Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boanerges

Qualification for bishop

Recommended Posts

Not sure if anyone here knows the answer. There are general qualifications for bishop like a temple recommend and being married we find in the handbooks. I'm all good with that. We're due for a new bishop and there's a sort of favored guy in the ward - he is well liked and a natural leader. he currently serves in ward leadership. Most people don't know this, but I do and I keep it to myself: when he was a young man he had a disciplinary council for a sexual sin, but was not excommunicated of disfellowshipped. I've been told that even though he's "repented" and it was long ago he won't be approved by the First Presidency because of that. Is any truth to that? 

Share this post


Link to post

Well I served with a Branch President who had been excommunicated previously.  I know you are asking about Bishops,  but this is all I am sure of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

With one current exception divorce is a disqualifier-you have to wait 20 years after your divorce to qualify and you can't ever serve as a YSA Bishop. I know a guy who had his name removed from the Church and he later served as a Bishop. 2/3 of our current Bishopric said if their wives didn't kick their oonka toonkas to Church they aren't sure they would go hahahahhahaha!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Not sure if anyone here knows the answer. There are general qualifications for bishop like a temple recommend and being married we find in the handbooks. I'm all good with that. We're due for a new bishop and there's a sort of favored guy in the ward - he is well liked and a natural leader. he currently serves in ward leadership. Most people don't know this, but I do and I keep it to myself: when he was a young man he had a disciplinary council for a sexual sin, but was not excommunicated of disfellowshipped. I've been told that even though he's "repented" and it was long ago he won't be approved by the First Presidency because of that. Is any truth to that? 

I've heard similar things.  We know the church keeps records on its members and their history.  Unfortunately, I think this may be true....   

While I very much support keeping records on abusers to protect the safety of the members, I don't think behavior between consenting parties should be treated the same as abuse and significant violations of the law as I believe these kinds of things should be treated differently.  

Share this post


Link to post

There are no hard and fast rules. There have been single bishops and even bishops with no recommend (though they were worthy of one if I remember right. It is just rare and requires special permission.

I know of a recent case where a Bishopric candidate was rejected by the First Presidency due to his job. Not in a bad way (he was not selling illegal drugs or working as a prostitute or anything) but because prominence in the ward might interfere with his ability to do his job.

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Seems to me that someone who has had the experience of going through the repentance process for such a sin, would be a good candidate for Bishop, since he will be able to empathize and better understand what other members are going through when they have to repent of such a sin. I think it would also depend on his history in the church since that event. 

According to Joseph Smith, Hyrum was never made an apostle because he was too righteous to help the Saints in that role.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I've heard similar things.  We know the church keeps records on its members and their history.  Unfortunately, I think this may be true....   

While I very much support keeping records on abusers to protect the safety of the members, I don't think behavior between consenting parties should be treated the same as abuse and significant violations of the law as I believe these kinds of things should be treated differently.  

The problem is that adultery is a matter of "consenting parties", and bishops are admired leaders who meet privately with people.

Things happen between people, and if you have a record of having given in to opportunities to fall in occasions like this, I doubt the First Presidency would approve it.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I also know of one bishop who, right after getting the extended call, was told by the Stake Priesident that this means the new bishop is really going to have to clean up his language.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I also know of one bishop who, right after getting the extended call, was told by the Stake Priesident that this means the new bishop is really going to have to clean up his language.

I always tell my wife that's why I'll never get called to any kind of leadership. My lips move faster then my thoughts and then I start talking like J Golden Kimball. Of course if I go over board I might go to the Lord to repent but a little coarse language never hurt no one. 

“I may not always walk the straight and narrow, but I sure in hell try to cross it as often as I can.”  -J. Golden

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Boanerges said:

Not sure if anyone here knows the answer. There are general qualifications for bishop like a temple recommend and being married we find in the handbooks. I'm all good with that. We're due for a new bishop and there's a sort of favored guy in the ward - he is well liked and a natural leader. he currently serves in ward leadership. Most people don't know this, but I do and I keep it to myself: when he was a young man he had a disciplinary council for a sexual sin, but was not excommunicated of disfellowshipped. I've been told that even though he's "repented" and it was long ago he won't be approved by the First Presidency because of that. Is any truth to that? 

As far as I know, a sexual sin long ago would not be a bar to becoming a bishop unless it was something that was egregious and public. Even though a person can be completely forgiven for such, the Church is sensitive to how something of the sort would play out publicly. A person that commits a sexual sin against a child will have his or her records annotated and would most probably never even be considered for such a calling.

Glenn

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem is that adultery is a matter of "consenting parties", and bishops are admired leaders who meet privately with people.

Things happen between people, and if you have a record of having given in to opportunities to fall in occasions like this, I doubt the First Presidency would approve it.

 

I personally don't think adultery should be an automatic disqualifier.  Individual circumstances should dictate and discretion should be given according to the situation.  I don't like the idea of automatic disqualifiers in general, with the exception of some of the things I mentioned earlier.  

Edited by hope_for_things
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  God was even willing to take Saul, one of his bitterest of enemies (St Paul).  On the other hand, being bishop is not a popularity contest.  God will select someone he wants in that position.

God may have been willing to take Saul, but there are certain things you can do and the LDS Church doesn't forgive you of it really since they will restrict you from certain things.  Generally someone that has been divorced and remarried is not likely to be called as a bishop. Exceptions can be made when there may not be a lot of good candidates in a ward for bishop other than someone who went through a divorce.  A man who has been divorced cannot be called to be a temple sealer. There are other oddities like this as well.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I personally don't think adultery should be an automatic disqualifier.  Individual circumstances should dictate and digression should be given according to the situation.  I don't like the idea of automatic disqualifiers in general, with the exception of some of the things I mentioned earlier.  

Of course I never said that it was "automatic" but there would need to be lotsa 'splainin' to do to get past it I think.

Paul says a bishop must have had "one wife" and that handles the divorce part- IF one was a member who was divorced while a member.

We all have our favorite sins, and my only one of course is ice cream. ;)

I try assiduously to avoid the "near occasions of sin", but on a hot day, hungry and driving by a Baskin Robbins, my steering wheel just seams to naturally veer over like a dowsing rod by a puddle.  As it says in Romans, 7:17, It isn't even ME doing it, 

Quote

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."

If I had to be a bishop and promise no more ice cream, I honestly don't know if I could do it.  ;)

AND (dare I say it) there ARE women who are drawn to authority figures, and men are drawn....  well you know about that.

But I have something else for you outside this thread, thought I would just post it here since we are chatting.

If you want to know where my philosophy comes from, I found this video that PERFECTLY explains it- I am pretty much 100% converted to Wittgenstein - but this series misses part of him and that is his mysticism.

For him that is "unspeakable" religious experience- and that is why he did not speak of it.

But this is around 20 minutes and is one of the best I have seen if you are interested in where I am coming from.  The difference is that I try to speak about spiritual experience- and he was too smart to do that.  I should probably just leave it alone too- just know that I know that I have conversed with God.

Not especially what is said about science and the correspondence theory- I think you have read enough now to get it.   If you want to, respond on the other thread I guess.   

https://youtu.be/2BA-A1lOG0E

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A man who has been divorced cannot be called to be a temple sealer.

Even if it was before he was a member?   Source?

Share this post


Link to post

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

However, evidently, His Church will:

  • Bishop, not likely
  • Temple Worker, nope
  • Faculty at a Church School, ug, not you
  • CES position, in your dreams
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

The church keeps a few things in mind when making leadership callings.  Help people come closer to Christ, give people a chance to serve, stuff like that.  Two of them are to protect the flock, and protect/preserve the good name of the church.

For example, consider a dude who left a trail of broken hearts, restraining orders, and victims in his wake back in his teens.  No matter how repentant or good or how long he's been on the right path, he might never be bishop.  If you were one of the people that had to get a restraining order against him, and you see he gets made bishop, is the church doing a good job of protecting you, and preserving the good name of the church?

Former sinner engaged in consensual sinning with someone else?  Far less of a big deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Even if it was before he was a member?   Source?

If it was before being a member I believe it is dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Anijen said:

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

However, evidently, His Church will:

  • Bishop, not likely
  • Temple Worker, nope
  • Faculty at a Church School, ug, not you
  • CES position, in your dreams

God remembers them no more but unfortunately people do remember them, which can make it hard to earn trust, especially for certain positions. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've heard similar things.  We know the church keeps records on its members and their history.  Unfortunately, I think this may be true....   

While I very much support keeping records on abusers to protect the safety of the members, I don't think behavior between consenting parties should be treated the same as abuse and significant violations of the law as I believe these kinds of things should be treated differently.  

While abusers (sexual and otherwise) are regularly kept, other sins are up to the bishop.  But they have to be pretty severe. 

While I had the understanding that abusers had the notation on their records permanently, other sins can be expunged.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

God may have been willing to take Saul, but there are certain things you can do and the LDS Church doesn't forgive you of it really since they will restrict you from certain things.  Generally someone that has been divorced and remarried is not likely to be called as a bishop. Exceptions can be made when there may not be a lot of good candidates in a ward for bishop other than someone who went through a divorce.  A man who has been divorced cannot be called to be a temple sealer. There are other oddities like this as well.

didn't they change that rule about divorced men called as sealers? or maybe i'm thinking of being called as Temple workers

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Even if it was before he was a member?   Source?

There is no real source. The rules are fluid and governed by the apostles who set apart sealers.

 

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

However, evidently, His Church will:

  • Bishop, not likely
  • Temple Worker, nope
  • Faculty at a Church School, ug, not you
  • CES position, in your dreams

People rail against this but if someone suggested the same mercy for someone who abuses children and that we let them teach Primary and remember their sins no more there would be a riot. It is my suspicion that the Lord takes divorce MUCH more seriously then his saints do.

48 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

While abusers (sexual and otherwise) are regularly kept, other sins are up to the bishop.  But they have to be pretty severe. 

While I had the understanding that abusers had the notation on their records permanently, other sins can be expunged.

Bishops are encouraged NOT to keep written records of transgressions. I have written up disciplinary council notes and the instruction is to transmit them to Salt Lake and delete them as soon as you get confirmation they have been received. The bishop can access those records for his ward members only.

The abuse notation can be removed but it can only be done by the First Presidency. I am not sure whether the current appeal software allows local leaders to initiate such an appeal or not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Duncan said:

didn't they change that rule about divorced men called as sealers? or maybe i'm thinking of being called as Temple workers

Divorced men used to not be allowed as temple workers. Single never married men over 30 were under the same restriction. I got booted when I turned 31. I believe both were removed. According to the handbook the only restrictions other then the basics are that any church disciplinary statues must have ended at least five years ago (also five years from Restoration of Blessings) and that they cannot have the above mentioned annotation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...