.

Missionary goes to bishop and then to stake president to be recommended for service. First Presidency and the member of the Quorum of the Twelve that focuses on missionary work issue the call as to where said missionary will serve. Missionary is anticipated to serve for 24 months (though in my area there's one that has been off again on again for four years) in the called mission though that can change depending on local and global factors.

Back in 1830 when the Church was in its infancy, the call went directly from the Lord and the Prophet or other elders set apart the missionary, whereas today, that setting apart is done by the Stake President (or Mission President, if the missionary does not live in a stake).
The difference now us that the call is initiated by the prospective missionary. It's really an application.

User avatar
Subcomandante
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4411

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by Subcomandante »

Robin Hood wrote: December 9th, 2022, 3:10 am
Subcomandante wrote: December 8th, 2022, 7:46 pm
BeNotDeceived wrote: December 8th, 2022, 6:40 pm How are missionaries called nowadays, compared to 1830?
Still by the Lord, albeit under a very different regime of organization.

Missionary goes to bishop and then to stake president to be recommended for service. First Presidency and the member of the Quorum of the Twelve that focuses on missionary work issue the call as to where said missionary will serve. Missionary is anticipated to serve for 24 months (though in my area there's one that has been off again on again for four years) in the called mission though that can change depending on local and global factors.

Back in 1830 when the Church was in its infancy, the call went directly from the Lord and the Prophet or other elders set apart the missionary, whereas today, that setting apart is done by the Stake President (or Mission President, if the missionary does not live in a stake).
The difference now us that the call is initiated by the prospective missionary. It's really an application.
The ideal is that the Lord tells the prospective missionary that he is to serve a mission, and said prospective missionary doesn't go because the bishop told him to or because that is the expected thing to do.

tribrac
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4367
Location: The land northward

Re: Downgrading of bishops

Post by tribrac »

Robin Hood wrote: December 9th, 2022, 3:10 am
The difference now us that the call is initiated by the prospective missionary. It's really an application.
And kind of like Walmart, they will take almost anyone who applies ...

Post Reply