What makes a bishop?

[Bini]

I'm not a member anymore but here and there questions pop-up in my head that I wonder about. I think this forum remains a safe place to ask those questions.

 

What makes a bishop?

 

Here are some things I understand to be requirements for becoming a bishop. First is to be male and second is to be an endowed member. I have heard/read the term "strong preference" for other things, like marriage, but ultimately that seems to be just that - preference. If anyone can verify otherwise, that clears my next question up. My next question is this: Is it possible for a member who identifies as a gay man, but who lives the gospel as an active member and does not engage in a same-sex relationship, to be eligible and even be appointed as a bishop?

[Guest MormonGator]

Great question on the same sex issue. I have no idea. Personally do I have a problem with it? Nope. My issue would be "was he given the bishop job just because he has SSA, or was he truly qualified?"

 

I think judgement makes a bishop. Does he make good decisions? Does he have a strong testimony in the gospel? Does he look like a "traditional mormon" or can he appeal and make the gospel sound good (without watering down the doctrine) to those who might not otherwise be interested? 

Edited July 12, 2015 by MormonGator

[yjacket]

What makes a Bishop?  Simple answer; God.

 

God calls whom He will and many men are called to be a Bishop but only a few will be in the right position at the right time to be chosen as a Bishop.

[yjacket]

Not so simple answer. Unless things have changed in the past 10 years or so all Bishops (3000+) must be approve by the 1st Presidency). It doesn't mean that some Bishops will do horrible things after being called or that they are perfect or that mistakes don't happen. But I ultimately trust that those things in error will be corrected in time.

 

This is one of the reasons why we are asked to sustain and members have the opportunity to not sustain a newly called Bishop and voice their concerns to the proper authorities of reasons why they could not sustain him.

 

Things might have changed but 10+ years ago being married wasn't just a recommendation it was a requirement. I'm sure it happens, but I have never had a Bishop who has not been married; I could see instances where a Bishop is not married due to recently becoming a widow, etc. However, Dallin H. Oaks was 65 when his first wife passed away and he remarried at 67; I'd say being married when in leadership positions within the church is extremely important. 

[askandanswer]

I'm not sure if the quotes below are actually official doctrine, but certainly I have heard them referred to many times in talks given by General Authorities on the question of the qualifications to be a bishop. 

 

Titus 1:7

 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

 

1st Timothy 3:2

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

[yjacket]

Personally, I believe someone who identifies as a homosexual has a mental disorder, I do not believe that they are "born that way".

 

I doubt someone who is openly homosexual would be chosen; I just can't see the set of circumstances that would lead that to occur, with so many other good men and their families out there. I just don't see it happening . . .especially when to % of the population who are homosexual is really low.

Edited July 12, 2015 by yjacket

[Bini]

Being familiar with Mormon culture, I would agree that the scenario would be rare, assuming there is no barring against a righteous member who identifies as a gay man becoming a bishop. I also know that by tradition, bishops are married, but just didn't see anything that stated it as mandatory.

 

I realise, too, that a bishop is a position that needs the rapport of the people he's serving. So the idea of someone that identifies differently (LGBT) but lives righteously, is likely to still bother a lot of people, especially since overall the LDS Church is generally made up of conservative bodies. That said, I know that there are righteous Mormons who lean liberal (some on this forum :) ) that wouldn't blink if a gay man were appointed as a bishop.

 

Still...I doubt how one identifies is a question brought up in interviews. Could be wrong but that would mean their identity would remain private and unknown.

[David13]

I like the idea that God makes a Bishop.  And God doesn't make anyone homosexual.  They make that themselves.  No, they are not born that way.

No one is born homo or heterosexual.  You learn it and grow into it and develop it.

It's just that we now live in a perverse society.

I think the scriptural quote mentions, must be married.  Sounds good to me.

To me the Bishop must talk the talk, but also, importantly, walk the walk.  That means live the family lifestyle.  He must be a good example.  Of what to be.  Not of what not to be.

 

He has to be a man of good character.  And live the character.

dc

[Bini]

This isn't starting a debate on my part but I'll say once, I disagree, people are born either heterosexual or homosexual.

I'd like to stay on topic regarding "what makes a bishop" in further discussion.

[David13]

Well, it is the topic, isn't it?  It was in your original post.

dc

[Capitalist_Oinker]

I have heard/read the term "strong preference" for other things, like marriage, but ultimately that seems to be just that - preference. If anyone can verify otherwise, that clears my next question up. My next question is this: Is it possible for a member who identifies as a gay man, but who lives the gospel as an active member and does not engage in a same-sex relationship, to be eligible and even be appointed as a bishop?

 

In order for a man to serve as a bishop he must be married. If a man is divorced or widowed while serving as a bishop he will be released as soon as it is feasible to do so. The First Presidency always has the option of making exceptions but I know of no credible examples. 

 

As for a gay man serving as a bishop, I believe the above answers that question.

[Str8Shooter]

In order for a man to serve as a bishop he must be married. If a man is divorced or widowed while serving as a bishop he will be released as soon as it is feasible to do so. The First Presidency always has the option of making exceptions but I know of no credible examples. 

 

As for a gay man serving as a bishop, I believe the above answers that question.

Ditto. A bishop must be married to one wife. It's in the scriptures in Timothy.

[priesthoodpower]

I have seen in a small ward where the Bishop was chosen because there really was no other better candidates available. Not that the person chosen was bad or anything but maybe he was called so that he could improve on his own spiritual growth/maturity? After two years of refinement he continues to be a humble and faithful servant.

Edited July 13, 2015 by priesthoodpower

[Blackmarch]

I'm not a member anymore but here and there questions pop-up in my head that I wonder about. I think this forum remains a safe place to ask those questions.

 

What makes a bishop?

 

Here are some things I understand to be requirements for becoming a bishop. First is to be male and second is to be an endowed member. I have heard/read the term "strong preference" for other things, like marriage, but ultimately that seems to be just that - preference. If anyone can verify otherwise, that clears my next question up. My next question is this: Is it possible for a member who identifies as a gay man, but who lives the gospel as an active member and does not engage in a same-sex relationship, to be eligible and even be appointed as a bishop?

if the spirit says yes, then yes.

[Just_A_Guy]

There have been unmarried bishops in LDS history (my great-grandfather being one of them).  That said--yes, the preference is certainly that they be married.

[NightSG]

If a man is divorced or widowed while serving as a bishop he will be released as soon as it is feasible to do so.

 

I suspect this is more of a matter of letting him deal with his own issues without the added burden of everyone else's than an actual requirement.

 

That said, I can't imagine anyone wanting that added responsibility during even a relatively amicable divorce, so I'd expect most released in that situation requested it themselves.

 

Then, from the standpoint of a member, our former bishop lost his brother suddenly; it was hard to consider any of my issues to be worth bothering him with for the next several weeks.

[Backroads]

I once heard the bishop was preferred to have some status in the community. Important job, time to devote, etc.

Lost that belief when I found out the reason some kids in my Jr high ignored all authority but the janitor ' s was because the janitor was a local bishop. Very weird for 13 - year-old me to visit another ward and see the janitor in a nice suit sitting in the bishop's spot. I know moat consider that a "duh" situation but I recall it being a turning point for me. And of course keeping a school from being destroyed by teenagers is an important job.

[Guest MormonGator]

I once heard the bishop was preferred to have some status in the community. Important job, time to devote, etc.

Lost that belief when I found out the reason some kids in my Jr high ignored all authority but the janitor ' s was because the janitor was a local bishop. Very weird for 13 - year-old me to visit another ward and see the janitor in a nice suit sitting in the bishop's spot. I know moat consider that a "duh" situation but I recall it being a turning point for me. And of course keeping a school from being destroyed by teenagers is an important job.

 I think the church does many things correctly, and this is one of them. Having the bishop be a "regular guy" with a job (any job really, blue collar or not) helps the other members open up to him. 

You can say "Hey Bishop, I'm having trouble making ends meet, my wife is worried, the kids are driving me crazy" and he can say "I know what you mean brother X. I've been there" And a woman can say "Bishop my husband is being a pain in the butt, can you talk to him?" 

It's important for the leadership of the church to real life, practical experience. 

I've been so blessed, the two bishops I've had have been wonderful. 

[Vort]

I once heard the bishop was preferred to have some status in the community. Important job, time to devote, etc.

Lost that belief when I found out the reason some kids in my Jr high ignored all authority but the janitor ' s was because the janitor was a local bishop. Very weird for 13 - year-old me to visit another ward and see the janitor in a nice suit sitting in the bishop's spot. I know moat consider that a "duh" situation but I recall it being a turning point for me. And of course keeping a school from being destroyed by teenagers is an important job.

 

My mother's life was spared due to the Priesthood administrations of a bishop who later became a stake president, and who earned his living as a janitor. He was a humble man in every sense, whose importance to my family can hardly be overstated. I tend to have little patience with the worship of money or worldly status or educational degrees sometimes displayed by Saints. I don't pretend my impatience is a virtue, but that's how I feel.

[Vort]

My next question is this: Is it possible for a member who identifies as a gay man, but who lives the gospel as an active member and does not engage in a same-sex relationship, to be eligible and even be appointed as a bishop?

 

Of course it's possible. Likely? No. But possible. He would have to be someone like Josh Weed, i.e. married to a woman.

 

Things might have changed but 10+ years ago being married wasn't just a recommendation it was a requirement. I'm sure it happens, but I have never had a Bishop who has not been married; I could see instances where a Bishop is not married due to recently becoming a widow, etc. However, Dallin H. Oaks was 65 when his first wife passed away and he remarried at 67; I'd say being married when in leadership positions within the church is extremely important. 

 

Currently (so my leaders have told me), marriage is an absolute requirement for being a bishop. There may have been past exceptions, just as JAG's great-grandfather, but in general this has always been the case. As others have pointed out, Paul taught this quite clearly.

 

This isn't starting a debate on my part but I'll say once, I disagree, people are born either heterosexual or homosexual.

 

An amazingly naive opinion, that something as layered and unfathomably complex as sexual response would be thought to be an immutable inborn trait, such as eye color or predisposition to diabetes.

 

The homosexual lobby is filled with liars who are well compensated to make such ridiculous claims and get people to believe them. We would do well to exercise a bit of discretion and God-given common sense in such matters.

 

There have been unmarried bishops in LDS history (my great-grandfather being one of them).  That said--yes, the preference is certainly that they be married.

 

Did your great-grandfather ever marry?

 

No, never mind. I don't want to know.

[NightSG]

Currently (so my leaders have told me), marriage is an absolute requirement for being a bishop.

 

To be called as bishop, of course, but I'm still curious if being widowed after being called would actually disqualify him.  As I said before, I can't see anyone wanting to deal with everyone else's problems while grieving the loss of a spouse, so I would expect him to request a release, but some people handle things differently.  My grandfather, for example, seemed to be able to put all but the worst of his own pain on hold, and appeared to welcome the opportunity to do so, to deal with other pressing issues.  He made many of grandma's funeral arrangements with his usual poker face and flat intonation that would make Ben Stein look hyperactive, hosted a couple of memorials at the house, then disappeared for several days after the funeral to grieve alone.  Someone like that might do well as bishop even immediately after such an event, but he was a rare (and unfortunately rarer every year) sort.

Edited July 13, 2015 by NightSG

[Finrock]

Being familiar with Mormon culture, I would agree that the scenario would be rare, assuming there is no barring against a righteous member who identifies as a gay man becoming a bishop. I also know that by tradition, bishops are married, but just didn't see anything that stated it as mandatory.

 

I realise, too, that a bishop is a position that needs the rapport of the people he's serving. So the idea of someone that identifies differently (LGBT) but lives righteously, is likely to still bother a lot of people, especially since overall the LDS Church is generally made up of conservative bodies. That said, I know that there are righteous Mormons who lean liberal (some on this forum :) ) that wouldn't blink if a gay man were appointed as a bishop.

 

Still...I doubt how one identifies is a question brought up in interviews. Could be wrong but that would mean their identity would remain private and unknown.

 

Hi Bini! :)

 

Well, in Timothy it states that a bishop must be a husband of one wife. So, being married is a requirement for being a bishop, not just a tradition.

 

-Finrock

[Just_A_Guy]

Did your great-grandfather ever marry?

 

No, never mind. I don't want to know.

 

Yeah, he married my great-grandmother about two years later and they immediately moved a thousand miles away.  Just in the last few months, we figured out why they moved:  Turns out, the wedding certificate copies kept in old family scrapbooks had been doctored, and the pair was in fact married a year later than our family had believed.  We now know that Great grandma was actually nearly five months pregnant at the time of their (temple) wedding. 

 

And now you know why the Church no longer calls single men to serve as bishops.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

LALALALALALALAHAPPYJOYFULSMILESLALALAICAN'THEEEEEEARYOULALALALALALA

[Maureen]

...We now know that Great grandma was actually nearly five months pregnant at the time of their (temple) wedding. 

 

 

My Dad's philosophy in cases like these, is that the first baby can come any time - 3 weeks after the wedding or 10 years. It's always the 2nd 3rd, etc babies that usually take 9 months.

 

For my paternal grandparents, my uncle in fact came 3 weeks after the wedding and for my maternal grandparents, my mother came 5 months after the wedding. :)

 

M. 

Edited July 14, 2015 by Maureen