Qualifications of a Bishop

[john4truth]

Just now, john4truth said:

Child Molesters and Divorcees should not be compared I would say this is an example of the discrimination

There are conditions that must be monitored, Child Molestation is never completely cured. Divorce is not a mental illness

 

[person0]

6 minutes ago, john4truth said:

. . . Child Molestation is never completely cured. Divorce is not a mental illness

Is pedophilia a mental condition that needs curing?  Or is it a temptation that needs overcoming?  How much different (internally) is a child molester from a rapist (of adults)?  Do they both need curing?  Is it inherently an addiction which is so powerful it cannot be suppressed?  Or is it a temptation that must be cast aside and not heeded?  How much different (internally) is the pedophilial desire from that of a homosexual?

I wonder if we classify too many things as mental illness, when in fact they are temptations to overcome.  Homosexuality used to be classified as a mental illness, now it is viewed as an acceptable way of living.  In many African communities, what we would deem as child molestation is a normal and traditional custom.  I tend to lean toward believing that over-classifying things as mental illnesses leads to reducing the accountability of the individual, because it was the mental illness, and if the person didn't have that illness they wouldn't have done it.  Seems like a poor excuse to me.  We all have temptations to overcome, some are different than others.

[john4truth]

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 5:23 PM, NeuroTypical said:

 

Ok, now I know this is false.  The annotation that can be made on a permanent record, is for serious stuff like felony convictions and child abuse and whatnot.   I have handled permanent records of divorced folk, there was no annotation.

I have also personally been in a ward led by a bishop who had been divorced.  I was his executive secretary.  

john4truth, I submit that you don't know everything you're claiming to know here.

You have not read what has been said, you claim it is false without reading the full blog. Divorcees are made bishops, but it depends traditions in different Stakes. You also need to become better informed on this site where people acknowledge the differences in what shows up in annotations, some things only show when you try to print a membership. My point is being made by people all over the Church on this website. Many people have found the exact thing I know. If you do not know something it does not make it false. We all know little but that does not make the other 99 percent false. Read and become informed my brother. I am old and ill, I am only want to correct a problem. This is not the first problem that needed to be brought to all leaders attention. If we simply listen to L.. Tom Perry and not add to the requirements for bishop in some areas or be inconsistent the problem would be solved.. My only desire is to fix a problem.  Everyone makes the same mistake. This is not the first time a mistake needed correcting. Most would have simply accepted what happened at Mountain Meadows. It took  a Prophet to fix the problem. This is the same problem as the faulty  Unwritten Order Of Things where a leader claimed women could not say opening prayer. We will understand this better in the eternities. I too have supported faulty traditions. I am simply repenting by trying to stop false traditions.

I am only an old man trying to point out widespread misinformation  used as it is, inconsistently

[john4truth]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2013 at 9:17 AM, pam said:

It doesn't always have to do with the church. I could think of one example. Let's say one was convicted of child abuse or molestation. One could be forgiven by the victim, have gone through the church disciplinary process, been forgiven by God but could also have a stipulation made by the courts that they can never work with children. That would be a temporal consequence.

Child molesting is a mental disability. Should we compare Murderers to Gossipers. Divorcees should not be demonized, that is the point

[john4truth]

On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2013 at 9:33 PM, Torostoros said:

What MoE shared sounds completely right to me. Pam (and I think a couple of others) gave legitimate examples too. Poor choices can leave us with circumstances we're not fond of, even after we repent in the eyes of the Lord and regain good standing with the Church. At the most recent General Conference, Elder Scott even told us:

A perpetual liar or gossiper is worse than an innocent divorcee. Not every divorcee has anything to repent of nor do I believe Jesus Christ would assert long term consequences of a woman who learned her husband was a drug dealer, unfaithful, abusive and refused to change. There are many innocent victims and we need to be Christ Like. That is all that matters.

 

[john4truth]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2011 at 1:17 PM, ForeJacks said:

Doctrinal question from something that came up in a discussion I was in the middle of:

In talking about who can be a Bishop it was brought up that a divorced fellow can’t be a Bishop. I didn’t know this or I had forgotten. I looked in the church handbook (Callings in the Church  and it doesn’t specifically address this but it references a scripture passage in 1 Timothy (1 Timothy 3 ) and it says one of the qualifications is “the husband of one wife”. Is this portion of the scripture interpreted to mean not divorced? I guess that to me could mean several things, but the Lord’s interpretation is all that matters.

Anyway, then someone asked if this included a man who had a marriage annulled? Is an annulment considered the same as a divorce in the eyes of the Lord and/or the Church?

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2013 at 7:32 PM, Torostoros said:

When I was Ward Clerk (released about 3 years ago) obviously one of the functions of the calling was to make notes at Disciplinary Councils using the Church's special forms, then make electronic copies using the Church's record-keeping program (I believe the MLS program is in use worldwide for this). Once this was done, we were to dispose of the paper copies, and set a password for unlocking the "Confidential Report" which was kept in the aptly-named "Confidential Reports and Forms" section of MLS. I remember at one time the Bishop wanted me to access the record for a member's disciplinary council, but it had disappeared. I distinctly remembered having created it and certainly had no reason to delete it. A phone call to the relevant Salt Lake department led to them telling me that after about 30 days on the Ward/Stake electronic system, such confidential reports would disappear, "syphoned" to Salt Lake, if you will.

Unless I'm completely unaware of where the notification would appear (an individual's IOS, the electronic directory of members, who knows), I'm not aware of anything that indicates an annotation to a member's record. I definitely never had the experience of having to get Bishop to log into anything because there was something that he could access that I couldn't (not on MLS anyway, which is the Church's record-keeping software; I'm aware there are certain segments of Leader Resources on LDS.org that even those that can see the Leader Resources page generally - like Clerks and Exec Secs - have to get a Bishop to log into).

Then again, maybe there was just never a need. In addition, there are certainly also differences in rights between certain MLS accounts, so maybe it was something he never so much as discussed with me and just did when he used the computer on his own (there was only one username/logon for logging onto the computer itself, but each member of Ward Leadership had their own MLS account with differing levels of rights).

If not a CES employee, Seminary Teacher is a Stake calling; CHI 2 specifically includes it in the Chart of Callings as a position:

Recommended by: Bishop (may consult with seminary and institute personnel)

Approved by: Stake presidency and high council

Sustained by: Members in stake conference

Called and set apart by: Stake president or an assigned counselor or high councilor

This is for the calling of Stake Seminary Teacher. Of course, for all I know, the early-morning teachers are the CES employees in the USA. From what I can gather throughout this thread though, it seems early-morning teachers are what is reflected in CHI as Stake Seminary Teacher (the same as early-morning Seminary Teachers here, a calling), and those that teach as a school class during school hours are CES employees. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

The title of “Stake Seminary Teacher” can be misleading; at least over here in Australia. Early-morning Seminary is done on the ward level (or two wards together if the wards share the chapel). For all I know (again), early-morning Seminary could take place on a stake level in the USA with much bigger classes and geographically much smaller stakes given the higher concentration of members and meetinghouses.

If I’m right in my assumption that the early-morning Seminary Teachers are not CES employees, then it is in the CHI 2 Chart of Callings as a calling needing Stake Presidency approval, calling, and setting apart as shown above. Both CES employees and called Seminary Teachers need to be temple-worthy, as per CHI 1; I can’t find anything in there with reference to needing to have never been divorced though. I have heard this floated around though (not that that means it necessarily has any legitimacy). Maybe, as some have speculated, it is a condition for CES employees only, or those holding the position as a calling only.

L Tom Perry covered this and never mentioned divorce. This is the common mistake that causes most of the problems. I believe Elder Perry tried to clarify the qualification but we are slow to change our traditions. Elder M Russell Ballard told me personally divorce should not prevent a person from being bishop at a 4 hour fireside in Houston Texas and did so in form of all the Bishops and Stake Presidents in the region

 

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, john4truth said:

A perpetual liar or gossiper is worse than an innocent divorcee. Not every divorcee has anything to repent of nor do I believe Jesus Christ would assert long term consequences of a woman who learned her husband was a drug dealer, unfaithful, abusive and refused to change. There are many innocent victims and we need to be Christ Like. That is all that matters.

 

Agree totally my friend. Shockingly, I've never been divorced but I really wish that Christians treated divorcees better than than what they do sometimes. 

[john4truth]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2011 at 2:33 PM, estradling75 said:

Ask the person making this claim to back it up... Seems off to me

M Russell Ballard publically said he has seen many divorced men made bishops. The problem is the misconception, no differnt than not allowing blacks to to recieve the priesthood after Joseph Smith ordained African Americans as Elders

 

[john4truth]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Agree totally my friend. Shockingly, I've never been divorced but I really wish that Christians treated divorcees better than than what they do sometimes. 

A church psychologist says in the Church it can be worse for a worthy spouse than death of a spouse.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, john4truth said:

A church psychologist says in the Church it can be worse for a worthy spouse than death of a spouse.

 

I agree, it's heartbreaking. A family member has gone through two divorces and it bothers me greatly that she's viewed as "tainted" in some way by her church (she is not LDS). That some churches can't understand the complexities of marital breakup infuriates me. 

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, john4truth said:

M Russell Ballard publically said he has seen many divorced men made bishops. The problem is the misconception, no differnt than not allowing blacks to to recieve the priesthood after Joseph Smith ordained African Americans as Elders

 

That is not what I was asking to be backed up.  So why did you quote me only to totally ignore what I was asking for?

 

 

[john4truth]

On ‎5‎/‎9‎/‎2011 at 2:33 PM, estradling75 said:

Ask the person making this claim to back it up... Seems off to me

It can not be proven because it is in the minds of leaders and never made public. This is the problem it is not doctrine nor is it printed but come to the south and you will find people in most

Wards have heard this misinformation continued. I spoke with a man 2 days ago that the Stake President told because of his divorce he did not have to worry he would never be bishop. Misinformation is not in the handbook, not in the scriptures, and even though I hear there are printed memos I have never gotten my hands on one. I am just an old man that have witnessed divorcees being demonized like they were a child molester. Some things are hard to prove. I challenge you that if you start a blog you will find many people who have heard this misinformation.

[Vort]

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That's a great point. Socrates said it best. "All I know, is that I know nothing." 

I never pay any attention to what Socrates said. The guy didn't know anything.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Quote

For most of my life leaders have told me a divorcee could not be a bishop, but this is not true.

I can't comment on what people have told you.  You are correct, it is not true that a divorcee can't be a bishop.

Sorry, guys, but you are mistaken. A divorcée cannot be a bishop under any circumstance. That's simply the way it is.

(Though to be fair, it has nothing to do with her divorced status. Even women who have never divorced can't be bishops.)

[Vort]

1 hour ago, john4truth said:

On 12/11/2013 at 7:40 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Consider the case of a repentant child molester.

Child Molesters and Divorcees should not be compared I would say this is an example of the discrimination

This comment greatly weakens your position, @john4truth. NT's comment was a logical rebuttal, and was spot-on. Your objection to it indicates only that you don't understand logic.

[Vort]

56 minutes ago, john4truth said:

Not every divorcee has anything to repent of

I disbelieve this. I submit that every divorcée, and for that matter divorcé -- heck, everyone -- has things to repent of.

[Guest MormonGator]

So a man has been loyal to his wife and kids,  and has been a great provider for his family. He pays his tithing, does all his callings and is a wonderful guy. He's the bishop too. 

His wife wakes up one day at age 40 and says, "I'm leaving you for a younger, richer man." he'll lose his calling as bishop? 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, john4truth said:

On 12/11/2013 at 8:40 AM, NeuroTypical said:

It doesn't?

Consider the case of a repentant child molester.

Child Molesters and Divorcees should not be compared I would say this is an example of the discrimination

john4truth, I need to call your attention to something.   This thread had been dead for four years when you showed up and started posting.  You are replying to a post I made in 2013.  Maybe go back and re-read the whole thing for context.

 

Quote

I am only an old man trying to point out widespread misinformation  used as it is, inconsistently

I can respect that.  But go read this thread.  It has been going off and on since 2011.  The answer I gave back then, is the same answer I'm giving today:

Quote

Posted May 9, 2011
We've had threads about this before, but basically, yes, you can be a bishop despite having been divorced previously. Most likely a current bishop who gets a divorce, will be released as a bishop. You'll pretty much never meet someone who was called to be a bishop while he was single due to a divorce.

 

Tell you what - let's you and me both pick a rooftop - we can spend a few hours yelling "you can be a bishop even if you're divorced" at the top of our lungs, until everyone understands.  I can support helping this truth be more widely known.  

Whaddaya say - we good?

Edited May 10, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[john4truth]

23 hours ago, Vort said:

Sorry, guys, but you are mistaken. A divorcée cannot be a bishop under any circumstance. That's simply the way it is.

(Though to be fair, it has nothing to do with her divorced status. Even women who have never divorced can't be bishops.)

Sorry this is why this thread is opened back up. I know and M Russell Nelson said , Many divorcees have been bishops.

What you are saying is what needs to stop, Even leaders above Bishops are misinformed. The quote given in response to the question by the General Bishopric is that divorcee is not an unforgivable sin. At the same time you say they can't, I have others arguing no one has ever said they can't. Both opinions think I am ignorant. I am a ill old man but if you disagree you have not researched this.

 

[john4truth]

23 hours ago, Vort said:

I never pay any attention to what Socrates said. The guy didn't know anything.

Socrates got it. LOL There is too much to know to know more even 1 percent of the truth. The gospel is full of things the Prophets or Apostles were commanded not to write down. Gichin Funakoshi got as did the greatest wise men of the world. I know this was just a joke please take no offense

[john4truth]

23 hours ago, Vort said:

I disbelieve this. I submit that every divorcée, and for that matter divorcé -- heck, everyone -- has things to repent of.

Ok you are right, but I think you know what I meant. It is funny half of the comments say there is no discrimination divorcees can be made bishops, the other half says we need to accept the fact that a divorcee can not be a bishop. Both sides feel they have sufficient evidence. This is my point that apparently this is an item of confusion among the brethren which is normal we are only people.

[john4truth]

My work is done I can die in peace LOL. Reopening this old thread proved the need for everyone to love and respect divorcees, and the need for someone in leadership to remove the blocking of brothers or sisters because they are divorced. Just because you are divorced you should not be a bishop. I just do not believe Jesus would called Saul using if our modern mindset was correct.

 It is funny half of the comments say there is no discrimination divorcees can be made bishops, the other half says we need to accept the fact that a divorcee can not be a bishop. Both sides feel they have sufficient evidence. This is my point that apparently this is an item of confusion among the brethren which is normal we are only people. I do think in many cases of what the Church calls innocent divorcees it should be wiped from their records and from the minds of the brethren. The fact that this is an old thread indicates this is an old problem that has never been resolved only talked about until people were tired of debating.

[zil]

41 minutes ago, john4truth said:

23 hours ago, Vort said:

Sorry, guys, but you are mistaken. A divorcée cannot be a bishop under any circumstance. That's simply the way it is.

(Though to be fair, it has nothing to do with her divorced status. Even women who have never divorced can't be bishops.)

Sorry this is why this thread is opened back up. I know and M Russell Nelson said , Many divorcees have been bishops.

What you are saying is what needs to stop, Even leaders above Bishops are misinformed. The quote given in response to the question by the General Bishopric is that divorcee is not an unforgivable sin. At the same time you say they can't, I have others arguing no one has ever said they can't. Both opinions think I am ignorant. I am a ill old man but if you disagree you have not researched this.

Dude, read the fine print (which I've changed to bold and large print) in the post you quoted.  "Divorcée" is a WOMAN.  Women aren't bishops.  "Divorcé" is a man.

[Vort]

47 minutes ago, john4truth said:

Many divorcees have been bishops

Not so. In the history of the restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in fact in the history of the Lord's kingdom, there never has been and never will be a divorcée bishop. It cannot happen, because of the nature of Priesthood and women.

EDIT: @zil preempted me.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Vort

[zil]

Just now, Vort said:

Not so. In the history of the restoration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in fact in the history of the Lord's kingdom, there never has been and never will be a divorcée bishop. It cannot happen, because of the nature of Priesthood and women.

FYI, the dictionary has given up on us understanding the finer points of words adopted from French and now considers "divorcee" to just be a divorced person, rather than divorced woman.  I know, sad state of affairs.  Hopefully, the world will end soon.