Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Boanerges

Qualification for bishop

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

For the right Bishop you look for the most spiritual, most well loved, most caring, and most dedicated member of the ward and then you call her husband to be Bishop. 😉

While bishops' wives are often some of the more hardworking and caring women in the ward, this is not always true.  I was in one ward where his wife was arrogant, cliquish, vindictive, and a few other adjectives I wouldn't want to be known as myself.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your responses. Expanding on the story just a bit, this individual would be a great bishop, he has been an exemplary member for the over 20 years I have known him. I did not mean to intimate that because he's well liked he should be called, I was just saying he is well liked. He's a spiritual giant, and usually gets half the room in tears with his testimony, particularly of the atonement of Jesus Christ and/or the sacrament.  He has in fact been a temple worker, but that does not require First Presidency approval or vetting. His sin was longer ago than when I met him and in another place. I only know about it because we're very close and he shared it with me several years ago. I think other than me only his wife knows here. He is himself under the belief that he will not be called as bishop because he believes that while the Lord does forgive and remember no more, the church does not. 

I currently serve on the high council. Our stake president has told us a couple times that when they submit a name for bishop they get one of two letters. The most common one is of course approval and direction to extend the call with some specific instructions. The other one, according to the president, simply says the individual is not approved with no further explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Duncan said:

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!

That is hog wash.

I know bishops that have been divorced.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours 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

Simply not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doctrine 612 said:

That is hog wash.

I know bishops that have been divorced.

 

it is around here, save for one person but apparently he got divorced prior to him joining the Church. Our former SP is divorced

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

...................................................... 

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

A summation by an Anglican Priest no less, who considers liturgy merely a practical path to take.  How very Buddhist.

And he sums up Wittgenstein by suggesting the need for the withering away from religion of the metaphysical.  Leading to my question, Is LDS faith an instance of a religion without metaphysics?  If so, are too many Latter-day Saints enamored of canon law?  Their de facto version of it, of course, since they don't know what that phrase means.  Should we all, as Sir Paul McCartney advises us, just "Let it be,"

Hey, Mark, that's what I'm talkin about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Duncan said:

... 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!

One of the reasons why I like coming here is that I can broaden my cultural horizons and learn how to speak Canadian. :D:rofl:  :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Duncan said:

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!

One of my best Bishops was a divorced man. He had to get special approval from the First Presidency before he was called. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

That is hog wash.

I know bishops that have been divorced.

 

Our last bishop was divorced and remarried. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Duncan said:

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!

Sometimes I wonder how God will be able to find a wife for me in the eternities, and then I read statements like this ...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sometimes I wonder how God will be able to find a wife for me in the eternities, and then I read statements like this ...

funnily enough our Stake RS Pres. is single and to put it midly, CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, anyways, we had a visiting General Authority last weekend and after she spoke he spoke and said in essence, "I don't know if you'll get married in this life but ah hopefully in the next" like it wasn't a guaranteed thing😐

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

funnily enough our Stake RS Pres. is single and to put it midly, CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, anyways, we had a visiting General Authority last weekend and after she spoke he spoke and said in essence, "I don't know if you'll get married in this life but ah hopefully in the next" like it wasn't a guaranteed thing😐

Maybe the crazy women and the lazy men will be good matches? Or maybe that's why God has mansions for single people too? :unknw:

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours 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.......

He is himself under the belief that he will not be called as bishop because he believethat while the Lord does forgive and remember no more, the church does not. 

There are many other positions of service available. Being the best ministering brother or sister could be more meaningful than teaching seminary full time.

The Lord forgets our sins, but we struggling mortals may not. There are some serious things we might do that would require deep and sincere repentance, but even with that we may have to forego certain things here on the imperfect earth; however, in the Spirit world where we will see things clearly and not through a dark glass, perhaps we will truly understand and accept the mercy of God and receive all the promised blessings. We need look no further than the mess Brother Bishop is in.  

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, bsjkki said:

One of my best Bishops was a divorced man. He had to get special approval from the First Presidency before he was called. 

All bishops have to be approved by the First Presidency.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

All bishops have to be approved by the First Presidency.

I do know that but there was “extra” for his process before he was approved. I’m trying to remember what that was. He may have had to write a letter about the divorce and/or fly and meet personally. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Also 1 Timothy 3

1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Vs 2. One wife - must be married and loyal to her. I.e one wife at a time.

vs 4. Children - meaning two or more.😉

vs 7. Are without- must be a respected in the community.

These are just some of the ways I have heard my IBC buddy interpret these verses.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Boanerges said:

Thanks for your responses. Expanding on the story just a bit, this individual would be a great bishop, he has been an exemplary member for the over 20 years I have known him. I did not mean to intimate that because he's well liked he should be called, I was just saying he is well liked. He's a spiritual giant, and usually gets half the room in tears with his testimony, particularly of the atonement of Jesus Christ and/or the sacrament.  He has in fact been a temple worker, but that does not require First Presidency approval or vetting. His sin was longer ago than when I met him and in another place. I only know about it because we're very close and he shared it with me several years ago. I think other than me only his wife knows here. He is himself under the belief that he will not be called as bishop because he believes that while the Lord does forgive and remember no more, the church does not. 

Hopefully he is absolutely thrilled at the idea that he may be disqualified from being a bishop.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I don't know the reasons for all of the restrictions that, currently, are in place (these and numerous others), or why, apparently, exceptions are granted in some cases and not others.  I might think I wouldn't make a bad bishop or a bad stake president, and perhaps I wouldn't, but there is that whole husband-of-one-wife thingy getting in the way. ;) However, as MFBukowski has pointed out, it does make sense, in a world in which (unfortunately) appearances do matter, that people not be put in an "and-when-they-saw-your[-or-my]-conduct-they-would-not-believe-my-words" position (see Alma 39). 

My brother asked to be released as a stake president when it became clear that his son and my nephew was not going to serve a mission.  No, I don't believe that anyone should hold someone else's choices against a particular person, but, sometimes, that's not the world we live in.   I don't know the whole back story, but I believe my brother's reasoning was, "I can't very well ask all of the young men in the stake to do something my own son won't do," which makes sense.  (I don't think my nephew had done anything disqualifying up to that point.  It's simply that he's stubborn, like his dad, and he's not going to do something simply because everyone else in his world thinks it's a good idea. :D)  So ... my brother was granted an honorable release.

I don't think God loves me any less just because I'll never be a bishop or a stake president or [apparently, in this life] a husband or a father.  I don't think he loved my brother any less after he was released as a stake president than he did before he was called, or that he loves my nephew any less simply because he didn't serve a mission.  That's one of the very few answers I have: "Ken, don't worry about it.  I love you."  Lots of questions and comparatively few answers, except that one: "Ken, don't worry about it.  I love you."

That's life.

 

Your brother - That’s... so sad.  To feel less than because of the choices of another.  To believe one must be perfect to serve.   Where would he qualify to hold a calling....if all callings are indeed of equal importance, as we are taught? I hope your brother finds peace in his life.  Our SP has inactive children and he is a fabulous leader.  God didn’t step down when satan waged war. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Traela said:

Hopefully he is absolutely thrilled at the idea that he may be disqualified from being a bishop.

 

Big fat amen. 

Aspirationers befuddle me. 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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, 

I think there is an unhealthy emphasis on sexuality in our church culture today, and too much of an orientation towards purity as it relates to sexual behavior.  I don't see the bible as an instruction manual, there are plenty of things Paul or others said that we don't follow strictly in the church, nor should we.  

I like a recent analogy I heard that Richard Rohr uses for religion.  He compared religion to a tricycle with the front wheel being our experience, and the back two wheels being scriptures and tradition.  The front wheel (experience) steers our decision making and is informed by the back two wheels of tradition (in Mormonism this would include the church leaders) and scripture (which obviously would vary by interpretation).  I like the idea of all three components informing our religious journey.  As your analogy of the steering wheel suggests, it is ultimately your experience that guides you too a destination, often without any conscious effort on your part.  

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Thanks for the video about Wittgenstein, very interesting and as before with the video on Kuhn, it was definitely easier for me to understand because of its simplified distillation.  

It sounded to me like he was saying that the reason religious experiences are unspeakable is because they essentially can't be clearly described using words, so we shouldn't even attempt to speak them into existence.  Is that your understanding about his perspective as well? 

I did find another point in the video interesting, the type of pragmatic approach to employing religious ideas that "work" for you.  I think this is sound advice and fits well with Alma 32 as we've discussed before.  Connecting this back to our other conversation on Kuhn's paradigms, I think the one question that arises is how can any person judge which religious paradigms are better than others?  What is the measuring stick for judgement?  Should it be a democratic process, where a majority wins?  If that were the case, we might still have slavery or other forms of oppression and prejudice still alive today. 

Perhaps this wrestle to discern what paradigms work best is part of the meaning of life?  Or perhaps its just how we've evolved to interact.  Is it random, or is there some pattern in the noise?  Or could it be both?  Interesting to think about.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours 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.

I'm not privy to any information about what the practices are for what kinds of information are permanently showing on membership records.  I've often wondered what my record shows, and whether or not any of my message board activity has been recorded in my file.  

Personally I have a hard time thinking that any "sins" confessed to a bishop should be held as permanent records by the church.   (with the exception of abuse and violations of the law of the land).  That all seems a little too creepy to me, as does the idea of the strengthening the members committee.  Sounds too much like the Scientologists or Big Brother.  I definitely don't like it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, MustardSeed said:

Your brother - That’s... so sad.  To feel less than because of the choices of another.  To believe one must be perfect to serve.   Where would he qualify to hold a calling....if all callings are indeed of equal importance, as we are taught? I hope your brother finds peace in his life.  Our SP has inactive children and he is a fabulous leader.  God didn’t step down when satan waged war. 

 

I admire your capacity for empathy, but you completely missed the point of my post if that's what you got out of it.  If anybody knows he's not perfect, it's me: Our relationship wasn't "Kevin-and-Wayne" a la "The Wonder Years," but we are talking about the guy who used to sit on me.  :rolleyes: (And, to be honest, his release isn't something I've thought appropriate to bring up in casual conversation: "So, hey, Bro, I never got the whole back story.  Mind filling me in?")  I could spend a few hours talking about his imperfections, if I were so inclined.  

Other than an oblique reference to it by my father in a conversation I had with him, all he told me was that my brother went to, someone, probably in the Area Presidency, explained the situation, and, apparently, asked to be released as a result) and left it to my brother, if he was so inclined (but he hasn't been, and I've never asked) to fill in any details.  My brother was told, "And this is an honorable release." He's served faithfully in other callings since.  Someone once recognized our surname and asked, "What other callings have you had in the Church?"  "Well," my brother said, "I was president of the priests quorum for a while, then I was president of the high priests quorum for awhile ..." ;) If my brother were looking for a reason to believe God hates him, his release as a stake president wouldn't even make the list.  Trust me.  

Share this post


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

A summation by an Anglican Priest no less, who considers liturgy merely a practical path to take.  How very Buddhist.

It is! I see liturgy often as a description of a path we all take portrayed symbolically - which portrays hopefully an ideal life.

If you think of the presentation of the Endowment, starting in the garden and portraying the Covenant path- I think that fits VERY well with this view of liturgy.  We trace the path of "Everyman" named Adam through his fall from innocence as he takes on "Christ Consciousness" through obedience and learning,  and on to the path of redemption and ultimate theosis.  Even the Sacrament itself is a remembrance and re-dedication to what?  A lifestyle where one tries to get better and better.  It is clearly orthopraxis we are talking about here.   The church is a lifestyle in a way that other churches are not.  And yes we learn through obedience which is also rather Buddhist- "Sit here, take this position, think this way.  TRY IT".  If you obey the Sensei you will be rewarded by learning something new about life and the cosmos.  That is the function of obedience in our church- to teach a new way of life.  One cannot possibly "gain a testimony of tithing" - which I have- without obedience first to the law and then seeing the results.  Just taking on that covenant was so daunting for me as an adult convert that it seemed insurmountable.  Yet I tried it, and learned its fruits and have a testimony of it as a life principle

This is not mystic adoration for its own sake, this is a path to make LIFE BETTER and the "plan of happiness".  I think Buddhism could also be described as the "path to happiness", and is.  Westerners like "plans" better than "paths" though.  ;)  Sounds more industrial!

Quote

And he sums up Wittgenstein by suggesting the need for the withering away from religion of the metaphysical.  Leading to my question, Is LDS faith an instance of a religion without metaphysics? 

 

Pretty nearly!  We have that little bit about "refined matter" which I think though is in principle a scientific statement about a yet undiscovered physics.  We have an immanent God who is a glorified human- I suppose the idea that such a body as his could exist is "metaphysics" in a sense but in another sense it is not-  I see the humanity of God as a paradigm that makes my life better- a story, a way of speaking about what Wittgenstein would see as "unspeakable".  I think many religions see God as the Father of humanity yet modern religions do not take it as literally as we do.  BUT that can also be seen as a parable that makes all humanity truly brethren and makes Christ a kind of (pardon the irony) the Ubermensch who overcame it all.  Or in Rorty, we can easily twist it to see Christ as the ultimate Ironist!  (I see Rorty and Nietzsche doing a spin or two in their graves.... ;) )

But the other dimension to this is that both I think WOULD see the historical Jesus that way within their theories, so I am not too far off.  He changed the world through a new way  of seeing- I think no one would even dispute that.  He was a paradigm shatterer on one view, and on the other was simply adjusting Old Judaism- but you are the expert on that!!

But for my more conservative friends what I love about the gospel is that we can see this all two ways- both as a huge parable AND as a literal occurrence - since "what really happened" is lost in the stories of our cultural history.  Even Bertrand Russell famously maintained that it could not be proven that we did not blink into existence 5 minutes ago with all memories and culture as some sort of "implants" and we are all just essentially dreaming it.  (Yes I have taken liberties with Russell )  So if he was right, who knows- a 6 day creation is PLENTY more time than 5 minutes and therefore becomes far more "reasonable" ;)

Which brings us back to Wittgenstein- regarding that about which we cannot speak clearly we should remain silent .

But another way I see W. as compatible with the LDS gospel is that we do NOT have a "theology"- by design!  We have scriptural hermeneutics instead of theology.  W. of course is all about linguistic analysis over metaphysics and guess what!!  That is what the church is talking about when it eschews mingling "the philosophies of men" with "scripture"! 

No "facts", only interpretations!! 

 And what really betrays the intent of our anti-metaphysics occurs in the phrase "insofar as it is translated correctly"- which implies hermeneutics "all the way down"!  What does that mean "translated correctly"?  Does it include "transmitted correctly"?  What about the author's intent?

What about Moroni 10 and James 1?  Should we "ask God" to reproduce that very revelation made to prophets in our OWN hearts?  "Gain our own testimonies"?  

What does D&C 93 mean when it speaks of "spheres" of truth?  Are those "paradigms" within contexts?

Quote

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Is all we can know as humans cultural constructs within spheres of human intelligence- otherwise there is no "existence" about which we can speak?  THAT is totally Wittgenstein!  

 Or should we per Alma 32 give it our own understanding?   What defines "correctly translated"??  Where does the hermeneutics end with that kind of phraseology?  It does not!  This attitude is Wittgensteinian to the bone!

Quote

If so, are too many Latter-day Saints enamored of canon law?  Their de facto version of it, of course, since they don't know what that phrase means. 

Well I think the 1950's were not good for the church within the Zeitgeist that led to "Mormon Doctrine".  Brother McConkie was a great man and greatly spiritual and I honor him yet I think he was a product of much that went before that took the "canon law" approach too far.  Many LDS would look at the parable of the elephants and blind men and want to know what kind of flesh the elephant had, if it was solid, and whether or not it was real or an illusion, a hallucination, dream or vision and how to separate the three as reality or not, and whether or not it could be historically proven to have happened because they did not have elephants in the country originating the parable.  And then we would have all the critics jumping on the anachronisms proving the story could not possibly be true.....

All of them missing the point entirely!

Quote

Should we all, as Sir Paul McCartney advises us, just "Let it be,"

Interesting in that Paul speaks almost spiritually of the "hour of darkness when Mother Mary comes to me" and the ambiguity there-  which is of course clarified in that literally his mother was named Mary, but we are at bottom talking, I think, about spiritual matters!

Should we "let it be"?

Well that is a tough one isn't it?  I suppose considering the Perry Scheme as Kevin does, might be the answer.  Let it be and wait.  While the church dwindles and is ridiculed to death?  Tough call.

I am not sure how one can speed that process up through 15 million people, and on the other hand I suppose even my attitude toward the Scheme (an interesting word choice in itself ;) ) betrays a pride that is not justifiable.  Tough call.

Quote

Hey, Mark, that's what I'm talkin about.

Absolutely fabulous and thanks!

It's funny- these cultural constructs- nowadays whenever I hear that song I think back to my kids (now all in their 30's) watching Sesame Street and the song about the "Letter B".  ;)

As I said in another thread, what a long strange trip it's been.  ;)

Thanks for the opportunity to get some of this on paper.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...