- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Background: Three couples I have known.
First couple met with the bishop and discussed their marriage. Husband wanted out. Husband then spends the next 10 years announcing that he has only stayed “because the bishop tells me I have to”.
Second couple is always in crisis. Bishop is on speed dial to mediate everything. EVERYTHING.
Third couple had some tough issues and they did a lot of marriage counseling. They never told anyone about their issues and counseling. When they decided to divorce, they met with the bishop to let him know when the divorce would be final and what day wife would need help with kids while she loaded the truck.
I was raised to approach bishops with the third approach. My parents taught that bishops were mostly administrative in their duties. While they had ecclesiastical duties, it was best to bother bishops as little as possible. Individuals were supposed to handle most things themselves.
This week as I am questioning many of the beliefs I was raised with, I started thinking about bishops. I never really talk to bishops or SPs. TR interviews were always done in a few minutes. Tithing settlement. “We’re good”. Questions about needing help? I’ve always had everything handled. I have never considered them the enemy, but I am realizing that I was raised to never consider them a resource either. I was raised to avoid them as much as possible. I have never talked to my bishop about my FC, I just passed him in the hall and said, “Hey, no new callings for a while. Thanks.”
Question:
What are the normal times and circumstances that include talking to your bishop? I know what I was raised with, but I don’t know what is “normal and expected”.
amateurparent wrote:What are the normal times and circumstances that include talking to your bishop?
Whenever you feel like you need their help. I don’t mean to be too simplistic but that’s my answer.
—
Couple one is a little foreign to me. Staying “because the bishop tells me I have to” sounds like a justification, I’m sure the husband has other reasons.
I think every ward has a few couple twos. If I had to guess I’d say that it mirrors those studies people do on natural resource usage, 15% of the people use 80% of the resources (or whatever the numbers are). I’m sure these types test the bishop’s patience.
Couple three is probably most common. I try to refrain from the word “normal” since I believe all of the cases are normal and to be expected, otherwise they wouldn’t exist.
—
Going back to my short answer. In each case the bishop was only engaged to fill some sort of void. A bishop provided the husband with a reason to stay with his wife. A bishop was there to remind a couple to brush their teeth before they go to bed. A bishop was there to help meet a temporal need.
amateurparent wrote:
Question:What are the normal times and circumstances that include talking to your bishop? I know what I was raised with, but I don’t know what is “normal and expected”.
Elder Cook from Q12 recently spoke to bishops and stake presidents in my area about this topic. He said that the church is losing bishops at a high rate after release – my assumption is because of burn out and marital problems (from burn out). He explicitly assigned stake presidents to educate their stakes about how bishops should be used and what they can delegate. He spoke for an hour about it which impressed me. Elder Cook explained that as a church we put too much importance on bishops and that it will take generations to change expectations.
Bishops are given 4 titles at ordination: bishop, presiding high priest, president of priests quorum, common judge in Israel. The short answer is that if the issue doesn’t involve one of those things it can be delegated to a counselor, EQ president, RS president, or even someone with experience in the area in question.
Temple recommends, general counseling, marital counseling, church welfare, and doctrinal questions not only can be but should go to another person besides the bishop. Worthiness, youth problems, administration, ward finances should go through the bishop.
Candidly, I dislike counseling adults about marital problems or financial problems. 95% of the time I refer marital problems immediately to a professional counselor and I refer financial counseling to my EQ or RS president. My view is that they are adults, they’ve made their bed, they already know the right answer but often don’t want to do it, and should figure it out. My experience is that adults rarely listen to their bishop’s advice but that they want emotional support.
In other churches where the clergy are professionally trained (for the most part), ministers are trained counselors. I think many carry that over when they join the LDS church or just expect that because other ministers do it ours should. It does seem to be part of the LDS culture. Fact is bishops are mostly poorly equipped to do any kind of counseling (unless their work outside the church has prepared them for that). Were I a bishop I would recommend outside professional marriage counseling or other appropriate counseling and if there was a question of ability to pay I would pay through fast offerings. I have actually thought about this – I probably won’t be a bishop (I have baggage) but if I were I would not have standard Sunday or Wednesday evening appointment times and I’d make it clear that I’m not a counselor. I think I would go home on Sunday just like everybody else – if I did have a list no Sunday meetings beyond the block would be keeping the Sabbath for me. I wish Elder Cook would come here and do that RR. I think it’s a major issue, and I only recently became aware of a former SP counselor who has totally gone off the deep end. I generally think we expect too much of most leaders (male and female) in the church in respect to time and time away from their families. Fewer/shorter meetings would help.
So in your three scenarios I can see the first one happening by old school rules. I’m not sure what handbook 1 says these days but not all that long ago it said bishops should never tell someone to divorce (which could be interpreted two ways – either everyone should stay married or it prevents bishops from giving bad advice/counseling). Perhaps bishop 1 was just doing what he thought he understood to be church policy. As a bishop I wouldn’t tolerate scenario 2, and that bishop shouldn’t either – he got himself into a mess. As a bishop I’d almost appreciate scenario three and I would offer the moving assistance (and other assistance if needed).
So, were I bishop I’d prefer if you came to me only when you need financial assistance or as part of admin duties only I could do (missionary interviews, first time TR, etc.). I have not ever really talked to any bishop or SP (or even EQP) about any personal issues unless they have asked – and even then I don’t elaborate.
I relied on them early in my church experience when I had no money and wanted to serve a mission. Found they were not ablot of help. In fact, a rather harsh hindrance. I have relied on a few for advice on matters with which they have professional expertise, but only in a temporal sense. I honestly see them a people to be approached with caution given their immense power to severely disrupt my life. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Roadrunner wrote:
Elder Cook from Q12 recently spoke to bishops and stake presidents in my area about this topic. He said that the church is losing bishops at a high rate after release – my assumption is because of burn out and marital problems (from burn out). He explicitly assigned stake presidents to educate their stakes about how bishops should be used and what they can delegate. He spoke for an hour about it which impressed me. Elder Cook explained that as a church we put too much importance on bishops and that it will take generations to change expectations.They have been saying this for over 10 years. When I was Bishop a 70 told us the exact same thing. Bishops going inactive after they are released. Bishops getting devoiced after they are released (we have two divorced former bishops in our ward). The 70 also told us to delegate everything but confessions to HPGL, EQP and RSP.
But you never hear that speech during GC. It would go along way to have one of the 12 get up and say the above.
DW and I went to the bishop to help mediate some arguments we were having. Bishop said the following: “Are you still having sex? Anything else you can overcome.” I appreciate that Bishop did not have the proper tools to counsel us and that we put way to much faith in him as our steward – but that little gem was actually quite helpful.
This is why I’ll never be bishop. Say what? That’s why you came in to talk to me? hmm I really have no opinion. That’s something you need to work out yourself. Let me know if you want to be released from your calling or something. Bye.
I think to illustrate some of the (unreasonable) demands on a bishop’s time we can look at the BYU application/admission process as compared to a mission. For a mission, the young person must only meet once with the bishop and once with the stake president and once the call is issued that’s that. Most young people who have prepared themselves only end up meeting with them once each. However, for BYU there’s a meeting before applying (and a letter of recommendation), a meeting after admission for “ecclesiastical endorsement” (agreeing to live the honor code) and another meeting for the same thing prior to actually going to BYU (to make sure nothing changed). I would actually not be surprised if it were the other way around, but I get it – you’re called to serve and you do it, and if something changes you should probably take it upon yourself to say so. To me, worthiness to enter the mission field is more important than worthiness to go to college – yet the bishop is burdened with three interviews and additional paperwork for each applicant to BYU. churchistrue wrote:This is why I’ll never be bishop.
Say what? That’s why you came in to talk to me? hmm I really have no opinion. That’s something you need to work out yourself. Let me know if you want to be released from your calling or something. Bye.
You just said “never.” Expect a call soon!😆 Roadrunner wrote:Elder Cook from Q12 recently spoke to bishops and stake presidents in my area about this topic. He said that the church is losing bishops at a high rate after release – my assumption is because of burn out and marital problems (from burn out). He explicitly assigned stake presidents to educate their stakes about how bishops should be used and what they can delegate. He spoke for an hour about it which impressed me. Elder Cook explained that as a church we put too much importance on bishops and that it will take generations to change expectations.
I belonged to a fairly poverty stricken ward where I think I’m safe in assuming there was a greater percentage of members that stood in need of both temporal and spiritual assistance from ecclesiastical leaders. The calling of bishop in that ward had a strict 3 year duration while other wards in the same stake had the more traditional 6 to 7 year term. I believe that’s how they addressed the issue of burn out. Seriously, I’m sure the BP of that ward had more issues come up in just one year than most BPs deal with during their entire tenure.
I think the philosophy was:
For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
In other words, there will always be those couple #2s that rely more than they should on the bishop. If you help one couple overcome their dependence on the bishop another couple will take their place. The goal is to teach people to rely on more than just the bishop (also pick from the RSP, EQP, HPGL, BP1&2, HT/VT, family, or self) but
someonewill always need the bishop. That stake’s solution to reduce burnout was to shorten the duration of the call. Also it’s nice to have a light at the end of the tunnel. One thing that IMO contributes towards burnout it not knowing when the burden will be eased. Knowing a concrete end date can help people tough out something difficult. I’ve long felt that our ecclesiastic leaders don’t have the resources to do their jobs properly. To make someone your spiritual counselor, your administrative manager, judge in Israel, Father of the Ward on a part-time basis , President of the Aaronic Priesthood (as you turn over 10% of your income) is a disservice to the members. I would love to see the role of Bishop split into three parts — and administrative arm, a welfare person who does nothing but work with financial cases, and a counselor. Then the members might be able to get the service they need. All this doesn’t have to happen at the Ward level either.
Of course, if you suggest anything in the way of organizational structure, compensation for leadership, or any other change to the handbook, you are apostate. Been there, heard that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.