Can a divorced man be called as a Bishop or be in a Bishopric?

[InCognitus]

I know this question isn't about being divorced, but what about a person who is an active duty police officer? 

I have heard that an active duty policy officer can't be called as a bishop, but I haven't been able to find where that is stated in any of the handbooks, or if it is even true.  I think I understand the reasoning for that, but I'm just wondering where it is documented.  I know a guy who is a counselor in the bishopric (he's been in at least three different bishoprics now) and he is an active duty police officer, and he uses that (jokingly) as his "get out of the bishop chair free" card.  He actually has a lot of compassion and good insight on home and family problems and how they contribute to behavioral problems because of his experience in the police force. I'd be interested to know if his information (about police officers not being called to be bishops) is out of date or inaccurate so I can break the news to him and make him sweat a little bit. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by InCognitus

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I know this question isn't about being divorced, but what about a person who is an active duty police officer? 

I have heard that an active duty policy officer can't be called as a bishop, but I haven't been able to find where that is stated in any of the handbooks, or if it is even true.  I think I understand the reasoning for that, but I'm just wondering where it is documented.  I know a guy who is a counselor in the bishopric (he's been in at least three different bishoprics now) and he is an active duty police officer, and he uses that (jokingly) as his "get out of the bishop chair free" card.  He actually has a lot of compassion and good insight on home and family problems and how they contribute to behavioral problems because of his experience in the police force. I'd be interested to know if his information (about police officers not being called to be bishops) is out of date or inaccurate so I can break the news to him and make him sweat a little bit. 

There is a danger if your job labels you as a specifically mandated reporter in some countries as it can create a conflict of interest if one obligation requires you to report and another requires you to maintain confidentiality. I know one bishop candidate in my stake was shot down by Salt Lake on those grounds due to his job. It wouldn’t apply for a counselor.

[InCognitus]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is a danger if your job labels you as a specifically mandated reporter in some countries as it can create a conflict of interest if one obligation requires you to report and another requires you to maintain confidentiality. I know one bishop candidate in my stake was shot down by Salt Lake on those grounds due to his job. It wouldn’t apply for a counselor.

Yes, that is the reasoning behind the restriction as I heard it.  I just wondered if it was documented somewhere in the handbook or anywhere else.  I haven't been able to find it, and I was curious to read what it said.

[bsjkki]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is a danger if your job labels you as a specifically mandated reporter in some countries as it can create a conflict of interest if one obligation requires you to report and another requires you to maintain confidentiality. I know one bishop candidate in my stake was shot down by Salt Lake on those grounds due to his job. It wouldn’t apply for a counselor.

I know a newly called Bishop who was released when he became a DA. Same type of conflict. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There is a danger if your job labels you as a specifically mandated reporter in some countries as it can create a conflict of interest if one obligation requires you to report and another requires you to maintain confidentiality.

Interesting. I live in a jurisdiction where, by law, everyone age 18+ in a mandated reporter.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

what about a person who is an active duty police officer? 

My bishop back in the late 80’s was an active duty cop…87 or 88, Wichita, Kansas.  But rules have changed it seems.

Aren’t doctors mandated reporters, and teachers in the US?  Or is that not as consistent as I thought.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Calm

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Interesting. I live in a jurisdiction where, by law, everyone age 18+ in a mandated reporter.

That is true of most areas in the US but some jobs have stricter reporting requirements based on occupation.

Edited February 14, 2022 by The Nehor

[Duncan]

I had a Stake President who had been divorced, total jerk of a guy but remarried now and years later served in that capacity. I know there is a time limit for divorce before someone can be recommended for service in a bishopric.

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I had a Stake President who had been divorced, total jerk of a guy but remarried now and years later served in that capacity. I know there is a time limit for divorce before someone can be recommended for service in a bishopric.

I am sure a person would need time to recover from the emotional stress and consequences the divorce can bring.

[Bob Crockett]

Divorced men cannot serve as bishop or in a stake presidency without First Presidency approval.  Such approvals are rare. 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Divorced men cannot serve as bishop or in a stake presidency without First Presidency approval.  Such approvals are rare. 

Any man cannot serve as a bishop or a stake president without First Presidency approval.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/30-callings-in-the-church?lang=eng#title_number18

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, JAHS said:

Someone I know was recently divorced and is asking the question about whether he will ever have a chance to be called into a Bishopric solely because he is divorced.
Tried searching for this but I am getting different answers. I don't see anything specific in the General Handbook.

I don't think there is an official policy but my understanding is that it is preferred not to call a divorced person as a bishop. Generally, if there are other good candidates in a ward that have not been divorced they are preferable. If not then yes a divorced person may be called. The latter was the case in a ward in my stake.  So I have seen a divorcee called as a bishop.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Divorced men cannot serve as bishop or in a stake presidency without First Presidency approval.  Such approvals are rare. 

Aren't all bishop proposals approved by the FP?

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I don't think there is an official policy but my understanding is that it is preferred not to call a divorced person as a bishop. Generally, if there are other good candidates in a ward that have not been divorced they are preferable. If not then yes a divorced person may be called. The latter was the case in a ward in my stake.  So I have seen a divorcee called as a bishop.

As a person in this category myself, I agree the seems to be the case along the Wasatch Front, you will rarely (in my case, never) see a previously divorced man be called as bishop because there are so many other worthy candidates.  However, in the 'mission field' beggars can't be choosers - so you will see it happen.

Unfortunately, while this causes me relief to know I have a 'get out of jail free' card to not have the burden of being a bishop, it also often makes me feel like a second-class citizen in The Church - and as an extension, makes me wonder if we really value the Atonement as being able to fully redeem someone and make their past not count against them...  On a related note, the scriptures have examples, as does the restored church in its early days, of general authorities being called who were pretty openly flawed and/or had led lives of pretty serious sin prior to repenting - but now, it seems any imperfection in outcome of life disqualifies people like me.

 

Not the end of the world for me or my testimony, but does often make me sad when I reflect on it.

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I know this question isn't about being divorced, but what about a person who is an active duty police officer? 

I have known LEOs here in the States who have been called to serve as bishops. Last one I knew personally was about 10 years ago.

[JAHS]

48 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

As a person in this category myself, I agree the seems to be the case along the Wasatch Front, you will rarely (in my case, never) see a previously divorced man be called as bishop because there are so many other worthy candidates.  However, in the 'mission field' beggars can't be choosers - so you will see it happen.

Unfortunately, while this causes me relief to know I have a 'get out of jail free' card to not have the burden of being a bishop, it also often makes me feel like a second-class citizen in The Church - and as an extension, makes me wonder if we really value the Atonement as being able to fully redeem someone and make their past not count against them...  On a related note, the scriptures have examples, as does the restored church in its early days, of general authorities being called who were pretty openly flawed and/or had led lives of pretty serious sin prior to repenting - but now, it seems any imperfection in outcome of life disqualifies people like me.

 

Not the end of the world for me or my testimony, but does often make me sad when I reflect on it.

I would think though that if the man was the more innocent person in the situation(eg wife commits adultery) that would not be held against him. Still a divorce can have messy consequences that can last for a long time which can be a distraction for a man trying to be a bishop at the same time.

[Maestrophil]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I would think though that if the man was the more innocent person in the situation(eg wife commits adultery) that would not be held against him. Still a divorce can have messy consequences that can last for a long time which can be a distraction for a man trying to be a bishop at the same time.

Agreed that it could be a distraction depending on where that man is in the process.  In my case, it has been 11 years since I remarried in the temple after being left with the kids when my wife moved in with her new love interest that she had been seeing for the last year of our marriage - I feel it is a blight that will never be taken from me because of 'soft' rules such as these.  

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Agreed that it could be a distraction depending on where that man is in the process.  In my case, it has been 11 years since I remarried in the temple after being left with the kids when my wife moved in with her new love interest that she had been seeing for the last year of our marriage - I feel it is a blight that will never be taken from me because of 'soft' rules such as these.  

I would think that for you, considering your experience, it would be an advantage, since you would perhaps as a Bishop be able to help others that are in similar situations. I wonder how much information is on a person's record that might affect the decision to consider a person who has been divorced.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I have known LEOs here in the States who have been called to serve as bishops. Last one I knew personally was about 10 years ago.

I think the DA role is different than a LEO. I had a police officer as a Bishop. No issues with that. It was explained the DA would have to make charging and prosecuting decisions. That is a huge conflict of interest.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

As a person in this category myself, I agree the seems to be the case along the Wasatch Front, you will rarely (in my case, never) see a previously divorced man be called as bishop because there are so many other worthy candidates.  However, in the 'mission field' beggars can't be choosers - so you will see it happen.

Unfortunately, while this causes me relief to know I have a 'get out of jail free' card to not have the burden of being a bishop, it also often makes me feel like a second-class citizen in The Church - and as an extension, makes me wonder if we really value the Atonement as being able to fully redeem someone and make their past not count against them...  On a related note, the scriptures have examples, as does the restored church in its early days, of general authorities being called who were pretty openly flawed and/or had led lives of pretty serious sin prior to repenting - but now, it seems any imperfection in outcome of life disqualifies people like me.

 

Not the end of the world for me or my testimony, but does often make me sad when I reflect on it.

I think it is sad.  I think the man who served as 1st counselor when I was bishop would have been a wonderful bishop. A more loving spiritual man I did not know.  He had been divorced and that primarily because his first wife had reputedly cheated on him. Even then he tried to make it work but she wanted out.  He  remarried a woman he had dated in high school and they had a wonderful marriage until he died of brain cancer 5 years ago.  But because of his divorce he was not considered.  I know we are not to aspire and believe me being a bishop was one of the hardest things I ever did.  But is was one of the most rewarding and even now and a disaffected member I cherish the time I served and feel fortunate I had that opportunity.

[hearserve]

For what it's worth, my brother was divorced, later married in the temple, and was an ASAC in the FBI.  In spite of these apparent two strikes against him, he was called as a branch president, a bishop and then served as a counselor in the stake presidency.

Edited February 14, 2022 by hearserve

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

As a person in this category myself, I agree the seems to be the case along the Wasatch Front, you will rarely (in my case, never) see a previously divorced man be called as bishop because there are so many other worthy candidates.

Personal experience: some years back, I was serving as first counsellor to a bishop who was away about two weeks a month. (I was also working at the university and pursuing a post-PhD diploma at another university at the same time!) Our ward council would spend an hour every Wednesday visiting less-active or lost members, and we would recruit companions during Relief Society and priesthood opening exercises. One week, a brother from Utah who was here on a six-month contract volunteered to be my companion.

Within three minutes of my picking him up, he started pointedly explaining to me that 'in Utah' someone like me would never be allowed to serve in a bishopric because there would be so many better examples to pick from. He literally discussed my lack of fitness to serve and his personal disgust with my calling for the entire drive to our arranged visit. Unreal. So yeah, I have some sense of what you're talking about ...

Quote

Not the end of the world for me or my testimony, but does often make me sad when I reflect on it.

Same!

By the way, a few years before the above, the first counsellor in our bishopric had his wife leave and then divorce him. He remained faithful throughout and continued to serve with diligence -- to his everlasting credit, in my opinion!

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

He literally discussed my lack of fitness to serve and his personal disgust with my calling for the entire drive to our arranged visit.

That makes me ill. 
 

And my very Utahn husband and daughter-in-law  and semiUtahn son (born in Provo and spent first 5 years and all his married life here) would be horrified to hear that as well as any of his extended family (don’t know hers well enough to assume). I can’t imagine any of them saying that or any of my Utahn friends, though I have met members I can imagine saying it unfortunately, both from Utah and not.  The vast majority of members I have known well enough to guess on this should have no problem with a single man in a bishopric calling at all and might only have a problem with someone divorced if they had been the cause of the divorce, for adultery or being abusive or neglectful in some fashion. And then if significant time had passed and there was obvious a change of heart, most of those wouldn’t be concerned, but accept that repentance made any worthy of the calling. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Calm

[bsjkki]

21 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Personal experience: some years back, I was serving as first counsellor to a bishop who was away about two weeks a month. (I was also working at the university and pursuing a post-PhD diploma at another university at the same time!) Our ward council would spend an hour every Wednesday visiting less-active or lost members, and we would recruit companions during Relief Society and priesthood opening exercises. One week, a brother from Utah who was here on a six-month contract volunteered to be my companion.

Within three minutes of my picking him up, he started pointedly explaining to me that 'in Utah' someone like me would never be allowed to serve in a bishopric because there would be so many better examples to pick from. He literally discussed my lack of fitness to serve and his personal disgust with my calling for the entire drive to our arranged visit. Unreal. So yeah, I have some sense of what you're talking about ...

Same!

By the way, a few years before the above, the first counsellor in our bishopric had his wife leave and then divorce him. He remained faithful throughout and continued to serve with diligence -- to his everlasting credit, in my opinion!

Very sad.

[katherine the great]

32 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Within three minutes of my picking him up, he started pointedly explaining to me that 'in Utah' someone like me would never be allowed to serve in a bishopric because there would be so many better examples to pick from. He literally discussed my lack of fitness to serve and his personal disgust with my calling for the entire drive to our arranged visit.

How lovely. So basically he was saying that only a pompous a$$ is allowed to serve as a bishop in Utah?