Divorce And Church Leadership

[Kenngo1969]

Hi Kenngo1969....

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

GG

Ahhh, Garden Girl! If only you were 30 years younger! (Got any nieces? ) The very young love me; the older folks love me; I'm simply ignored by women in my own age bracket!

[Stone holm]

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).

Althought I tend to think it is worse for men because of the patriarchal nature of Church hierarchy, I have heard similar sentiments expressed by single Sisters. One very talented single Sister, remarked to me recently that a prominent member of the Ward's first comment to her after she arrived in the Ward and he learned that she was single was "Well we'll have to fix that." The implication of course was that she was broken.

[Calm]

The implication of course was that she was broken.

"Fix" does not mean only repair. I think you are assuming a more extreme connotation than necessary. I would go so far as to agree there is an assumption that being married would be an improvement for her but I suspect that is because they are also assuming that is what she wants, but that she was in a broken state for not being married...don't buy it as a given.

fix....

1.

to repair; mend.

2.

to put in order or in good condition; adjust or arrrange: She fixed her hair in a bun.

3.

to make fast, firm, or stable.

4.

to place definitely and more or less permanently: to fix a circus poster to a wall.

5.

to settle definitely; determine: to fix a price.

dictionary.com

Edited June 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

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.

Possibly 95.

[Stone holm]

"Fix" does not mean only repair. I think you are assuming a more extreme connotation than necessary. I would go so far as to agree there is an assumption that being married would be an improvement for her, but that she was in a broken state for not being married...don't buy it as a given.

fix....

1.

to repair; mend.

2.

to put in order or in good condition; adjust or arrrange: She fixed her hair in a bun.

3.

to make fast, firm, or stable.

4.

to place definitely and more or less permanently: to fix a circus poster to a wall.

5.

to settle definitely; determine: to fix a price.

dictionary.com

I do not think that she needed to get fixed in any manner, but that is the way she reacted to the Brother's comment -- won't go into what she basically told the Brother to do....lol

[Calm]

So what does that say about people who never get called to anything?

That we are considered perfect just as we are.

[Stone holm]

That we are considered perfect just as we are.

That would be my conclusion! Can't understand why so many haven't already been translated yet though.

[Calm]

I make sure I complain about something once a day even though it's hard for me to do just to ensure that doesn't happen so that my family can have my practically perfect shining example of how to live before them. It is my gift to them though the sacrifice is great.

Edited June 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I make sure I complain about something once a day even though it's hard for me to do just to ensure that doesn't happen so that my family can have my practically perfect shining example of how to live before them. It is my gift to them though the sacrifice is great.

Lol....yeah I keep explaining this to my wife...but somehow she sees my perfection differently than I do.

[Stone holm]

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.

Yeah good luck with that in a small Ward if their are limitations placed on or loss of the Priesthood.

[Avatar4321]

Yeah good luck with that in a small Ward if their are limitations placed on or loss of the Priesthood.

Ive been in such wards. Again, unless you are involved in the disciplinary counsel, chances are you dont know if someone is involved in one.

And if it at all matters to someone, then they need to get their hearts right. Because the Lord wants us to love people and serve them. Not try to exclude them from participation but invite them in.

[Stone holm]

Ive been in such wards. Again, unless you are involved in the disciplinary counsel, chances are you dont know if someone is involved in one.

And if it at all matters to someone, then they need to get their hearts right. Because the Lord wants us to love people and serve them. Not try to exclude them from participation but invite them in.

Like I said good luck with that.

[Maestrophil]

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.

My step daughters would never have allowed us to call them by my family name. I would LOVE that. Glad yours did. :-)

Most of the church members are pretty cool and accepting, and I really don't let it ruffle my feathers too much... as you said, it is my internal struggle - heck, I probably used to subconsciously think the same thing about divorced members before and now my own judgement is coming back to get me! :-)

Thanks for your concern and kindness.

[Thinking]

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.

It's been longer than that since my last TR interview.

I was curious after one interview why I was asked if I had ever been divorced. I asked somebody who I thought would know, and he explained to me that if I answered yes, there would be a followup question about legal obligations such as alimony.

[Stone holm]

It's been longer than that since my last TR interview.

I was curious after one interview why I was asked if I had ever been divorced. I asked somebody who I thought would know, and he explained to me that if I answered yes, there would be a followup question about legal obligations such as alimony.

I don't think they are supposed to issue a TR if you are behind on support or alimony, but not sure how rigidly that is enforced.

[thesometimesaint]

ANY question not answered correctly can delay/deny a TR.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I wonder if the reason that some think that there are restrictions on divorced members is the TR question which asks if you are divorced. It is my understanding that the reason that question is asked is if the responder answers yes, a followup question about meeting financial obligations to the former spouse is asked.

Correct...

[Stone holm]

Correct...

Yes, and because there actually are restrictions on divorced members being called to certain positions or staying in certain positions.

[ERayR]

Yes, and because there actually are restrictions on divorced members being called to certain positions or staying in certain positions.

Hadn't heard or read that one could you please give me a reference to explore?

[Stone holm]

Hadn't heard or read that one could you please give me a reference to explore?

There is a rule that a divorced man cannot be called as a Bishop for a period of years after his divorce. It used to be 10 years, not sure what it is now. Not sure it is a published rule. It does not preclude him from being called as a counsellor in the Bishopric. I assume there is a similar rule for Stake Presidents, but I have never been involved with seeing a name rejected for a Stake President and its a different process in any event.

[Kenngo1969]

There is a rule that a divorced man cannot be called as a Bishop for a period of years after his divorce. It used to be 10 years, not sure what it is now. Not sure it is a published rule. It does not preclude him from being called as a counsellor in the Bishopric. I assume there is a similar rule for Stake Presidents, but I have never been involved with seeing a name rejected for a Stake President and its a different process in any event.

Well, if there's a rule ... even if it isn't written down ... if it simply came into being ex nihilo ... if it simply exists ... somewhere ... out there ... in the ether ... that's good enough for me! Anybody else have any questions? Edited June 10, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Maestrophil]

Stone Holm has at least shown that there is some kind of restriction even if vague and unspoken... I am indeed curious to see something official on the matter.

[Stone holm]

Stone Holm has at least shown that there is some kind of restriction even if vague and unspoken... I am indeed curious to see something official on the matter.

The basis for my understanding that the rule exists is that I assisted the Stake President in trying to come up with names for my replacement as Bishop. One of the names which the Stake President submitted bounced because of the rule which neither the Stake President or I had known about. Years later sitting in a HP Quorum meeting the Brother whose name had bounced made the comment that his name had bounced for being considered as Bishop because he had been divorced. That kind of shocked me, in that he knew that his name had been submitted -- but I guess he had figured it out because of the interviews which had taken place, and had button-holed the Stake President about what had gone wrong. So far as I know, the Church does not publish some of its bureaucratic rules of thumb. This can cause issues for inexperienced Stake Presidents when trying to deal with things like restoration of blessings which have arcane rules with different waiting times depending on certain facts involved. We tend to think of a member of the First Presidency praying over each of the submittals, from what I have seen that is only partially true -- what really happens is that the submittal must get past a bunch of bureaucratic rules which result in summary denials. If the request eventually gets past all of the bureaucratic rules, then I think the prayer bit comes into play -- but not necessarily before. I am not necessarily criticizing the existence of bureaucratic rules as these are sensitive matters and I am sure that the First Presidency is swamped with dealing with this stuff which is not really delegable, so they work out rules which allow for summary rejections and don't rely on staffers to be spiritually in tune. What does concern me is that the Stake Presidents often don't know what these rules are and they can inadvertently get members hopes up only to have them crushed by a one sentence denial letter which may leave the applicant embittered, confused, or with an unnecessarily compounded sense of guilt.

[ERayR]

There is a rule that a divorced man cannot be called as a Bishop for a period of years after his divorce. It used to be 10 years, not sure what it is now. Not sure it is a published rule. It does not preclude him from being called as a counsellor in the Bishopric. I assume there is a similar rule for Stake Presidents, but I have never been involved with seeing a name rejected for a Stake President and its a different process in any event.

I have a divorced friend who was called as bishop. I do not doubt that additional scrutiny is given a divorced person. Their conduct in regards to child support, etc would have a bearing on their calling but to deny them a calling just because of divorce - never heard of it.

[ERayR]

Well, if there's a rule ... even if it isn't written down ... if it simply came into being ex nihilo ... if it simply exists ... somewhere ... out there ... in the ether ... that's good enough for me! Anybody else have any questions?

How is one to know of all these unwritten rules?