Divorce And Church Leadership

[ERayR]

Stone Holm has at least shown that there is some kind of restriction even if vague and unspoken...

Not.

Edited June 10, 2013 by ERayR

[Kenngo1969]

How is one to know of all these unwritten rules?

Stone Holm maintains that, in fact, many Bishops and Stake Presidents don't know the rules, at least, not before the fact.

P.S.: It is true that the potential existence of a "rule" would have to occur to someone for him to inquire about the suitability of any candidate for a potential calling, but, positing (for the sake of discussion) the existence of such "rules" without conceding that they actually do exist, I still don't see why a Bishop can't call a Stake President (and if a Stake President doesn't know, why he can't call someone in Area Leadership) and say, "I'm thinking of calling someone to the calling of [x] [or of forwarding his name for consideration to the calling of [x]], but he has [y] in his background. Is there any reason why [y] would prevent him from being considered or called?"

Edited June 10, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Stone holm]

Stone Holm maintains that, in fact, many Bishops and Stake Presidents don't know the rules, at least, not before the fact.

P.S.: It is true that the potential existence of a "rule" would have to occur to someone for him to inquire about the suitability of any candidate for a potential calling, but, positing (for the sake of discussion) the existence of such "rules" without conceding that they actually do exist, I still don't see why a Bishop can't call a Stake President (and if a Stake President doesn't know, why he can't call someone in Area Leadership) and say, "I'm thinking of calling someone to the calling of [x] [or of forwarding his name for consideration to the calling of [x]], but he has [y] in his background. Is there any reason why [y] would prevent him from being considered or called?"

That is how they find out the rule, or they actually propose the name and it gets rejected and they ask why. A man who has been divorced may be called to be a Bishop, it just depends on how long ago the divorce occurred.

[ERayR]

Stone Holm maintains that, in fact, many Bishops and Stake Presidents don't know the rules, at least, not before the fact.

P.S.: It is true that the potential existence of a "rule" would have to occur to someone for him to inquire about the suitability of any candidate for a potential calling, but, positing (for the sake of discussion) the existence of such "rules" without conceding that they actually do exist, I still don't see why a Bishop can't call a Stake President (and if a Stake President doesn't know, why he can't call someone in Area Leadership) and say, "I'm thinking of calling someone to the calling of [x] [or of forwarding his name for consideration to the calling of [x]], but he has [y] in his background. Is there any reason why [y] would prevent him from being considered or called?"

Oh dear now I have a headache.

[ERayR]

That is how they find out the rule, or they actually propose the name and it gets rejected and they ask why. A man who has been divorced may be called to be a Bishop, it just depends on how long ago the divorce occurred.

How would anyone find out to reject them?

[ksfisher]

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (New Testament, 1 Timothy, 1 Timothy 3)

This is the scriptural basis for not calling divorced men as bishops. In our day and age, when the family is under constant attack, it still seems like good advice.

Edited June 11, 2013 by ksfisher

[Duncan]

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; (New Testament, 1 Timothy, 1 Timothy 3)

This is the scriptural basis for not calling divorced men as bishops. In our day and age, when the family is under constant attack, it still seems like good advice.

if a man remarries then they are the husband of one wife and divorce extracts you from the marriage from another-thereby a divorced man can serve as a Bishop if he remarries

[blackstrap]

There is divorced and then there is DIVORCED. Covenants enter into it. As a side note, there are also rules about who may become a CES employee .

[Stone holm]

if a man remarries then they are the husband of one wife and divorce extracts you from the marriage from another-thereby a divorced man can serve as a Bishop if he remarries

LDS interpretation of that passage was the husband of at least one wife.

[Duncan]

LDS interpretation of that passage was the husband of at least one wife.

I am LDS, I interpret it as stating that if you are legally married to one wife, the past doesn't matter in the eyes of the Lord, ergo my interpretation is an LDS interpretation!

[Stone holm]

I am LDS, I interpret it as stating that if you are legally married to one wife, the past doesn't matter in the eyes of the Lord, ergo my interpretation is an LDS interpretation!

Well, I am too, but if you check you will find that the Brethren interpreted that merely to mean that the man needed to be married and that back before the manifesto the polygamous brother was not disqualified to be Bishop.