- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There are a few policies that have puzzled me over the years. On the surface, policy can seem puzzling, but when you get into the reasons behind it, it can make sense. Other times, it continues to make no sense from the perspective of a reasonable person. Here they are.
1. Divorced men can’t be Bishops.
What is the rationale for this? If you have a previously divorced man, but who is now in a stable temple marriage, why can’t he be a Bishop? Particularly if his membership record is not annotated?
2. If once divorced, and wanting a second temple marriage — all this disclosure about the previous divorce. I understand there is a recap of past sins as they related to the divorce.
I don’t understand why a man who wants to get married in the temple a second time, after being divorced, has to go through everything he did in his previous marriage that led to the divorce as part of his interview and approval process. I knew someone who had to go through that process and he was not impressed. He found it a miserable experience — a blight on his fresh start with his new wife.
3. We can’t have a sign at he front of the chapel.
Other churches draw members by advertising upcoming events in hopes of attracting the public. Why can’t we? There is a rule against it, I understand.
I’ll take a stab: 1a) Wrong or right, church authorities probably feel like a man that has been divorced shouldn’t be in a position to advise other couples.
1b) There are lots and lots of men in the church to chose from that have never been divorced. Supply and demand. When the supply is high enough they can get real picky about qualifications.
2) Outside of people that have sealing restrictions, I don’t know. Maybe a way to find out whether someone abused their spouse so they can protect another person from being abused? I’d have to see the policy. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was an additional step that was added to make triply sure that someone isn’t trying to pull a polygamy scam.
3) I didn’t even know this rule existed. Me? I’d put up the sign and wait for someone to thump the rule book.
SilentDawning wrote:1. Divorced men can’t be Bishops.
I am not sure this policy makes any sense…
But I love it and whole-heartedly support it and hope it never goes away!!
Divorce has been a great blessing in my life. This is one of the blessings…peace of mind I won’t ever have to worry about such a responsibility. Yay!
:thumbup: My guess is, there aren’t protesting groups trying to change this policy. But more guys like me that are totally fine with it.
SilentDawning wrote:2. If once divorced, and wanting a second temple marriage — all this disclosure about the previous divorce. I understand there is a recap of past sins as they related to the divorce.
This one I think has some good meaning behind it. Someone being abusive or not paying child support or living up to obligations to a former spouse should make things right before being considered worthy.
I also think that in divorce…there is a lot of bitterness that often exists. It is common for a spouse to go to bishops or SPs and tell stories of what that person did to them, why the marriage broke down, why there are hard feelings. It is good for the bishop or SP to have the story straight from the man to consider in handling situations.
I think it is a fair question.
I see the policies around asking for a former spouse to give approval for canceling sealings puzzling. If they are divorced…why would it matter what they think. THey are divorced and no longer should have a say in what their former spouse does now with their life. Especially when so many situations end up with “The Lord will figure it out”. Just let people get sealed if they want. Hope for goodness and happiness. Policies and trying to make a process that doesn’t make sense is silly to me. I’m sure the 1st Presidency have more important things to do with their time than approve these situations.
The “divorced men can’t be bishops” rule is not hard and fast. SPs are reluctant to submit a divorced man to be bishop because it will probably be turned down, but as was said in another reply, it is supply and demand. I was not the first choice of my SP to be bishop. Another man was submitted and he was rejected by SLC due to a past (over 20 years) divorce. He became my counselor instead. But there are divorced men as bishops, just not generally. I wouldn’t lay that just on church authorities necessarily (#1). I can’t imagine most TBM’s reacting favorably to a bishop they knew was divorced if they go in for council. That’s just reality. Heber – Does it say bishopric or just bishop? You could still serve as a counselor.
🙂 On #2, I’m not sure what the real purpose is here. If someone was abusive or not paying child support, etc like Heber said I would think either
1) that person isn’t the type or person trying to get re-sealed anyways.
2) If they are then they will just lie and say whatever makes them look good in the letter. It’s just a personal recounting after all.
Seems like a way to just dredge up the past that you’d rather forget.
#1 – Skipping. When a Woman becomes Sunday School President then we can discuss Bishop Balance. Plenty of divorced guys get leadership without being Bishop. #2- I’ve seen women stuck in the same space. Husbands get remarried but the blame for the divorce lands her way and she can’t get her permission to move on in life. The sealing deal is deeply painful for everyone.
#3- Rule or not I love not having a sign. I am annoyed by the signs outside of other churches. Have been since they began. We aren’t a movie Marquee. In my area I see more churches having to fill the sign with clever quotes to fill it up.
My personal rule frustration is why our are buildings locked all the time. I understand the logistics of why, but I love being able to drive up to any other church, at any given time and the door is always open. The sanctuary available. I wish we could have that.
mom3 wrote:#1 – Skipping. When a Woman becomes Sunday School President then we can discuss Bishop Balance. Plenty of divorced guys get leadership without being Bishop.
#2- I’ve seen women stuck in the same space. Husbands get remarried but the blame for the divorce lands her way and she can’t get her permission to move on in life. The sealing deal is deeply painful for everyone.
#3- Rule or not I love not having a sign. I am annoyed by the signs outside of other churches. Have been since they began. We aren’t a movie Marquee. In my area I see more churches having to fill the sign with clever quotes to fill it up.
My personal rule frustration is why our are buildings locked all the time. I understand the logistics of why, but I love being able to drive up to any other church, at any given time and the door is always open. The sanctuary available. I wish we could have that.
Not to get off topic but my wife was SS secretary for over a year and then a new SS President was called and he kept the same people but then after a month or two he released her because he said he was reading the manual and when it talks about the calling it only refers to a “he”. I have no idea why those callings need to be filled by males.
:crazy: Wasn’t BY divorced from one of his wives? The rule doesn’t make much sense to me.
My 1st wife divorced me right after we were baptized.
It was painful to go through. It gave me empathy for others that go through it.
It was the 2nd best thing she ever did for me. My daughter was the 1st.
unsure wrote:Heber – Does it say bishopric or just bishop? You could still serve as a counselor.
🙂
curse you, unsure!:lolno: Minyan Man wrote:It was the 2nd best thing she ever did for me. My daughter was the 1st.
:thumbup: Well said.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.