How High Up Of A Calling Can You Get In The Church

[Carl62]

...after you've been ex'd then rebaptized? Somebody asked me the other day about this and they were wondering if a person who has been ex'd, then rebaptized, could go on to be a bishop, stake president or even higher. I told them that I wasn't sure but I thought I'd heard that a person could go as high as a branch president but no further. Has anybody ever heard of somebody getting called to the position of a bishop, or higher, after coming back into the church? And if not, why? Very curious on this.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Carl62

[Jayhawk2421]

There is not limit. If you look into Church History you will find that Orson Pratt was excommunicated and later went on to be re-baptized and became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. This is the highest that one has risen after ex-communication, however there is no bar to prevent one from rising to the Presidency, if they were long enough lived.

[Carl62]

There is not limit. If you look into Church History you will find that Orson Pratt was excommunicated and later went on to be re-baptized and became a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. This is the highest that one has risen after ex-communication, however there is no bar to prevent one from rising to the Presidency, if they were long enough lived.

But that was back in the 1800's. Apostles also wore beards and had more than one wife back then too. Many things have changed since then. Has there ever been a case of anybody receiving a calling after being ex'd to that of a bishop or higher within the last 20-30 years?

[HiJolly]

Probably.

HJ

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't know what the policy is, but "worthiness" isn't the only factor. In this hyper-litigious age, assigning a man who's got a past of fornication to do one-on-one interviews with single women (or, worse, teenaged girls) is a recipe for disaster--whether the man actually does anything wrong or not. I should think the Church simply couldn't afford to do that kind of thing.

[slamjet]

An interesting thing about a person who has been X'd is that when they really work at, and come back into the fold, they learn that position in the church is irrelevant. Not that they are happy to be anything in the church, but that it doesn't matter.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I have a few random facts:

1. Spencer W. Kimball in The Miracle of Forgiveness implied that a person who had committed "heinous acts" could not serve as a Bishop or Stake president. The meaning of heinous acts wasn't given, so that is an ambiguous statement.

2. I knew a High Councilor who was formerly excommunicated and regained all his blessings.

3. We had a situation recently where a very good, capable, priesthood holder in our Ward, and director of a National Corporation (that's how capable he is) indicated he'd never be a Bishop because he was disfellowshipped when he was a young adult. He has since received all his blessings back, and in all other ways is a fine specimen of a dedicated LDS person. He's in his late 40's, early 50's. We needed a Bishop and he was the obvious candidate many times over. But he wasn't called. They called someone else. He lamented to his wife, who then lamented to me about how that one mistake leading to disfellowshipment 25 years ago has limited him. But he has been in the Bishopric many times over as a counselor.

4. I know another person who was excommunicated and is now serving as a HIgh Priest Group Leader.

I agree though, at one time I had "aspirations" in the Bishop/Stake President direction. Then I served in a couple priesthood leadership callings and I feel happy to be relieved of such responsibilities. They can be frustrating as it's always a work in progress, and it can be a real challenge to achieve goals like home teaching, activation, temple worthiness, etcetera. Such leadership callings are something I might enjoy doing again as a retired person with no kids, but it's a real stressor otherwise.

If I was you, I'd take pleasure in having a positive impact on people's lives, and take the opportunities that come, and do them well. I wouldn't be surprised if members who are not serving in high pressure callings are generally happier with their lives, so, if being exed has limited your leadership progress, the fact that you may not go beyond non-Bishop, non-Stake President leadership may not be a bad thing.

Edited January 6, 2011 by mormonmusic

[rameumptom]

You cannot be an Institute teacher/director if you've been exed or even divorced. IOW, we have a higher standard for them than we do for bishop!

[Carl62]

But I thought that once you are ex'd, then rebaptized, isn't the slate then wiped completely clean? I've even heard it said that when you are ex'd then rebaptized that it never even shows on your record in SLC that you were even ex'd (or so they say, not sure about that). So why would you be penalized later for a calling if you've truly gone through the repentance process and the Lord has forgiven you and remembers it no more? So why can't the church seem to forgive a person on this? Just trying to understand.:)

[Gwen]

depending on why you were ex'ed (or other disciplinary action) for it may be permanently in your record. records get annotated all the time for different reasons and those annotations remain until the first presidency says it can be removed and they often limit what callings you can hold.

[Carl62]

depending on why you were ex'ed (or other disciplinary action) for it may be permanently in your record. records get annotated all the time for different reasons and those annotations remain until the first presidency says it can be removed and they often limit what callings you can hold.

But your offense can still stay on your record even after you are rebaptized? Wow, didn't know that!

[bytor2112]

But your offense can still stay on your record even after you are rebaptized? Wow, didn't know that!

Yes....but don't confuse that with confession. If there isn't formal disciplinary action, then no records are kept.

[Gwen]

the annotations aren't about "forgiveness" they are about lawyers. "in the world but not of the world"? it's the church's way of "protecting" itself. you can be temple worthy and have an annotation that prevents you from holding callings. even the getting it removed goes through church lawyers before the first presidency will allow it to be removed. it's not a spiritual decision.

[Guest mormonmusic]

the annotations aren't about "forgiveness" they are about lawyers. "in the world but not of the world"? it's the church's way of "protecting" itself. you can be temple worthy and have an annotation that prevents you from holding callings. even the getting it removed goes through church lawyers before the first presidency will allow it to be removed. it's not a spiritual decision.

I've never heard this before -- do you have a source on that one? I'm just curious. It sounds unusual that a member would engage a lawyer in a probably adversarial process to alter records maintained by the Lord's Church.

[MarginOfError]

I don't believe that past disciplinary action is annotated on the membership record...at least not the record seen by local leaders (I can't comment on records kept at Salt Lake). The bishop and clerk can see annotations on the membership record. At the moment, the only annotation I know of that is placed in view of local leaders is the annotation of child or spousal abuse. These are placed to ensure that these people are not called to work with children, youth, or any other group that could grant them access to potential victims.

It's removal requires the action of the First Presidency, and yes, a lot of it involves legal protections as well as protecting the vulnerable members of the Church.

[Gwen]

I've never heard this before -- do you have a source on that one? I'm just curious. It sounds unusual that a member would engage a lawyer in a probably adversarial process to alter records maintained by the Lord's Church.

the member would not engage a lawyer in the process of annotation removal. they submit a letter, the church runs it past the lawyers before making a decision. the decision will be final. there is nothing for the member to get a lawyer for. it's not a "legal" decision where the courts are concerned, it's the churches right. if the member wants it totally gone they can leave the church and make the records disappear completely. no one is forcing you to be involved with a private organization.

I don't believe that past disciplinary action is annotated on the membership record...at least not the record seen by local leaders (I can't comment on records kept at Salt Lake). The bishop and clerk can see annotations on the membership record. At the moment, the only annotation I know of that is placed in view of local leaders is the annotation of child or spousal abuse. These are placed to ensure that these people are not called to work with children, youth, or any other group that could grant them access to potential victims.

It's removal requires the action of the First Presidency, and yes, a lot of it involves legal protections as well as protecting the vulnerable members of the Church.

that's why i said "depending on why...". not every disciplinary action is annotated.

[NeuroTypical]

So, when people are convicted of serious offenses like abuse or child molesting, a permanent annotation can be placed on the member's record detailing the offense. After such an annotation is made, it's permanent, and can only be removed by a member of the first presidency. This annotation remains, regardless of how fully repentant and forgiven the member is.

There may be many reasons for this, but I only know of one very good one. If you're a serial child-molester, this annotation prevents you from hopping around from ward to ward looking for more victims. It doesn't matter how forgiven you are - once you've been convicted of assaulting a child sexually, you'll never again be put in the nursery, or with the Boy Scouts, or what have you. Because when the bishop reviews your records, he'll see the annotation.

This seems like plain simple common sense. How horrible would it be, to be a victim of child sexual abuse, and a decade later, find out that the guy who molested you, and did five years in prison for it, is off being a bishop somewhere and scheduling youth interviews for himself and whatnot. Not in this church, thanks.

I was invovled in annotating a record once. I forget the exact steps involved, but basically the bishop makes the case for the annotation to the SP/BP, who confirms the need for the annotation and bumps it up to a higher level for final implementation. (Don't quote me on the details here - it's been a few years.) When I was a ward clerk, sometimes new records would come through with annotations. The annotations were pretty much for the bishop's eyes only.

LM

Edited January 6, 2011 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Just_A_Guy]

How horrible would it be, to be a victim of child sexual abuse, and a decade later, find out that the guy who molested you, and did five years in prison for it, is off being a bishop somewhere and scheduling youth interviews for himself and whatnot.

But how marvelous it would be to be the bishop's future victims' lawyer, when you find out that the Church knew this guy was a pedo and covered up for him--enabling him to strike again.

[NeuroTypical]

Well, before we start poking fun at the Catholics, we need to remember that our church is only about 15 years ahead of them in coming to grips with the existence of serial child predators.

[mightynancy]

Am I the only one who squirms when some callings are called "higher" than others?

[MarginOfError]

Am I the only one who squirms when some callings are called "higher" than others?

I get where you're going, but the fact is, stake president is above bishop on the organizational chart.

[pam]

Am I the only one who squirms when some callings are called "higher" than others?

Nope because there is a hierarchy in the Church. A Bishop would be over his counselors, a counselor in the Bishopric would be over an organization such as Primary.

I think when people say higher they aren't necessarily meaning in importance but in the structural sense.

[Blackmarch]

...after you've been ex'd then rebaptized? Somebody asked me the other day about this and they were wondering if a person who has been ex'd, then rebaptized, could go on to be a bishop, stake president or even higher. I told them that I wasn't sure but I thought I'd heard that a person could go as high as a branch president but no further. Has anybody ever heard of somebody getting called to the position of a bishop, or higher, after coming back into the church? And if not, why? Very curious on this.

as we believe taht revelation guides this church, if God for some reason thought you needed to be in the presidency, then you would eventually wind up there, were you to continue being faithful before him.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Am I the only one who squirms when some callings are called "higher" than others?

I don't squirm at all -- in fact I sort of cringe when people comment that all callings are equal.

In my view, the PEOPLE are equally improtant, but some callings do have a much bigger span of control, and potential impact -- both good and bad. Some require higher levels of basic ability and maturity to pull them off at an acceptable level.

And, with structurally higher positions comes greater risk of Church discipline given the associated responsibility if you make a mistake. So, definitely, some positions are higher than others - structurally, in the level of native competence they take, and the consequences if they aren't fulfilled properly.

Now, I would never go spouting this off at the pulpit, because what I say is likely to be interpreted that some PEOPLE are more important than others. That is not so, in my view. Jesus took off after the one lost sheep even though he had 99 others left.

[HEthePrimate]

I don't squirm at all -- in fact I sort of cringe when people comment that all callings are equal.

In my view, the PEOPLE are equally improtant, but some callings do have a much bigger span of control, and potential impact -- both good and bad. Some require higher levels of basic ability and maturity to pull them off at an acceptable level.

And, with structurally higher positions comes greater risk of Church discipline given the associated responsibility if you make a mistake. So, definitely, some positions are higher than others - structurally, in the level of native competence they take, and the consequences if they aren't fulfilled properly.

Now, I would never go spouting this off at the pulpit, because what I say is likely to be interpreted that some PEOPLE are more important than others. That is not so, in my view. Jesus took off after the one lost sheep even though he had 99 others left.

I like to think of it in terms of the scriptural "body of Christ" allegory (1 Corinthians 12). Yes, some positions are "higher" in the sense that a head is higher than a stomach and directs things more or less, but the stomach (or Primary Teacher, or whatever) is just as important as the head (or Bishop) because the body would not function properly without it. The hand cannot say to the eye "I have no need of you," or vice versa. It's paradoxical, but some callings are "higher" than others, but at the same time not. In other words, the head runs the show (more or less), but could not survive without the heart pumping blood into it, or the stomach providing nutrients.