Aphrodite Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 sorry canuck, you're not off the hook yet! In fact the young men (of whom my Dad is president) seem to think my Dad would make a great Bishop. No where is safe!!!! Watch this space.....lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 There is nothing in the General handbook that precludes any divorce member from holding a official position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Darn, you mean I can still be called to high level positions? I was hoping I was free and clear!!! I'm divorced yet I have a Temple recommend. So that one is gone as well. As stated earlier, you need to be up to date on support payments to keep it though. One of the questions [support] that is always asked for those who attend the temple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutgallery Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 So, my conclusion of this thread is that no, it does not matter if a person has been divorced or not in relation to what callings they hold. Our last bishop was a divorcee and my Dad is divorced and it has not stopped him holding leadership callings or having a temple recommend. Unless you lie like my ex BIL. He has never made one CS payment since they seperated in 2002 yet he has no problems keeping his temple recommend. My father even wrote a letter to the stake president to let them know. They took his recommend away, but he promptly filed a motion in court to have his CS reduced. He showed the Bishop and SP the paperwork on it and said it was all being taken care of and the immediately gave him a new recommend. The case was thrown out of course, but now he has his Bishop and SP convinced that my sister is just trying to cause problems. I really wish that our leaders were willing to follow up but but I know it takes time and they are busy. I think I would be sick if I ran into him in the temple though. Not paying CS is one of his minor offenses. His long term affair was also ignored by church leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Unforunately, this is why a Bishop needs to use his key: The Spirit of Discernment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 i feel for you peanut gallery. I am well aware that church leaders turn a blind eye to problems, especially when it concerns 'a priesthood holder'. It looks bad on the church if they 'sin'. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, one member of the stake presidency refused my dad a temple recommend (in time for my wedding) without even asking him a single question. He did not agree with divorce and that was that. My Dad saw the stake president who DID ask him the questions and he got one in time for my wedding. Not worth the hassle in my opinion. Leaders can have their own agenda, separate from that of the church. It sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 If there is a problem of those who are 'turning a blind eye', then something needs to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutgallery Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 i feel for you peanut gallery. I am well aware that church leaders turn a blind eye to problems, especially when it concerns 'a priesthood holder'. It looks bad on the church if they 'sin'.Of course there are exceptions to the rule, one member of the stake presidency refused my dad a temple recommend (in time for my wedding) without even asking him a single question. He did not agree with divorce and that was that. My Dad saw the stake president who DID ask him the questions and he got one in time for my wedding. Not worth the hassle in my opinion. Leaders can have their own agenda, separate from that of the church. It sucks. I think that sometimes they just figure it isn't worth the hassle. By the time my exBIL's affair came out, he was already in the process of divorcing my sister and engaged to his gf. He denied the affair even though it was kind of obvious since they were married the day the divorce was final. He moved to a new area and it was never mentioned again. The CS just makes me crazy though. I have to admit he is a very cunning man and very convincing. No one in our family ever thought anything bad about him until he left my sister so I can totally see how his leaders would believe everything he says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanutgallery Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 If there is a problem of those who are 'turning a blind eye', then something needs to be done.My family did what they thought was right by informing his SP. He decided to ignore it so there's not much more anyone can do. In the end it is BIL's salvation that is at stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilered Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 My family did what they thought was right by informing his SP. He decided to ignore it so there's not much more anyone can do. In the end it is BIL's salvation that is at stake.You are absolutely correct. In the end our own words and deeds will convict us. Gods plan is a wonderful and fair plan and by design, will bring final justice to those who dare mock him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew777 Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Is the child support and alimony question about following the 'law of the land' or do they actually think family courts hand down fair judgements from God or some such thing? Do they ask the mothers a question like, "Do you do everything you can to make it easy for the father of your children to see his children?", probably not, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBirchSociety Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Actually, if you have been divorced you can't be the presiding officer in a Quorum or Pesidency.Do you have a reference for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnBirchSociety Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 It wont. If they are married in the temple after cancellation of sealing there is no calling that he cannot be called to. My son is married to a good lady who is a divorcee and has not been told that he is ineligable for any calling. There are some limits on temple callings. You can not be called to work in the temple for 5 years after a divorce. All divorces must be cleared with the Stake President before a new temple reccomend can be issued. Marrying a divorcee has no effect on the person who has never had a divorce other than if the other partner was married in the Temple. In that case they cannot be married in the temple until the Temple Marriage has been annulled.Larry PWhat's the source of the "5 Year" prohibition that you mention? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenamarie Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Is the child support and alimony question about following the 'law of the land' or do they actually think family courts hand down fair judgements from God or some such thing?Do they ask the mothers a question like, "Do you do everything you can to make it easy for the father of your children to see his children?", probably not, eh?One of the questions is if there is anything in your home and family life that is in out of occordance with Gospel teachings. I would say denying your children access to one of their parents would fall under that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilered Posted May 12, 2008 Report Share Posted May 12, 2008 Is the child support and alimony question about following the 'law of the land' or do they actually think family courts hand down fair judgements from God or some such thing?Do they ask the mothers a question like, "Do you do everything you can to make it easy for the father of your children to see his children?", probably not, eh?Keep in mind the 12th Article of Faith: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers,and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, nd sustainin the law.So, yes we do believe in honoring the courts decisions conerning child support and alimony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HEthePrimate Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 I've known a number of EQPs and bishopric counselors who were single, as well as a high councilman. As far as I know, one has to be married only for positions like bishop or stake pres., which makes sense if they're going to counsel couples about marital issues (unlike your typical EQP or high councilman).I also knew a President of the Church who was single... (Well, ok, I didn't know him personally, but he was widowed a while after I was widowed, so I felt a certain empathy and connection with him.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Username-Removed Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 There is nothing that I have seen nor heard from my Branch President that would automatically preclude me (being a divorced man) from any leadership position. I think they would Prefer a married man in some leadership positions, but I dont believe there is anything that would hinder me from having those callings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Only remarks you will find it for, is Bishops and Stake Presidents, from the general handbook to be married. However, that is still doesn't preclude any person from being divorsed in not receiving a First President approval as a worthy replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Username-Removed Posted May 16, 2008 Report Share Posted May 16, 2008 Only remarks you will find it for, is Bishops and Stake Presidents, from the general handbook to be married. However, that is still doesn't preclude any person from being divorsed in not receiving a First President approval as a worthy replacement. Thats fine with me! I dont think I can handle being married and being a bishop at the same time! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.