Official Declaration 3

[Cobalt-70]

Does anyone know what the reasoning is behind not allowing single bishops? I've been assuming that it's because they don't want a bishop to be looking for a spouse while trying to serve as bishop, because that would result in an incredibly overworked bishop who is in an awkward position to date members of his own ward.

At the same time, being immune from being called as a bishop isn't the worst place to be. Just saying.

I wonder if it might partially be some misguided interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2. Which would be ironic, given that this verse was totally ignored during the Mormon polygamy era.

[swfarnsworth]

I wonder if it might partially be some misguided interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2. Which would be ironic, given that this verse was totally ignored during the Mormon polygamy era.

Does everything have to be misguided?

[Saints Alive]

I wonder if it might partially be some misguided interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2. Which would be ironic, given that this verse was totally ignored during the Mormon polygamy era.

I think that might have something to do with it.

[Saints Alive]

I heard about a single man with SSA being called as a bishop, I think during that NBC documentary from a few weeks ago, if that was the station it was on. The fact that he was intentionally and permanently single may have had something to do with that.

Afraid Im going to have to CFR you on that one. The only thing like that, that I have heard is a man being call as the executive secretary (not even a member of the bishopric, strictly speaking) with SSA.

[swfarnsworth]

Afraid Im going to have to CFR you on that one. The only thing like that, that I have heard is a man being call as the executive secretary (not even a member of the bishopric, strictly speaking) with SSA.

I just checked, and I can only find something about an executive secretary, so you're probably right.

I also found a blog allegedly written by a secretly-gay bishop with a wife and kids. His story gives me the impression that he had made his life harder than it needs to be and doesn't know how to undo it.

Edited October 4, 2012 by swfarnsworth

[Cobalt-70]

Does everything have to be misguided?

No, but I think that reliance on 1 Timothy 3:2 for the church's policy that bishops have to be married would be misguided. This verse was saying that bishops should not be polygamists, not that they had to be married.

[swfarnsworth]

No, but I think that reliance on 1 Timothy 3:2 for the church's policy that bishops have to be married would be misguided. This verse was saying that bishops should not be polygamists, not that they had to be married.

To be honest, I would be surprised if a very specific policy such as this one was derived from the NT. This kind of thing almost always comes from the Church Handbook and often from the D&C as well, but rarely ever elsewhere.

[Pahoran]

No, but I think that reliance on 1 Timothy 3:2 for the church's policy that bishops have to be married would be misguided. This verse was saying that bishops should not be polygamists, not that they had to be married.

You are, as usual, simply wrong. It was saying they should be married men. Polygamy was rare in the Roman world, although serial monogamy and adultery were common.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

Even projective closed minds are deserving of help, if not more deserving.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps you should adhere to your own advice. Take care, Wade.

[cdowis]

It's called the doctrine of "common consent." Why have such a doctrine if it doesn't really mean anything. Common consent exists because sometimes, the membership of the church as a whole can be inspired by the Holy Spirit in ways that would escape the church if it were run 100% according to the "benevolent leader" model.

As elsewhere, you do not understand the doctrines of the LDS church.

Common consent works this way == the LEADERS 0f the church propose doctrine, and the church MEMBERS vote on their acceptance. Again, you are in the wrong church.

The members proposing doctrine, and the leaders accepting them is not a concept in the LDS church. Again, may I suggest that you find a church that does that. You will be much happier in such a church. Trying to change doctrine in the LDS church through membership action committees, etc, will only lead you to unhappiness, frustration and finally apostacy. There are may churches who accept your ideas and you would be very welcome there.

I think there are some that would even accept your view of the BOM, as long as you continue to proclaim that it is fictional, inspirational literature, and not real history. Such a position disclaims any prophetic claim by JS and his followers. They would welcome you with joy and happiness, and proclaim your genius and insight.

Edited October 13, 2012 by cdowis

[slamarwi]

Many men would feel relieved, and like most things they would likely defer their responsibilities to the women. It would certainly change the dynamics and demographics of the church.

[Cobalt-70]

As elsewhere, you do not understand the doctrines of the LDS church.

Common consent works this way == the LEADERS 0f the church propose doctrine, and the church MEMBERS vote on their acceptance. Again, you are in the wrong church.

That's the top-down way it works now, but that has not always been the way it has worked in Mormon history. For example, in 1844, two options were presented to the church body (guardianship of the church by either the Twelve or the First Presidency), and the vote was left to them. Moreover, even under the pure "sustaining" model, there once was a time when such voting was actually a vote, rather than just a demonstration of institutional loyalty.

The exact mechanism for common consent is not really important. What is important is that the doctrine makes absolutely no sense unless God knows that sometimes the church body can be more inspired than the church hierarchy. If it is never possible, even in theory, that the church body can be more inspired than the church leadership, then God is just humoring us by letting us vote.