Priesthood Leadership Conundrum

[mormonmusic]

You're a Bishop and you hear in the Priesthood Executive Committee meeting that there is an investigator that wants to be baptized. He's had all the discussions, has been to Church for a couple months, and it sounds like he also has a testimony of the gospel.

However, the Elder's Quorum President indicates this gentleman keeps claiming he's an Apostle -- which, as you know, isn't something we believe you self-proclaim or self-appoint yourself to. We have the quorum of 12 Apostles, but they are called by the Lord through the Prophet.

This investigator's claim that he's an Apostle have been verified by the Gospel Essentials teacher, a couple ward missionaries, and the full-time missionaries.

As Bishop, should you go along with seeing this person baptized? What do you think should be done if you were the Bishop?

[Gwen]

i would be hesitant to allow him to be baptized.... he's obviously missing some of the foundational concepts of being a member of the church.

[beefche]

This bishop should do what every bishop does--interview the potential member. That would be an appropriate time to ask pertinent questions and do some teaching.

[mormonmusic]

Thanks -- at the time this happened, I was a full-time missionary, and called my mission president over this one.

One point to raise here is the Mission President, acting under inspiration, has authority in questions like this, not the Bishop. The Bishop's has stewardship after the new convert is baptized. So do you think the Bishop's involvement is relevant since this person was still a non-member?

[Vort]

Originally Posted by mormonmusic

You're a Bishop and you hear in the Priesthood Executive Committee meeting that there is an investigator that wants to be baptized. He's had all the discussions, has been to Church for a couple months, and it sounds like he also has a testimony of the gospel.

However, the Elder's Quorum President indicates this gentleman keeps claiming he's an Apostle -- which, as you know, isn't something we believe you self-proclaim or self-appoint yourself to. We have the quorum of 12 Apostles, but they are called by the Lord through the Prophet.

This investigator's claim that he's an Apostle have been verified by the Gospel Essentials teacher, a couple ward missionaries, and the full-time missionaries.

As Bishop, should you go along with seeing this person baptized? What do you think should be done if you were the Bishop?

This is not the bishop's affair. It is for the missionaries to decide, not the bishop.

That said, if the bishop is concerned, he should make his concerns known both to the missionaries and to the mission president.

Fwiw, the word "apostle" (Απόστολος, "apostolos") just means "one sent forth". This man who calls himself an apostle may not have delusions of grandeur, just ideas that God has called him to proclaim the gospel.

[beefche]

This could be where I'm lacking knowledge in the administrative aspect of the church, but I thought the bishop was responsible for baptisms. MPs are responsible for the missionaries, but the bishop is the one to do the interview for baptism?

When I was on my mission, we had no wards or stakes in the country, so the MP was the presiding authority and conducted all interviews.

Regardless, I do not think that the bishop is out of line to interview a potential member. The bishop is the bishop for all the people in the geographical region (whether member or non-member). Typically, we think of this in temporal situations (a non-member family needs food assistance, the bishop gives them a food order), but I think that he is reponsible for the spiritual welfare of all people as well (at least in my head). Due to priorities, he must focus on his member's spiritual needs, but he doesn't exclude those non-members who seek his counsel.

Or am I just talking out of my head on this?

[Vort]

Originally Posted by beefche

This could be where I'm lacking knowledge in the administrative aspect of the church, but I thought the bishop was responsible for baptisms. MPs are responsible for the missionaries, but the bishop is the one to do the interview for baptism?

When I was on my mission, we had no wards or stakes in the country, so the MP was the presiding authority and conducted all interviews.

Regardless, I do not think that the bishop is out of line to interview a potential member. The bishop is the bishop for all the people in the geographical region (whether member or non-member). Typically, we think of this in temporal situations (a non-member family needs food assistance, the bishop gives them a food order), but I think that he is reponsible for the spiritual welfare of all people as well (at least in my head). Due to priorities, he must focus on his member's spiritual needs, but he doesn't exclude those non-members who seek his counsel.

Or am I just talking out of my head on this?

I think you're right as far as the bishop interviewing a potential member, but the mission president has the authority to approve convert baptisms. As far as I know, the bishop has no authority to stop any convert baptism, though I can't imagine that a mission president would just ignore a bishop who said, "Hey, wait a minute, something's wrong here."

[Wingnut]

As has been said, this issue would be the mission president's stewardship. The bishop has every right to interview the prospective member, but he cannot not authorize the ordinance. He can, however, hold up the confirmation process. A baptism is not complete (and is not recorded) until the confirmation also happens and is recorded. And whereas the convert confirmations happen in Sacrament meeting now and not immediately following the baptism, that is something the Bishop could delay.

If the bishop was sufficiently concerned about this being a problem, he should contact the mission president and share his concerns.

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

A baptism is not complete (and is not recorded) until the confirmation also happens and is recorded. And whereas the convert confirmations happen in Sacrament meeting now and not immediately following the baptism, that is something the Bishop could delay.

You are probably right. Since the bishop controls the sacrament meeting, it seems he could certainly nix the confirmation during Church. But the confirmation need not be done in sacrament meeting, so this is just a procedural trick. If I understand the administration of the Church correctly, the bishop has no authority to stop any convert baptism including confirmation, procedural tricks notwithstanding.

[mormonmusic]

Originally Posted by Vort

I think you're right as far as the bishop interviewing a potential member, but the mission president has the authority to approve convert baptisms. As far as I know, the bishop has no authority to stop any convert baptism, though I can't imagine that a mission president would just ignore a bishop who said, "Hey, wait a minute, something's wrong here."

I like what Vort said. And although my mission president had authority to make the call about this Apostolic investigator, he used wisdom. He told me to visit the man myself and get a feel for his claims. And second, he said "The bishop needs to interview him".

I see this wisdom in this -- the Bishop will be responsible for this person after baptism, so a wise Mission President would want the Bishop to be in agreement with the decision to baptize the investigator -- even if that Bishop had no formal authority to approve or deny it.

I actually met with this investigator and he was a very good-hearted man who seemed to have it all together. He wasn't weird or strange or anything -- but he said he felt he had this ability to understand and explain the meaning of the scriptures. He thought that was the defining characteristic of an Apostle.

We actually read him the sections in the Book of Mormon that describe spiritual gifts, and helped him see that this was a spiritual gift, not a formal assignment to the role of Apostle. We also explained the office of Apostle and how callings are extended in the Church.

He accepted this. The Bishop then interviewed him, was satisfied he understood the gospel well enough to be baptized. The man was baptized shortly thereafter with full agreement from the mission and the local Bishop.

I also thought it was wise of my mission president to delegate all the leg-work on this one. He solved the problem with a few short words "The Bishop needs to interview him -- you go and see him too Elder Mormonmusic".

To me, it was an example of democratic, and effective leadership. Just because one has authority doesn't mean they need to be authoritarian to get the job done. In fact, often quite the opposite.