Not sure why this policy exists

[Anonymous]

There are policies related to a man’s marital status that i don’t understand. One is that a divorced person can’t be a Bishop. Also, there are hoops to jump through if you are a divorced person and want to get married in the temple.

Is this simply the church’s way of sending a message that divorce is bad (which by the way, isn’t always true), or is there some other deep meaning I should be getting?

[Anonymous]

There is the Biblical statement that a Bishop must be a man with one wife – which is ironic given our history, but which is used as the foundation of the restriction for Bishops. The temple issue, I believe, is more about making sure the man is fulfilling his responsibilities to former spouses and children than about anything else. I don’t want severe restrictions, but I understand that particular concern. Unfortunately, many policies get written in response to bad apples in the past.

As to other situations, yep, each often is a manifestation of our near worship of the traditional family.

[Anonymous]

SD said:

Quote:

Also, there are hoops to jump through if you are a divorced person and want to get married in the temple.

Does this refer to people who have been married in the Temple, then divorced?

I went through a divorce right after we joined the church. (Not my idea. Her’s)

I met my current wife about 2 years later & we went to the temple. We didn’t have to jump through hoops

for the church. Maybe things have changed since 1972?

[Anonymous]

When I wanted to be sealed to my second wife we had to make application to the First Presidency. It involved forms filled out by the bishop and then a review by the stake president and included the bishop requesting a letter from my first wife about her feelings on the matter. I was told that it could take anywhere from several weeks to a year to hear back with a decision but in my case it took about a month to receive permission to go ahead. Prior to our going ahead my wife requested and received cancellation of her sealing to her first husband. Interestingly though he was excommunicated if he were to be re baptized, my wife’s sealing to her daughters would be cancelled as their sealing to their dad would be part of his blessings when restored. The best people could say in advising her was that God would work it out.

[Anonymous]

The church clearly does support marriage and that’s not a bad thing. Like all good things, though, it can get carried away. I support marriage, too, and I believe in the law of chastity. I believe families are more important than anything (I come from a family that is not close, I have siblings I haven’t seen in years – and they live within driving distance).

That said, I don’t believe in marriage at all costs. I agree, SD, divorce is not always a bad thing and sometimes is a very good thing. There are also those who can’t marry and even though they may be living a celibate lifestyle and are keeping every other temple worthiness rule of the church are denied certain things (even being a seminary teacher).

I do get that one scripture that Ray refers to, but I’m not sure the church follows every word in the Old and New Testaments to the letter like they do that one, which leads me to the same question you have – why have that rule? And clearly, as has been pointed out, the church has not always followed that scripture to the letter because there were bishops who practiced polygamy. So why is it not applicable in that case yet is applicable in other cases? Your question is good, SD – is it to just send a message that marriage is the ideal? Or is there some hidden meaning or agenda?

[Anonymous]

Right or wrong, maybe they see an issue with a person that is divorced being in a position to counsel people going through relationship issues? Maybe the fear is that they will be quicker to advise a couple to consider divorce or maybe the BP’s divorce alone would be a standalone example to a struggling couple.

Quote:

There are policies related to a man’s marital status that i don’t understand.

One that makes me scratch my head is why single men over 30 can’t be temple workers. I know someone that’s in their 50s and has always been single and we will speculate from time to time.

* They don’t want you working at the temple when you could be out there dating someone with that valuable time. Laughable.

* Being a single male is a sin. Doubtful, but there can be an argument made that there are some aspects of the culture that lean that way. I wouldn’t be surprised if the policy was rooted in the stigma created by the culture.

* For the workers that help on the other side of the veil… to preserve some symbolism. What of the workers that help on this side of the veil?

It’s one of those things you roll your eyes at and patiently wait for a change.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

One that makes me scratch my head is why single men over 30 can’t be temple workers.

You might consider that a form of ostracization to gay members of our religion as well. On one hand, they decide to live a celibate life in harmony with the church’s policy on being gay in the church, but then, policy punishes the gay man by not letting him be a temple worker.

My goodness, the more I read and ponder, I see that so much of what we do in the church is based on an egocentric view of our membership — straight, married, with children, extended family are all members, etcetera. So many people get “hurt” in the process.

I also think a divorced person might be more qualified to counsel a couple in marital distress than a single-marriage Bishop. This is because the divorced Bishop may have developed a philosophy of marriage — particularly if they have remarried happily. He will have reflected on the mistakes and dynamics of the first marriage, and may have even received counseling. He would understand the legal process of divorce at some level. He would likely have the voice of experience — and can also give hope to people who get divorced that things can turn around for them eventually — as it did for the remarried Bishop.

Also, one thing that has kept me my in any situation for the long term is a certain uncomfortableness with the future — that if I sell my current home, I won’t find one that I like as much or better. Or if I get out marriage, I won’t find anyone with whom I could be even happier. Having someone in the church counsel chair that could provide that hope might help many people get past that fear, and onto the object and design of our existence — happiness. A divorced and happily remarried Bishop may be just the person to give that hope.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

You might consider that a form of ostracization to gay members of our religion as well.

I had the same thought and was thinking if this was intentional or not.

SilentDawning wrote:

My goodness, the more I read and ponder, I see that so much of what we do in the church is based on an egocentric view of our membership — straight, married, with children, extended family are all members, etcetera. So many people get “hurt” in the process.

So true. We should be watching out for this and doing what we can to help some that feel a bit left out.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

One that makes me scratch my head is why single men over 30 can’t be temple workers. .

If you have a beard or mustache you can’t be a temple or veil worker either. As both bearded and divorced back then they had me coming and going. To be honest I didn’t want to be a temple worker but it bothered me anyway. Now I’m remarried but bearded so still out of luck.

[Anonymous]

Next week is my anniversary of my divorce. People aren’t as celebratory or congratulatory for divorce as they are marriage, except my family who know what I’ve gone through.

Why the policy exists?? I’m sure it is to appease the masses who think it is hypocritical to have a divorced man lead a congregation on a family centered religion. Because others who haven’t experienced some things in life cannot grasp the idea of why divorce sometimes happens…from their viewpoint…there just is not excuse other than the couple gives up and is weak. Hardly a quality of a good leader.

Actually…kinda similar to a faith crisis. Those who haven’t gone through it…don’t understand it and see it as a sign of weakness, and totally preventable, and are sure it would never happen to the faithful. I probably thought that for both divorce and faith crisis before I went through my marital trials, which led to my faith trials.

But…on the bright side…I got to the point, after trying everything to salvage my marriage, that divorce was the lesser of two bad options in my situation. And then to think I will never be called to be bishop?? Woohoo. That wasn’t my incentive…but its a nice perk of being divorced!

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

And then to think I will never be called to be bishop?? Woohoo. That wasn’t my incentive…but its a nice perk of being divorced!

Don’t count your blessings yet. I know two men, one a branch president and the other a bishop and then an area authority seventy that were divorced. And don’t forget Joseph F. Smith (once) and BY (several times).

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

And then to think I will never be called to be bishop?? Woohoo. That wasn’t my incentive…but its a nice perk of being divorced!

Don’t count your blessings yet. I know two men, one a branch president and the other a bishop and then an area authority seventy that were divorced. And don’t forget Joseph F. Smith (once) and BY (several times).

I think it’s more a case of “Divorced and still single.” But I could be wrong on that as well. As for my own experience, all I needed to be married in the Temple after my divorce was my certificate of divorce and a copy of the judgement. But then again, my first marriage was not in the Temple.

My biggest pet peeve about that day was the fact that I couldn’t walk into the Temple wearing the expensive tux that I had rented for the occasion. But I could wear it as we left. Seriously?????

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

But…on the bright side…I got to the point

Thanks for getting to the point Heber. :thumbup: (sorry, couldn’t resist)

[Anonymous]

I’ve reached the conclusion that the people at the top know exactly what they are doing. It’s one thing to create a gospel that entwines marriage with salvation. Given the importance of relationships, and the desire of families to be together forever, I think it is justifiable and at first, desirable to many people.

But when leaders expand the doctrine and policies to include plural marriage, punishment for getting married civilly before you get married in the temple, prohibiting single men from serving as temple workers after they reach 30, and pother policies that send the message “it’s bad to be single” — things change.

I believe firmly now that these policies are there for the internal growth of the church. Brigham Young’s statement that “the single man is a menace to society”, is also a case in point. Those policies and attitudes are there to send the message that everyone should be married, and hopefully, producing children that will fuel the internal membership of the church. As a standalone reason, that reason is insuficient and unsavory I think. But clothed in revelation and doctrine, it becomes more acceptable to the average person (but not me).

I consider it church egocentrism, and many people pay a high price as a result of this doctrine, the policies, and the culture.

[Anonymous]

I believe many policies get started as good ideas and then grow from there.

Was it the prophet that instituted the former policy to only men pray in GC? Did he recieve a revelation on the subject? Was it a decision of some mid-level functionary that grew from there into a tradition. Did it start out as historically appropriate but then become unneccessary as time moved on?

I see many of these policies as growing organically over time and then it takes a minor miracle to change them. 🙄

[Author]

Posts