Gee, he let his children work as judges in Israel, lining up prostitutes by troops at the temple doors and taking bribes?
That is why he felt that when Israel wanted a king they were rejecting him. It is interesting that God responded that it was Samuel who was being rejected but God.
The difference between Samuel and Eli, as far as I can tell, is that Samuel did not turn a blind eye to the sins of his sons and Eli did. But how would you feel if your bishop’s sons ran graft, prostitutes and corruption?]]>
I think, as others have mentioned above, that we are given chances to sink or swim. The interviews for the calling allow you a chance to get straigth with Heavenly Father or rope to further hang yourself spiritually.]]>
I think as LDS we are so willing to trust authority without question… that perhaps God wants to get our attention sometimes and say, “HEY! How ’bout you check this out for yourself, guys? You might learn something!”]]>
How could God choose Saul, or Eli, or Samuel or David?
But he did.]]>
J. Stapley is right. It reminds me of Alma telling Amulek that God won’t allow them to save the saints being burned for their belief because God is using it to justify His later acts of condemnation upon them.
Also, perhaps he was put into the Bishop position for reasons that affected some for good. Even though secretly he was ruining a few people’s lives, the facade he put up could have helped others. I can attribute the influence of my friend’s lifestyle, his knowledge and excitement for the gospel and the conversations we had about it, even at that young age, had a lasting effect on the foundational building of my personal testimony.]]>
The issues come up over and over again, don’t they?
Though, having been an executive secretary to a stake president, I can note that sometimes there just isn’t anyone else for a position. It is interesting to see people struggle with trying to find someone to serve, and since then, I’ve seen it replay over and over again.]]>
Hehehe! Nice comment.]]>