Bishop submissions rejected by the First Presidency

[Guest]

First, I'd question the validity of the story of the Stake Presidency "being far less cordial" possibly for a number of details.  Who was the one who told this brother?  How were they privy to the information?

 

Second, I would ask if the SP were really being "less cordial".  I'm putting myself in their position.  I think this guy is the perfect man for the job.  He gets rejected.  Then he comes to say hello like normal.  I'm trying to not let the confidential information out.  I'm struggling to carry on a conversation while not telling him.  That is difficult to do.  That might make me less jovial or seemingly less cordial.

[clwnuke]

Carborendum,

 

As I mentioned, all of the names submitted during my tenure were approved and those approvals came by letter. I would assume the non-approvals come by letter as well. With the letters already being written, I don't necessarily see an increased burden upon the Brethren to provide a minimal amount of information as to why a Priesthood holder in good standing was not approved.

 

Again, if it simply didn't feel right at the time by divine inspiration, tell them. However, if the reason is more specific than that, then I see no great burden in telling the good brother by what standard they were judged.

 

What if the information that the First Presidency relied on to make their judgement of non-approval is incorrect or biased in some way? There is never a chance to correct it. Even in church courts an individual is allowed to question the reports of their wrongdoings to ensure accuracy.

 

Because the process is guarded so carefully, it is difficult to evaluate from a lay perspective but I see no harm is wondering why calling a Bishop requires so much more confidentiality than calling a Stake President. I believe that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can fully support their leaders, while simultaneously being curious about how and why things work the way they do in His kingdom on earth.

[EarlJibbs]

We have example in scripture – when David was selected to be king of Israel. One may think that each of his brothers were rejected but that is not really the case – the brothers that were submitted were not rejected – the truth was that it was David that was selected and the other that were submitted were not the one that G-d had selected. The brothers of David were no more unworthy and rejected than were all the other individuals in Israel – It was just part of the process to get to the one G-d had selected – not those selected by men.

I agree. Not selected isn't the same as rejected. And not being selected isn't the same as not being worthy. 

[Vort]

There are many who do not seek the calling, but do seek to be worthy of being called. If you are submitted and not approved, you never know if it was just not the right time, or if you were found inadequate or unworthy...I don't believe that any member should feel guilty about wanting to know their status with the Lord and His Church.

 

Finding your status with the Lord generally does not involve your leaders telling you why they make decisions as they do.

[Guest MormonGator]

Finding your status with the Lord generally does not involve your leaders telling you why they make decisions as they do.

 Not only that, but you don't need to check your status if you are doing okay. Sure, we all sin, but if you are doing what you are supposed to do, you don't need a status update with the Lord. 

[Guest]

With the letters already being written, I don't necessarily see an increased burden upon the Brethren...

 

... I see no great burden in telling the good brother 

 

This is what you see.  Have you walked a day in their shoes?  The acceptance/rejection letters are largely form letters that are printed by a computer operated by an administrative assistant.  Would you have the admin know about every candidate that gets rejected?

 

...by what standard they were judged.

 

What if the information that the First Presidency relied on to make their judgement of non-approval is incorrect or biased in some way? 

 

You're assuming that is is always about being judged unrighteous or ineligible.  It is usually not.  Why is this such a big deal for you?  As Traveler mentioned above, did all of David's brothers demand of the prophet why they were not appointed?  They didn't complain about it.  Why are you?

 

Even in church courts an individual is allowed to question the reports of their wrongdoings to ensure accuracy.

 

Again, you're assuming this has something to do with being unrighteous or unqualified in some way.  That seems to be the theme of all your arguments.

 

...but I see no harm is wondering why...

 

I believe that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can fully support their leaders, while simultaneously being curious about how and why things work the way they do in His kingdom on earth.

 

You're right.  There is nothing wrong with it.  But the way you're phrasing things makes it sound as if you seek to counsel the Lord.  I've seen many posts from you.  I don't believe you to be that kind of person.  But in this post, you are in danger of falling into that trap.

.

[NeedleinA]

.. this has something to do with being unrighteous or unqualified in some way.  

Yep, mountains of reasons someone may not be called, none of which have to do with righteousness or being qualified.

Imagine the letters sent out that have nothing to do with worthiness or skills...

 

"Dear Brother, we feel impressed not to extend the calling of Bishop to you because...

- you are about to have cancer in 4 months and will need to focus on yourself and your family

- your wife is about to leave you and you can't deal with the stress of both...

- you are going to be transferred by your employer to a new country very soon...

etc. etc. etc.

 

Why would a Stake Pres. feel impressed to submit the name in the first place then to only have it rejected? Its just as easy to fill possible answers on that one too. 

Edited November 10, 2015 by NeedleinA

[Guest MormonGator]

Does a Stake President speak to the "higher ups" to tell them about a new bishop? 

[clwnuke]

Carborendum,

 

Believing that members who ask questions may be on the edge of "counseling the Lord" seems to be a bit extreme. We have both probably been in meetings with Apostles and other church authorities where the formality was dismissed and the Apostle or visiting GA asked for questions - tough questions. I've always relished those opportunities because they are so rare, and very enlightening.

 

I recall Elder Oaks coming to the Philadelphia area and having a very personal meeting with the region's Priesthood leadership where he specifically asked for tough questions on any church topic and then answered every question forthrightly and candidly. Unfortunately, this issue wasn't on my mind at the time, but I have no doubt that he would have answered this question in the same forthright and candid manner as he did all the others.

 

In my experience we do not need to create a hedge around the law every time a member asks a question about how the church operates. Most of the time we can forthrightly and candidly discuss the matter without coming even close to telling the Lord how to run His Church.

 

In answer to your questions:

 

1. No, I have not walked in their shoes. I enjoy coming home to my wife every night after work and would never wish the responsibilities and sacrifices of being a General Authority on any person (well, maybe once in a while I may wish it on somebody when I'm angry at them . But the work of deciding on the approval of a name for Bishop is already done by the time the admin writes the letter. Including the reason, if one exists, and informing the candidate would be a minimal burden at most for the admin.

 

2. I don't mind if the admin knows. Assistants and secretaries usually know what is going on.

 

3. I did not assume that it was "always" about being judged. I wouldn't know. I believe that if the First Presidency feels by inspiration that it's not the right decision then they could simply state such. However, if there is a specific reason, then they could simply state such as well. 

 

I am curious about your statement that "it is usually not" about being judged unrighteous or ineligible. Do you have insight into this matter that you can share? If you can I'd love to hear it. However if you are not at liberty to share I respect that as well. Please do not violate any confidences.

 

4, I'm curious and this is a forum to hear people's thoughts. But I've lived for 50 years not knowing the answer and I'll have no problem living another 50 if I never find out.

 

5. To my knowledge my name has never been submitted so I have nothing to complain about. I have moved often in my career and that likely limits my ability to serve.  I help power companies analyze processes in my work, so I guess I'm pre-disposed to analyze church processes as well.

 

As for David's brothers, just because the scriptures don't say they questioned the prophet, doesn't mean they didn't talk to him about it. Knowing the culture and traditions of David's day I would believe that they likely did broach the subject.

 

6. My church court analogy only applies if there is a specific reason. I do not assume it's the case. See (3).

 

7. How can I better word my thoughts to avoid your concern? I try to be open and fair but I may not be succeeding.

 

I do appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter, and everyone's thoughts as well!

Edited November 10, 2015 by clwnuke

[clwnuke]

Does a Stake President speak to the "higher ups" to tell them about a new bishop? 

When submitting the name (it may be electronically done now, I don't know) there is information about the candidate that is provided by the Stake President to the First Presidency.

[clwnuke]

Yep, mountains of reasons someone may not be called, none of which have to do with righteousness or being qualified.

Imagine the letters sent out that have nothing to do with worthiness or skills...

 

"Dear Brother, we feel impressed not to extend the calling of Bishop to you because...

- you are about to have cancer in 4 months and will need to focus on yourself and your family

- your wife is about to leave you and you can't deal with the stress of both...

- you are going to be transferred by your employer to a new country very soon...

etc. etc. etc.

 

Why would a Stake Pres. feel impressed to submit the name in the first place then to only have it rejected? Its just as easy to fill possible answers on that one too. 

I would imagine it more like this,  "Dear Brother Smith, your name was recently submitted as a candidate for Bishop in the Cookie Cutter Ward by President Grant. We congratulate you on your worthiness to be submitted for consideration for this Holy calling, however we feel inspired not to call you to this position at this time. We pray that you will support the new Bishop in your ward with full fellowship and continue faithful in your duties. Sincerely, The First Presidency."

 

Your other question is a whole new topic.

[Guest MormonGator]

When submitting the name (it may be electronically done now, I don't know) there is information about the candidate that is provided by the Stake President to the First Presidency.

 Thank you. The first presidency just might not know someones personality as well as the bishop. IE-someome might be quiet and not used to leading. You can be a wonderful, moral person with those qualities, but you might not be the "leader" type. Again, nothing wrong with that. It's just life. 

Edited November 10, 2015 by MormonGator

[EarlJibbs]

I would imagine it more like this,  "Dear Brother Smith, your name was recently submitted as a candidate for Bishop in the Cookie Cutter Ward by President Grant. We congratulate you on your worthiness to be submitted for consideration for this Holy calling, however we feel inspired not to call you to this position at this time. We pray that you will support the new Bishop in your ward with full fellowship and continue faithful in your duties. Sincerely, The First Presidency."

 

Your other question is a whole new topic.

I don't think the letter suggestion you outlined answers many questions though. Why weren't they inspired though? Were they inspired not to call you because you weren't worthy? Righteous enough? If we believe that they were inspired by the Holy Ghost as is expected, the question and the answer should probably come from the Lord, asked by you. I am not sure how a letter such as this would help anyone feel comforted in not being called. And perhaps if you knew they did feel inspired not to call you and you prayed about it, you may just get the same confirmation by the Holy Ghost that it wasn't to be. 

 

Me personally, I don't even want to know all of the positions I have been considered for. I have a feeling that there may be many people out there that would feel rejected if they knew. We look at the current climate of some members and the social attitude we have about everything. I can imagine the uproar when someone goes to the web about why they weren't called as Bishop.  There are those that would welcome it, but many that would not I suppose.

 

I understand that your main question was with callings such as SP and Bishops, I wonder if callings up the ladder (so to speak)  are even more personal. I mean, what if you are called to be a Seventy? Or one of the Twelve? 

Edited November 10, 2015 by EarlJibbs

[cdowis]

I just finished reading a dialogue on another Mormon discussion board about what disqualifies a person to be a Bishop. One reader mentioned a situation where it became known (wrongly or rightly) that a good Brother in the ward who was well liked and faithful had his name submitted to the First Presidency and it was not approved. When a friend told the good brother about the matter, he indicated that he didn't know anything about it but that the Stake President had recently become far less cordial towards him.

 

 

 

Thoughts?

 

Is this a joke?

 

I read on another forum that it became known.... and the Stake President averts his eyes when this person is present....

[Palerider]

The Stake President submits one name for a person to be called as a Bishop. Sometimes that name will be denied, not very often from what I know. Once Stale President has First Presidency approval he then has an interview set up with potential candidate and his wife. He extends calling to them during this interview. He will read the letter to you and let you have it once you and spouse accept calling. If that person is ever called as a Bishop again he does not have to submit name to First Presidency. The Stake President gets approval from the Area Presidency.

For a Stake President .....all members of High Council and Bishops go through the interview process. You fill out a form and put information on this form and a picture is attached. After all interviews are completed the person they are going to call as Stake President will be invited back for an interview and they will ask for your wife to be there too. I have been fortunate to have been interviewed 4 times and one of these interviews was done by Elder Oaks of the 12. I am tickled to death I was never called as a Stake President.

[Guest]

Believing that members who ask questions may be on the edge of "counseling the Lord" seems to be a bit extreme. 

 

I agree.  I'm all for asking questions especially the why.  But that wasn't all that was involved.  I'll repeat again, I've come to believe that you were NOT that kind of person.  But I called it as I saw it from what I read.  You've given more clarification on your position which I appreciate.

 

But the work of deciding on the approval of a name for Bishop is already done by the time the admin writes the letter. Including the reason, if one exists, and informing the candidate would be a minimal burden at most for the admin.

 

I believe that if the First Presidency feels by inspiration that it's not the right decision then they could simply state such. However, if there is a specific reason, then they could simply state such as well. 

 

Ok.  This is what I'm talking about.  You're assuming you know all that would be involved and you are deciding that you know enough to judge that what they're doing is insufficient.  This is the part that I object to.

 

Maybe you're right.  Maybe you're wrong.  But the words you've written gives the impression that you're certain.  I have to admit here that this is just a pet peeve of mine.  People complain or ask a question or make a declaration based on the notion "All you have to do is..."  

 

This statement repeated over and over again was what sent my cousin out of the Church more than anything else.  And it just reeked of judging others.  I can't stand it.  And your statement above just sounded like another variation of that.

 

Even if you have no problem with an admin reading the reasons, keep in mind that:

 

1) Many other people would mind.

2) Sometimes the reasoning is so nuanced or subtle that it is difficult to relay to an admin, much less write in a letter. (see below on callings).

 

I did not assume that it was "always" about being judged. I wouldn't know. 

 

My church court analogy only applies if there is a specific reason. I do not assume it's the case

 

When you said you did not know if it was about being judged.  But take a look at all your previous posts.  How many of them focused on "ineligible" vs. "not the right time"?  In fact, how many of your statement had the "ineligible" as subtext?  Most of your statements were mostly addressing the ineligible option.  (see my post #26, second point).

 

I am curious about your statement that "it is usually not" about being judged unrighteous or ineligible. Do you have insight into this matter that you can share? If you can I'd love to hear it. 

 

I've not been part of calling bishops.  But I have party to making other callings.  And there is so much discussion and prayer about many different aspects of a person's suitability for the job that it is not a clear-cut, one-sentence explanation of why we did or did not choose a certain person for the job.  The reason for rejecting the candidate is rarely a worthiness issue.  It is just suitability.  And that can mean so many different things that have nothing to do with worthiness, and it is nuanced and subtle.

 

As for David's brothers, just because the scriptures don't say they questioned the prophet, doesn't mean they didn't talk to him about it. Knowing the culture and traditions of David's day I would believe that they likely did broach the subject.

 

Perhaps they did.  Ok.  That was a weak argument on my part, but I wouldn't say it was completely incorrect.  While you may not have been murmuring (as evidenced by additional statements on your part) others who ask such questions with that attitude are using it as a wedge issue.  

 

Exaggeration: Why, it's just wrong of the First Presidency to do this without providing an explanation!  They should change.  And if they don't, well, that just makes them dottering old fools!

 

Again, I know you weren't.  But my point was that -- talking about it is one thing.  Using it as a complaining tool is another.

 

How can I better word my thoughts to avoid your concern? I try to be open and fair but I may not be succeeding.

 

I believe you have with these additional explanations.  My concern was mainly with the way the OP was written, it gave a false impression of your attitude and intent.  That has been cleared up now.

 

And I appreciate the discussion as well.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Guest

[clwnuke]

 

The reason for rejecting the candidate is rarely a worthiness issue.  It is just suitability.  And that can mean so many different things that have nothing to do with worthiness, and it is nuanced and subtle.

 

I wholeheartedly agree on the nuanced and subtle in most instances. What makes me curious about this process in contrast to making other callings is that the submitted candidate for Bishop would most likely not be known to the people doing the evaluation. That would seem to make it more difficult to evaluate suitability as the nuances of their personality would not be apparent.

 

Therefore, from a process evaluation standpoint I would be inclined to conclude that the First Presidency would need to rely heavily upon three things: the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the information submitted by the Stake President, and whatever records or background checks are available to them. It is the third item that I think would be most interesting to learn about. Background checks are routinely done by many organizations, and having been a membership clerk long ago I know the church has individual membership records and Patriarchal Blessings. I would be curious to see if there are any other types of notes, records, or information that is utilized in the process.

[NeedleinA]

 three things: the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the information submitted by the Stake President, and whatever records or background checks...  individual membership records and Patriarchal Blessings. I would be curious to see if there are any other types of notes, records, or information that is utilized in the process.

 

I can see being curious, it is fun to learn new things, at least I enjoy it.

 

We are counselled to do our due diligence / background checks / home work on matters. Study it out "first", and then present it to our HF to see if it be right or wrong. I would hope while the First Presidency was doing their due diligence, that despite anything positive or negative found, that ultimately it would be presented to HF for spiritual confirmation one way or another and that the Holy Ghost was the final deciding factor.

 

If you find any concrete insight, please do share. Good luck!   

Edited November 11, 2015 by NeedleinA

[john doe]

I don't get the inference here. If someone's name is submitted to be a bishop and he is not called, does that make him a less valuable worker in the Lord's vineyard? Is whether a person is called a bishop some sort of litmus test for his worthiness?

 

I think the danger here is the idea that not being called to a certain position in the Church somehow makes you less in the eyes of God or Christ. If your name is rejected for being a bishop and the Stake President is suddenly less cordial to you, doesn't that make it a 'him' problem and not a 'you' problem?

 

There are generally a few men at any given time who are perfectly worthy to be bishop in any given ward, but just because one is chosen to be called does not mean that the others somehow don't 'measure up'. I think you will find in the Celestial Kingdom many great men who were never called to high callings in the Church. God is not a respecter of persons or their calling. It doesn't matter.

 

Some people are foreordained to be leaders, some people are foreordained to sustain their leaders and aid them in fulfilling their callings and duties. If a church leader has no followers, how effective of a leader can he really be? Personally, I think that being a Sunday School teacher, or Priesthood/Relief Society  instructor, or Primary teacher, are just as important, and possibly more important, callings as bishop. After all, the bishop may address a ward a couple times a year, but the weekly instructors are the ones who really deliver the Gospel Message to ward members on a regular basis.

[Palerider]

I don't get the inference here. If someone's name is submitted to be a bishop and he is not called, does that make him a less valuable worker in the Lord's vineyard? Is whether a person is called a bishop some sort of litmus test for his worthiness?

 

I think the danger here is the idea that not being called to a certain position in the Church somehow makes you less in the eyes of God or Christ. If your name is rejected for being a bishop and the Stake President is suddenly less cordial to you, doesn't that make it a 'him' problem and not a 'you' problem?

 

There are generally a few men at any given time who are perfectly worthy to be bishop in any given ward, but just because one is chosen to be called does not mean that the others somehow don't 'measure up'. I think you will find in the Celestial Kingdom many great men who were never called to high callings in the Church. God is not a respecter of persons or their calling. It doesn't matter.

 

Some people are foreordained to be leaders, some people are foreordained to sustain their leaders and aid them in fulfilling their callings and duties. If a church leader has no followers, how effective of a leader can he really be? Personally, I think that being a Sunday School teacher, or Priesthood/Relief Society  instructor, or Primary teacher, are just as important, and possibly more important, callings as bishop. After all, the bishop may address a ward a couple times a year, but the weekly instructors are the ones who really deliver the Gospel Message to ward members on a regular basis.

I think a Primary calling is very very important .....after all you are teaching them the foundation of the gospel and for some that may be all they get in their life.

[carlimac]

Yep, mountains of reasons someone may not be called, none of which have to do with righteousness or being qualified.

Imagine the letters sent out that have nothing to do with worthiness or skills...

 

"Dear Brother, we feel impressed not to extend the calling of Bishop to you because...

- you are about to have cancer in 4 months and will need to focus on yourself and your family

- your wife is about to leave you and you can't deal with the stress of both...

- you are going to be transferred by your employer to a new country very soon...

etc. etc. etc.

 

Why would a Stake Pres. feel impressed to submit the name in the first place then to only have it rejected? Its just as easy to fill possible answers on that one too. 

My husband was called as bishop. One year later he got a job opportunity in another state.  He was told by the stake president that men should never feel taken hostage by their church calling if life changes take them away.  

 

About 6 weeks ago hubby was called as Ward Executive Secretary in our new ward. I was told by the bishop's wife that he told her he knew my husband was the one for the job. Suddenly hubs loses his job here in DC and we are moving back out west.   Many bishops have died while in their calling, or their wife has died. My stake president's wife died while he was serving in that position. I knew a woman who left the church while she was RS President.

 

 Many of the reasons you state as why some people aren't called aren't really reasons at all. 

[carlimac]

 

Therefore, from a process evaluation standpoint I would be inclined to conclude that the First Presidency would need to rely heavily upon three things: the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the information submitted by the Stake President, and whatever records or background checks are available to them. It is the third item that I think would be most interesting to learn about. Background checks are routinely done by many organizations, and having been a membership clerk long ago I know the church has individual membership records and Patriarchal Blessings. I would be curious to see if there are any other types of notes, records, or information that is utilized in the process.

 

Wait wait wait!!! Why do they have patriarchal blessings? I don't think I believe that.

[Blackmarch]

I just finished reading a dialogue on another Mormon discussion board about what disqualifies a person to be a Bishop. One reader mentioned a situation where it became known (wrongly or rightly) that a good Brother in the ward who was well liked and faithful had his name submitted to the First Presidency and it was not approved. When a friend told the good brother about the matter, he indicated that he didn't know anything about it but that the Stake President had recently become far less cordial towards him.

 

When I served as a Stake Executive Secretary we did not have any rejections, even for fairly marginal candidates in difficult units. But I have often wondered "Why the secrecy on the matter?"

 

If someone has their name submitted to the First Presidency and it is not approved why not tell them? And if they are deemed inadequate or unworthy to serve as a Bishop why not tell them the reasons so they can address the matter or at least put their mind at ease as to whether they will ever be called?

 

I've served in a Bishopric, on a High Council, as an EQP and HPGL, in a Stake Mission Presidency, as an Executive Secretary to a Stake Presidency, as Scout Master multiple times, as YMP, Seminary Teacher, Temple worker, Baptistry leader etc., I don't know if my name was ever submitted for Bishop, but I have never been called.  Nevertheless, I think most people like me could handle knowing what limits them from serving as a Bishop if they were rejected. If there's no specific reason, just a spiritual prompting, tell them. If there's a nasty note from a mission president in their file, tell them. Who's pride and what charade is protected by not telling them? 

 

A simple email/letter from the First Presidency would suffice:  "Dear Brother Smith, your name was recently submitted as a candidate for Bishop in the Cookie Cutter Ward by President Grant. We congratulate you on your worthiness to be submitted for consideration for this Holy calling. However, we note that you received church discipline in 2003 and have chosen not to approve your name at this time. As you remain faithful this limitation may be removed in the future. We pray that you will support the new Bishop in your ward with full fellowship and sustain us in this difficult decision. Sincerely, The First Presidency."

 

Because people are imperfect some good Brothers have and always will find out that their name was submitted and rejected. It is not hard to see how evasive Stake Presidents become when a name is not approved and people find out. Since Stake Presidents don't know why a brother is rejected, their minds can begin to imagine the worst of those good brothers and it haunts the rejected brother every day as they constantly wonder why their faithful service renders them inadequate in the Lord's eyes.

 

It makes enduring to the end difficult for those brothers as they can feel that the Brethren they are sustaining, and the rod of iron they are grasping, may not be supporting them. They can feel betrayed by those they are supposed to trust most, leaving them alone and bitter. But all of this could be avoided with simple and full transparency. 

 

It's Christ's Church, and He may run it as He wishes, but He allows me to ponder and after years of considering the subject I've come to think that every faithful Priesthood holder deserves the common courtesy of knowing if their name was submitted and an explanation of the result. After all, rejected missionaries are usually told why and the Bishop that is ultimately approved by the First Presidency gets to find out, right?

 

Thoughts?

being the curious person I am, of course i would want to know... but unless there is some written right to know somewhere it is a bit of a selfish thing.

If an organization is obligated to give you a reason then they bind themselves and put themselves into a situation where they can be abused in subsequent submission/rejection events. In this case with the LDS church the reason might simply be that they didn't get any prompting to go through with it - and for different people, what is reasonable and what isn't differs from one person to the next.

[omegaseamaster75]

I skimmed the posts, I think most are missing the point, by the time a name is submitted to Salt Lake the prayer and reflection about who would be a good candidate has already been done.

 

If a name gets rejected from salt Lake it is not because "it's not the right time" It is because in their background checks they found something that disqualifies that individual. 

 

Lets not kid ourselves and think that a GA ponders the names of a bunch of strangers/people he has no association with and gets some flash of enlightenment about who is worthy and who is not. 

[estradling75]

I skimmed the posts, I think most are missing the point, by the time a name is submitted to Salt Lake the prayer and reflection about who would be a good candidate has already been done.

 

If a name gets rejected from salt Lake it is not because "it's not the right time" It is because in their background checks they found something that disqualifies that individual. 

 

Lets not kid ourselves and think that a GA ponders the names of a bunch of strangers/people he has no association with and gets some flash of enlightenment about who is worthy and who is not. 

 

 

Right... lets not kid ourselves that the Church Leader do their jobs... and seek out guidance from God.