Divorce And Church Leadership

[Robert F. Smith]

Some years ago, maybe even 30 years ago, Carol Lynn Pearson wrote a very sensitive article for the Ensign or Liahona, in which she pointed out that two good, worthy members of the Church might very well date and then part. The reason: Incompatibility. She argued that one should not feel guilty in finding another worthy member of the Church just not quite right for you, and I suppose that this applies as well to marriages in which one or both spouses decide that a mistake had been made. Not to say that marriage is all sweetness and light, that there are no rocks and shoals to be worked through in a good marriage, but the blame game is probably inappropriate when it comes to divorce. Let a third party make that judgment.

[Stone holm]

if the Church is looking for perfect brethren then they'll be looking forever. I see Bishops as nothing more then a management role. I would NEVER go to any of them for any kind of counsel or advice. I only go to them for a recommend or to confess anything that effects my standing in the Church, otherwise it's nunyabizness!

Although it sometimes gets forgotten, the Bishop's primary calling is to the youth, not the adults. Unfortunately many let themselves get completely tied up with adult issues. I worked my Relief Society President and Elders President really hard any thing that could get delegated did get delegated. But the training, unless it has improved, in handling adult issues especially limitations on callings and disciplinary issues is lousy at both the Bishop and Stake President level. I often felt sorry for Stake Presidents who were never told the bureaucratic rules , because you know the Church isn't a bureaucracy it runs strictly on inspiration. So they would waste time submitting names and finding out the rule when the name would get rejected, or trying to get people cleared for rebaptism or restoration of blessings and getting summary rejections because of waiting periods they weren't told of, and not knowing which forms to fill out or missing a redundant interview, etc. I mean its sad for them and sad for the people experiencing it.

[Duncan]

Although it sometimes gets forgotten, the Bishop's primary calling is to the youth, not the adults. Unfortunately many let themselves get completely tied up with adult issues. I worked my Relief Society President and Elders President really hard any thing that could get delegated did get delegated. But the training, unless it has improved, in handling adult issues especially limitations on callings and disciplinary issues is lousy at both the Bishop and Stake President level. I often felt sorry for Stake Presidents who were never told the bureaucratic rules , because you know the Church isn't a bureaucracy it runs strictly on inspiration. So they would waste time submitting names and finding out the rule when the name would get rejected, or trying to get people cleared for rebaptism or restoration of blessings and getting summary rejections because of waiting periods they weren't told of, and not knowing which forms to fill out or missing a redundant interview, etc. I mean its sad for them and sad for the people experiencing it.

sad but all very true

[Calm]

I think there may be a misconception associated with divorced men and more authoritative callings due to---if my understanding is correct---the fact that a bishop (and I assume anyone else up the chain of authority) who is divorced during his time will be released...but that may have nothing to do with the divorce as it happens to bishops who wives die as well. Bishops are not be be single.

[Kenngo1969]

I think for some people especially those who have been caught up in a disciplinary proceeding, it might be more humane to just tell them hey, stay active in the Church but as far as callings are concerned, especially if you are male you are going to be treated as a second class member so if you really feel the desire to develop your leadership abilities find something to do out in the community and go to work there.

With due respect, considering that there are some callings for which one need not even be a member, let alone never having gotten a divorce, I dispute your "second class" characterization. See I Corinthians 12.

[Kenngo1969]

Some years ago, maybe even 30 years ago, Carol Lynn Pearson wrote a very sensitive article for the Ensign or Liahona, in which she pointed out that two good, worthy members of the Church might very well date and then part. The reason: Incompatibility. She argued that one should not feel guilty in finding another worthy member of the Church just not quite right for you ...

Why, thank you! Now I don't feel so bad about my incompatibility with the entirety of the female of the species! (Sorry; couldn't resist! )

Edited June 7, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

With due respect, considering that there are some callings for which one need not even be a member, let alone never having gotten a divorce, I dispute your "second class" characterization. See I Corinthians 12.

And if the qualification for being a first class member is to be called to a leadership position, well, I guess I've been considered a second class member all of my life because I've never held one position of leadership in any organization in the Church for my 50+ years, not even when I was a Beehive, etc.

[Calm]

I often felt sorry for Stake Presidents who were never told the bureaucratic rules , because you know the Church isn't a bureaucracy it runs strictly on inspiration. So they would waste time submitting names and finding out the rule when the name would get rejected, or trying to get people cleared for rebaptism or restoration of blessings and getting summary rejections because of waiting periods they weren't told of, and not knowing which forms to fill out or missing a redundant interview, etc.

Are you saying such info is not in the Church Handbook of Instructions, Volume 1. I have read it in the past and could swear that much of that type of info is in there, but it's been a few years so perhaps I am generalizing more than I should. However, it is my experience that the majority of people don't read all of the information that is available for their calling. I got very familiar with this experience when I was Akela and not knowing anything about Scouts read everything I could get my hands on and found out how many things were done wrong (and when the rules were pointed out the response was 'so what, we will just keep doing things this way' and it was often the bishop refusing to do anything about it including very important safety rules like having two adults with for more than 5 or 6 scouts) as well as being one of the librarians where none of the clerks or leaders ever consulted us about what materials we had in the library before making yearly orders as they were supposed to do or using us for various others stuff. Plus I spent many spare hours in the library reading Volume 2 of the Handbook about all sorts of callings and it was obvious the information in the manual was not being used by many in their callings....and this was all when the applicable section was supposed to be given to for every calling for the individual to study and reference.

The Church spent a ton of money on manuals that hardly anyone read in my experience (at least in the US and Canada, perhaps in places where those weren't so certain they already knew how things were supposed to be done, they read the material). I believe they have all been put online now, I wonder how many actually read them there.

And training meetings in my experience were very poorly attended. Maybe it is different for the callings of SP and bishop.

Edited June 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Garden Girl]

Why, thank you! Now I don't feel so bad about my incompatibility with the entirety of the female of the species! (Sorry; couldn't resist! )

Hi Kenngo1969....

Hmmmm.... I wish some really wonderful LDS woman would come along and just knock your socks off!!

GG

[Stone holm]

Why, thank you! Now I don't feel so bad about my incompatibility with the entirety of the female of the species! (Sorry; couldn't resist! )

Ah yes, and let's see what is it that Carol Lynn Pearson is doing these days for the Church?

[Stone holm]

Are you saying such info is not in the Church Handbook of Instructions, Volume 1. I have read it in the past and could swear that much of that type of info is in there, but it's been a few years so perhaps I am generalizing more than I should. However, it is my experience that the majority of people don't read all of the information that is available for their calling. I got very familiar with this experience when I was Akela and not knowing anything about Scouts read everything I could get my hands on and found out how many things were done wrong (and when the rules were pointed out the response was 'so what, we will just keep doing things this way') as well as being one of the librarians where none of the clerks or leaders ever consulted us about what materials we had in the library before making yearly orders as they were supposed to do or using us for various others stuff. Plus I spent many spare hours in the library reading Volume 2 of the Handbook about all sorts of callings and it was obvious the information in the manual was not being used by many in their callings....and this was all when the applicable section was supposed to be given to for every calling for the individual to study and reference.

The Church spent a ton of money on manuals that hardly anyone read in my experience (at least in the US and Canada, perhaps in places where those weren't so certain they already knew how things were supposed to be done, they read the material). I believe they have all been put online now, I wonder how many actually read them there.

And training meetings in my experience were very poorly attended.

No. True about the unread manuals and poorly attended meetings. But no about the rules .

[Calm]

How long ago were you bishop out of curiosity?

As to the rules, guess I will have to ask for another one to read so I can figure out why I am so certain that such limitation rules are in there.

Edited June 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

How long ago were you bishop out of curiosity?

As to the rules, guess I will have to ask for another one to read so I can figure out why I am so certain that such limitation rules are in there.

Been about fifteen years I guess.

[Stone holm]

With due respect, considering that there are some callings for which one need not even be a member, let alone never having gotten a divorce, I dispute your "second class" characterization. See I Corinthians 12.

Yeah dispute it if you wish, I am trying to locate the talk by Jeffrey Holland I believe, that talks about the fate of some who do dastardly things like engage in Civil Disobedience.

[Calm]

Been about fifteen years I guess.

Have you read Volume 1 recently, it was about two years ago that I did. Perhaps they got more specific because of past issues. Edited June 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Freedom]

I think for some people especially those who have been caught up in a disciplinary proceeding, it might be more humane to just tell them hey, stay active in the Church but as far as callings are concerned, especially if you are male you are going to be treated as a second class member so if you really feel the desire to develop your leadership abilities find something to do out in the community and go to work there.

so according to you, we have callings to gain leadership abilities and those who do not have leadership positions are second hand citizens. Nice. In any any given persons lifetime, assuming they live 80 years, they will have 16 bishops and 8 stake presidents. Precious few men in the church will be a bishop and far fewer of them will be a stake president. If we base our value on the visibility of our callings we need to reconsider our religion.

[Stargazer]

Freedom, I think your quote here illustrates what I mean about our (my) perceptions regarding divorce. You called it a "blemish". Is someone who is raped blemished? How about someone who was abused? I think no... so why do we think of people who are divorced that way? Is it because so many divorces may be frivolous or more two sided? In my case, I can truly say I was blindsided by an spouse who announced infidelities and intention to no longer keep covenants or stay in our marriage.

As far as people knowing... when you have 6 kids and 3 have different names, there is not much hiding it.

We moved into our current ward nearly 30 years ago. We had 8 children with us, and some had my last name (say "Jones") and some had my wife's previous husband's name (Smith). We asked the ward clerk to use my Jones for my stepkids (i.e. "preferred name"), and they were all known by my name, even though three were legally Smith, nobody in the ward knew (or if any did know did not make anything of it). When it came time for baptism and priesthood ordinations, they all were baptized and ordained Jones. When the 3 Smith kids got old enough to take charge of their own lives, they each chose to switch to Smith, but to this day the ward members who remember them remember them as Jones.

Church policy is that if there is a family name difference it is perfectly OK to do it the way we did. When I baptized my stepdaughter, I called her Jones in the font, and this did not change the fact that she was a Smith, nor did it invalidate the baptism. In Church records she was still Smith, and her baptism date was duly recorded.

And, interestingly enough, we asked the public school to use Jones for my stepchildren, even though they were Smiths, and they were perfectly fine with it, too. My Smith stepchildren's report cards all said Jones. Although their graduation certs said Smith, at the end.

FINALLY, I don't know where you get the idea that you are some kind of second-class citizen. You are NOT. STOP FEELING LIKE THAT. JUST. STOP. IT.

If anyone in your circles (church or otherwise) are treating you that way, they need to be ignored like the jerks they are, and if they want to talk smack about it, they need to be jerked sharply back by the reins and firmly told to STHU. Or if they are just non-malevolent thoughtless people, they need to be gently reminded of what it means to be polite.

[Sleeper Cell]

And if the qualification for being a first class member is to be called to a leadership position, well, I guess I've been considered a second class member all of my life because I've never held one position of leadership in any organization in the Church for my 50+ years, not even when I was a Beehive, etc.

Unless I am mistaken, Hugh Nibley never held a church “leadership position” either. Having once served as a counselor in a Sunday School presidency (for about 5 months), I look down on both of you.

[Freedom]

Callings are fleeting and provide no glory. If you take 10 High Priests and visit with them for an hour, I suspect you will not be able to well which ones served as bishops and which ones never held a presiding office requiring priesthood keys. I would personalty be relieved if I were told I could never be a bishop, a High Priest leader or some other position requiring stewardship. It is a lot of word for no pay. I take them when I am given them, but I work long hours and do not see my children enough as it is.

[Avatar4321]

I think for some people especially those who have been caught up in a disciplinary proceeding, it might be more humane to just tell them hey, stay active in the Church but as far as callings are concerned, especially if you are male you are going to be treated as a second class member so if you really feel the desire to develop your leadership abilities find something to do out in the community and go to work there.

But there is nothing second class about them. Nor will anyone treat them as such.

In fact, most people wont even know there has been a disciplinary proceeding against them.

[Thinking]

The TR questions do not ask if you are divorced. The question you are thinking of simply asks "do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children?" If the answer is "yes," then a follow-up question asks if you are current in those obligations. The purpose of the question is to ensure you are honest in your family obligations, not to see if you have been divorced.

Apparently the divorce question has been modified.

[blackstrap]

. It is a lot of word for no pay.

I know that was a typo , but it is still true.

[Buckeye]

Apparently the divorce question has been modified.

If so, it was a while ago. My bishopric's TR book has used the phrase I quoted for at least the past 6-7 years.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Buckeye

[Calm]

Having once served as a counselor in a Sunday School presidency (for about 5 months), I look down on both of you.

And I am feeling totally crushed by it.

add-on: just because I am joking about my own status, does not mean I dismiss such feelings felt by others, I know it can be very difficult for those that aren't the ideal family in the Church. While I never felt that pressure at church, I did feel very awkward about having only one child when talking to my inlaws who had 8 themselves and whose children tended to have much larger families as well and the only one that didn't was trying to move heaven and earth to become pregnant because it was a choice not to get pregnant again due to a very difficult 3 years after my first where we thought it was some version of post partum depression, in reality it was the first severe signs of my sleep disorder kicking in due to the pregnancy first which tends to aggravate the disorder for women and lower quality sleep that every parent of young children tend to go through. There were also long years where I was having to say "no" to callings and things like compassionate service because of health when I looked and acted completely normal at church so many didn't understand the significance of what was going on for me...though only one person---the one person I thought wouldn't have criticized me due to her having the greatest awareness of my difficulties plus being in the medical profession---ever criticized me and it was very, very painful because she phrased it as I was failing my daughter...still brings on the tears when I think about it but I know she was doing it because she cared even if she was clueless about what I was going through and the anxiety my daughter was beginning to experience at that time (she is very outgoing with those she is familiar with as she was this family).

[Stone holm]

Unless I am mistaken, Hugh Nibley never held a church “leadership position” either. Having once served as a counselor in a Sunday School presidency (for about 5 months), I look down on both of you.

Lol....I sometimes wonder whether Hugh B. Nibley would have been left to make some of the sometimes sharp criticisms he made if he had not been the Church's premier and possibly most effective apologist for decades. The lack of a Church calling for him was probably an asset to his credibility. I think some of my comments may have been taken to be a bit more harsh than I intended. I don't believe that the status of being divorced is that much of an obstacle for a man to be a full participant in Church, although the waiting periods may knock him out of consideration to be a Bishop for a time period -- he can serve as a counselor in a Bishopric during that period though. What can cause lasting damage to a man's full participation is getting caught up in a disciplinary proceeding which is off topic, but unfortunately very likely in a divorce situation. In that case, for a man it is very difficult to keep it secret because there are so many things that he could be disqualified from for a period (sometimes an extensive period) like blessing, baptizing, and ordaining his children, saying prayers, etc. etc. That is true even after rebaptism because there is often an extensive delay before a restoration of blessings occurs. During that delay period the man frequently just falls off the radar screen. So to me, if the man is a talented leader -- the humane thing would be to tell them look, you are not going to do a lot of things that others are doing so -- stay active in Church but go do things out in the Community as you are going to have some free time that others in the Church won't have. Certainly that advice shouldn't be given out indiscriminately, but for some it makes sense. No Church callings are not about glory, but they are about eternal progression -- have you not heard over and over again that members are called to callings so they can grow and progress? So what does that say about people who never get called to anything? I remember as Bishop calling people to positions and the people in the Ward cringing at the call because those people had never been called to any major calling before...and you know what after they got over their initial terror at actually having been called to a substantial calling they blossomed and became great leaders in the Ward. Soooo.....