restrictions on callings

[Duncan]

I was talking to my brother, who is the stake clerk and he was saying that the stake pres. was interviewing a man for a calling as a Bishop and there is a policy that says you can't have been divorced for less than 20 years to become a Bishop and also if that happened you can't ever serve as a YSA Bishop. Well, apparently whoever interviewed him didn't know he was divorced, not quite 20 years ago and it slipped out about this policy and well apparently this brother didn't have a good reaction. So, whatever but I was thinking if at the end of the day that what callings you have don't matter or make a lick of difference to God (as per that Pres. McKay statement  ("He will not be necessarily interested in what assignments you have had, for in his eyes the home teacher and a mission president are probably equals, but He will request a summary of how you have been of service to your fellowmen in your Church assignments." Pres. McKay 1965 statement quoted by Elder Hales in a BYU devotional) why does it seem to matter then who gets them then? why are their restrictions if it doesn't matter?

 

and "probably equals" I don't know if that is the exact language Pres. McKay used or not but 

[Storm Rider]

I don't think it matters in the eternities, but on earth there are some concerns.  You cannot serve as a temple ordinance worker if you have been divorced in the last five years (that seems to be the figure).  Was not aware of a similar policy for being a bishop, but it makes sense.  

I can imagine the type of gossip, complaining, and gnashing of teeth would occur in the ward where a bishop was called to serve and the same man had been in a divorce eight years earlier while living in same stake.  Things get messy real fast when members are involved.  It is better to just stick to the high road and keep the gossip and complaining to a mere roar.

[rpn]

There are mortal reasons I can think of (though I have no way of knowing what reasons the church may have--- 1) if the divorce was 20 years ago, the man is no longer daily parenting children who may have needed more tender care because of a divorce.  2)  With 20 years time passing, it becomes clear that divorce is not the person's pattern.  3)  In 20 years, any ward impact of divvying up friends or taking sides will have diminished to tolerable levels, if they continue to exist at all.  4)  In 20 years, the man is likely firmly established in a new relationship.

But like all the general rules in the handbook, waivers are possible for lots of things.

[VideoGameJunkie]

There was someone in my bishopric who was released from his calling after he got divorced.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just like Paul's teachings on buying and consuming meat that had earlier been sacrificed to idols, much of what we do in the Church is designed to completely skirt the risk of helping others to stumble. Learning this in a personal way has been both humbling and empowering.

[Zakuska]

Used to be that you couldn't teach Seminary or Institute if you had ever been divorced.  Good thing that Policy got changed.

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1824832-155/church-divorced-members-mormon-mothers-teach

Edited December 24, 2015 by Zakuska

[filovirus]

I always assumed the bishop was to be a role model of familial stability to those he has stewardship over. Divorce is the breaking of a family unit, whether the divorce was needed or not due to the circumstances of the relationship.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

There was someone in my bishopric who was released from his calling after he got divorced.

Interesting.  I wonder if there's a policy about that?  30 years ago I was called as a branch president in a Servicemen's Branch to replace our current branch president who was released because his wife had committed adultery.  I had the unenviable task of presiding over her disciplinary council.  They were our across-the-street neighbors on top of everything else.  Lovely.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Stargazer

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

There was someone in my bishopric who was released from his calling after he got divorced.

Yes, and a friend of mine got released from the bishopric when his wife was called to preside over the Young Women.  They had young children to take care of.  That was the reason he gave me anyhow.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Ya the thing though is he was only the 2nd counselor, not the Bishop so it was odd he got released right after the divorce. The wife who divorced him has now been divorced twice and has been teaching early morning seminary for 3 years since. She's also a Marriott so that helps her pull.

[Avatar4321]

Doesn't at all seem odd to be released right after a divorce. Just the sheer magnitude of putting your life back together after such an event would make serving in a bishopric difficult

[Johnnie Cake]

For what its worth...Isaiah 1:18 reads: 

Quote

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool

But with respect to divorce or church discipline...the scarlet remains throughout ones life...or at least annotated * on ones membership records for life

Edited December 24, 2015 by Johnnie Cake

[Deborah]

Yes, I think it is procedure to be released if you are in such a leadership position. I can understand why. Often in divorce there are hard feelings on both sides, which is not conducive to having the Spirit.

[HappyJackWagon]

There are a number of restrictions on who can serve as bishop. (Branch Presidents have more leniency)

For example, if you were ever excommunicated or disfellowshipped you will not be a bishop. I'm sure there are exceptions but it is part of the info in the calling request sent to the FP.

Hard/fast rules about who can and cannot serve in a calling based on past divorce or discipline is overly rigid IMO. For example, there's a man in my ward who was excommunicated as a young 21 year old. He has been back in the church for over 30 years and would be a fantastic bishop. His experience would help him connect with members and shepherd some through the repentance process. Sadly, he will never be a bishop. My SP has bemoaned this fact with me.

[rpn]

I can tell you absolutely that church discipline itself does NOT remain on any records viewable by local leadership at least, after completion and reinstatement. 

[St. Bookmark]

This can't be true. Our current bishop was divorced and remarried only 8 years ago.

sounds like Mormon superstitious 

[consiglieri]

Policies are put in place when the Spirit has departed.

[The Nehor]

On December 24, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

For what its worth...Isaiah 1:18 reads: 

But with respect to divorce or church discipline...the scarlet remains throughout ones life...or at least annotated * on ones membership records for life

And if those annotations indicated one's standing before God that would mean something.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Policies are put in place when the Spirit has departed.

When the Spirit has left people they get bored and restless and complain about policies.

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When the Spirit has left people they get bored and restless and complain about policies.

Quite the reverse, I think.

Which is why Jesus inveighed against the policies of the religious leaders of his day.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Quite the reverse, I think.

Which is why Jesus inveighed against the policies of the religious leaders of his day.

No, he inveighed against them because they were wrong not because they were policies. This is the same Jesus who gave the Law of Moses. He is obviously not opposed to commandments and policies.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, he inveighed against them because they were wrong not because they were policies. This is the same Jesus who gave the Law of Moses. He is obviously not opposed to commandments and policies.

Well, Jesus appears to have changed his mind considerably by the time he touched down on terra firma.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Well, Jesus appears to have changed his mind considerably by the time he touched down on terra firma.

No, he just taught what was needed at the time. When he was there the Jews were overly overtly religious and neglected other important elements of the Law. In the same way Paul taught a bunch of converts that obedience was not enough to save and that Grace was needed. Of course like a drunken man on a horse we take that correction and fall off the other side. This is the main reason that the veneration of dead prophets at the expense of the living is so dangerous. Jesus was preaching to a group in love with adding to the commandments to increase their righteousness. Take that counsel and apply it in our day when we feel stifled by even the most broad religious laws and Jesus's counsel is so perverted it would be unrecognizable to his followers in life. Jesus only ignored and preached against the traditions that were built up around the Law of Moses. He told his followers in life to obey the law until it was fulfilled when he rose again. Then he gave new commandments.