102 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Indeed, wasn’t Jesus saving most of his ire for Pharisees and Sadducees who had perverted the pure Law with all their extra “unwritten” laws, (like no walking on grass on the Sabbath!). |
Great post DKL. This is one of those things like “Mormon Doctrine” that are poorly named and used to justify a lot of what I consider improper at best and prejudice and wrong at worst behaviors… |
What on earth would be the purpose of an unwritten rule? Why not write it down? |
arj, that’s the paradox of giving a talk about unwritten rules. By giving a talk about them, Boyd Packer has written them down and therefore converted them to written rules. |
DKL, Speaking of which, I think the following paragraph nicely encapsulates the entire talk: A new stake president sometimes will ask, “Must I sit on the stand in every meeting in the stake? May I not sit with my family?” I tell him, “While you preside, you are to sit on the stand.” I am tempted to say, but I don’t, “I can’t have that privilege; why should you?” |
We’ve recently moved into a new ward in ‘the land of Zion’ and the SP is in our ward. He is quite young and has quite a young family. His oldest is 9 and his youngest is about 6 months old. He has 5 children. When he attends our ward he sits on the stand. His wife sits in the congregation and deals with the unruly children (and they’re a wild bunch). Last week as I was observing this I was pondering why there are no women who are expected to sit on the stand the entire meeting. The Chorister and Organist (if they are women) sit on the stand for the first third of the meeting but then join the rest of the congregation, but other than that it is only men. Part of my thinks how lucky they are, but a man like the SP who is already so busy with church meetings would probably welcome the chance to sit with his wife and hold one of his kids for an hour. Heck, even the bishop would probably like that chance. |
Unwritten rules are things that are usually little more than customs. Some customs are noxious to be sure, and should be eliminated (or at least held in proper regard) according to their merits. However, a society without customs would be an impoverished creature indeed, and I object to such a sweeping dismissal of everything that falls in the category. Mormonism is “low church” enough without having to be systematically cleansed of every unlegislated custom and convention. It is a symptom of an overweening legalism to refuse to participate in even trivial measures of respect or order because they haven’t been dictated in some manual somewhere. |
DKL, You are misquoting this talk. And misunderstood what it’s message is. ‘Unwritten rules’ are about following the brethren and your leaders. These rule’s are ‘unwritten’ simply because they just aren’t formally written anywhere: you don’t find them written in any handbook like Church Handbook of Instruction. Its all mostly word of mouth traditions in the church which are passed down the line of authority, from General Authorities to Stake Presidencies to Bishoprics. But they’ll change over time. This one about brethren open and sister closes is probably a left over from Brigham Young’s era, don’t know, but it was a silly rule. Another like having the person conducting the meeting sitting next to the presiding officer is a practical one, sometimes you just need to ask him questions. But as the church grows world wide people change these rules as well as the actual written ones; like here in my ward speakers just sit amongst the congregation until called up to give their talk when the handbook is clear in that they should be seated on the stand 5 minutes before the start of the meeting. Different cultures change these unwritten rules before changing the written ones. But what you wrote here is just plain incorrect: “People refer to Boyd Packer’s talk to site “unwritten rules†when they want to justify their favorite non-doctrinal positions, such as prohibiting women from giving opening prayers in sacrament meeting.” No; I was presiding in my ward when our stake president started insisting on the ‘unwritten rule’ of a man opening and sister closes, because the First Presidency insisted this on him (and there was a letter from them on this) and Elder Packer gave a similar talk in a world wide training meeting. I thought it was wrong because it could be seen as discriminatory by some but we argued over this in Bishopric and concluded that sometimes you just have to obey your line leaders and do what they ask -even when its a silly rule like that one. You need to factor in that the church doesn’t put online all the letters the First Presidency sends out to stake presidents and bishops, sometimes several in a week, so there are things and rules that Bishops follow because they have being told to do so by their leaders and then they pass on that rule to the members. Its not a matter of “defending one’s favourite non-doctrinal view” but willingly doing what our line leaders ask us to do. If you had an apostle preside in your stake, when you’re president, and a sister gives the opening prayer I bet you that the apostle will still ask why and then remind you that its the first presidency who recommends that a priesthood holder open a conference -not just a man- and when this happens you’d just say “Yes, Elder…, we will start doing this”. But if a member asks the apostle the same question he will probably brush them off or refer them to the stake president. They are very pedantic in keeping instructions on running the church limited to those who actually run it. Also this part: is just plain wrong since Packer and all the apostles will instruct leaders directly on any rule they see fit when addressing these leaders. Priestcraft and apostasy are just simply different things. Here when an apostle says: ‘Bishop, this should be done’ then one does that to actually avoid apostasy. |
Carlos – your reasoning breaks down when you remember that the members run the church. Not in a grassroots sort of way, but in an any-worthy-priesthood-wielder-could-be-called-to-be-a-bishop-(or even apostle)-at-any-time sort of way. It is not the |
Didn’t Signature Books publish a bunch of letters from the First Presidency (the kind that gets read in sacrament meetings all the time)? I wish those things were more widely available. I know those statements are not properly the focus of this post, but inasmuch as those statements are not available to the general membership, it could lead to confusion, at the least, and priestcraft and abuse, at the worst. As has been mentioned above, the problem with “unwritten rules” is that they are a kind of black box where you can put anything that you want to make a rule for the Church. When somebody asks you (or a leader) about it, they can just say, “Oh, its one of the unwritten rules.” And that’s it. There is no way to check up on this or verify its truth. |
Well, in the difference between DKL and Carlos we have encapsulated the differences between both the left and the right in the church. The left insists that the church must be reasonable and goes to mind-numbing lengths to show just how reasonable the church is. The right insists that the church is always right and goes to mind-numbing lengths to show just how right the church always is. Of course, I find the left much more appealing, but to be honest, both sides are rather mind-numbing. The church is neither always reasonable nor always right. |
Carlos, if that’s the meaning of the talk, then the talk itself constitutes priestcraft and apostasy, and we must lose no opportunity to say so. The funny thing about all this “follow the prophet” nonsense is that those leaders who have emphasized it most strongly are also the ones who have always made the most exceptions for themselves. Ezra Benson’s talk on following the prophet should have been entitled, “Follow the Prophet, Unless You’re Me.” Ezra Benson did pretty much whatever the hell he wanted to, trying time and again to pass off his John Birch style political eccentricities as though they were the church’s doctrine. Joseph Fielding Smith (who briefly served as church president himself) published his book, Man: His Origin and Destiny, even though he’d been instructed years earlier by Heber Grant not to publish it. Bruce McConkie’s works continue to dog the church to this day, constituting what is probably the single most embarrassing body of work by a church authority, and he was specifically instructed not to re-publish Mormon Doctrine again. angrymormonliberal, perhaps you’ve misread my essay. I’m inveighing against the “unwritten order” and trying to give Packer the benefit of doubt. I personally do not believe that church members (left and right) are not always interested in saying that the church is reasonable or right. But it does concern me that many detractors seem interested in reducing interaction between church members to stereotypes that suit their own prejudices about Mormons. |
I just decided I’m going to make up an unwritten rule and see if I can get people to follow it. A social experiment |
DKL, this is an excellent post. I had a fabulous mission experience, but my MP was awfully fond of invoking sweeping, unwritten rules that he often managed to convince us were binding upon the whole church (or at least all missionaries worldwide). There was nothing wrong with the rules in question–they usually were designed to make sure we worked harder than we were prone to in their absence or hedging up rules of social interaction (against flirting, copulating, returning for a locally grown bride, etc) that were integral to the larger success of the church in the area. My sense, in hindsight, is that it was just easier to blame all the new rules on the prophet rather than take responsibility for them himself. Maybe he sensed that rules that couldn’t be attributed to the prophet(s) were less likely to be followed–and he was surely right in that regard. Remembering these and other examples, and looking at how this seems to operate so often (Carlos’ SP getting a special directive from the FP regarding prayers that evidently most of the rest of the church did not receive), my sense is that the unwritten rules syndrome is part and parcel of the “reduce the entirety of the gospel to following the prophet” syndrome that is slowly asphyxiating the saints. Let me emphatically state here that I firmly believe that Pres Hinckley is the man God wants to be presiding over the affairs of the Church and that I consider it a privilege to listen to his wisdom and witness his example. But subordinating every principle of the great and vast everlasting gospel to fetishizing every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Church president is something that would likely cause Joseph to recalculate his cost-benefit analysis of following the saints to hell. Some leaders want their own personal ideas–inspired or not–to be implemented and followed, but they lack the stones to take responsibility for those ideas by either passing the buck to “the brethren” or invoking the ephemeral “unwritten rules” as some kind of incontestable trump card. |
Great post, DKL. I agree completely. I suspect that a tradition of the “unwritten order of things” persists because people want plausible deniability to be able to continue to observe rules that are otherwise indefensible. The women not giving opening prayers thing is probably the classic example. If we really don’t want women to give the opening prayer in sacrament, then just change the language in the handbook that says men and women may pray in sacrament without distinction. Step up and be a man about it and take the hits for what is rightfully going to be perceived as a silly and divisive policy. But don’t publish a formal, official policy of neutrality and then allow certain GAs to go around in stake leadership meetings touting their own little gospel hobby under the rubric of an “unwritten order of things.” To me the whole concept is absolutely pernicious and, as you rightly say, is an open invitation to apostasy. It should be disavowed forthwith. |
Seeing as that Packer only gave his talk to a very small group of people (relatively speaking), and given the (re)definition of doctrine on lds.org recently, I think it’s fair to say that Packer was offering his opinion, not doctrine. |
I’d just like to report that woman gave the opening prayer at our sacrament meeting today. Another woman gave the closing prayer. No one was struck by lightning. |
I agree with previous comments that “unwritten rules” are the same as non-rules. If they are rules we should follow they should be written. I can understand unwritten rules when there are no written rules. IE. The unwritten rules of my marriage. But when there is a handbook, why not put the rules in there? If it’s an “unwritten rule” then really it’s just someone’s opinion. |
Kevin, very good point. I think it naturally gives rise to this advice: If a GA asks you to do implement a policy that is not in the manual and that you are uncomfortable with it, ask to get the directive in writing. If they won’t do that, then don’t follow it. If you’re lucky, you’ll get released. |
Thanks DKL for a great post. Thanks also to Kevin Barney. You guys expressed so eloquently what I have thought for a while now. |
RainMan #9 That’s a nice argument and sounds reasonable. But once you serve as Bishop or in a Stake Presidency you’ll see for yourself that it is incorrect and that there are many policies which don’t filter down to the membership because there is no real need. Just think of the basic requirements to call a stake president or mission president. Members just don’t realise how detailed it is with regards to who the candidates are to chose from. And there are others. But above all we need to remember that policies aren’t doctrine. Policies are just practices which are subject to change as the leaders change. A good example is that men open women close thing, it seems to be changing after being the norm in most of the world. Also not any-priesthood-holder can be called Bishop or Apostle. Any stake president willing to talk can explain this. |
Actually, Carlos, you’re wrong again. The CHI is available on the internet, along with the details of most memos to bishops and stake president. And enough former stake presidents and bishops have left the church to explain exactly how things work for anyone who wants to search for it online. No matter how much some people in the church would like to put on a man-behind-the-curtain act, the details get out. If it were the Lord’s way to keep this stuff secret, it wouldn’t be at the tip of anyone’s fingers who knows how to use Google. And if you actually knew as much about Google as you claim to about leadership, you’d have learned that it’s not just “changing after being the norm,” but it has been repudiated for some time. |
Brad: #14 “(Carlos’ SP getting a special directive from the FP regarding prayers that evidently most of the rest of the church did not receive)……..”.Really???? I’m in Australia, you guys are all in the US? and Tagore is in, where, Alaska? I think? Well tagore wrote this first: “A couple of months ago I wrote here how women are not allowed to give the opening prayer in sacrament meeting in my ward.” annegb wrote: Obviously more people than just me received this instruction; which is now changing. …… The First Presidency mailed the letter I saw. I’m only giving faith here that there was a letter since I was released ages ago. I’ll see if I can get it back from some friends to prove this since you wont believe just my word. |
CHI is available on the internet? Really, at provocation.net?? That copy is the ’99 one, missed a lot of details, and a new edition is out now, And most memos? Nope they are ‘letters’ in lds lingo not memos. But fine, don’t believe me. But what you wrote is just foolish: “If it were the Lord’s way to keep this stuff secret, it wouldn’t be at the tip of anyone’s fingers who knows how to use Google.” Really, google, its the APOSTATES who have put the entire ‘secret’ temple ceremony online, and DailyMotion has the most detailed one! |
Whether or not the policies “filter down” is unrelated. They are there to be had for the asking. THAT is what is important. And I refuse to believe that those who have been called to Bishopric or Stake Presidency ought to have the smug “I know something you don’t.” That some do, is obvious, but to me that is an indication that they are the ones who do not understand their own callings. And you’ll recall I said any worthy priesthood wielder, not any priesthood holder. There is a significant difference. |
Carlos, I’m not sure what your point is in your preceding comment, except to try to emphasize once again that you know something that other people don’t. When you act this way, it makes Baby Jesus cry. And FYI, Tagore is a middle-aged black man who was born in Cincinnati. He’s partial to strawberry and banana smoothies, and he now worships at a student ward in Guadalajara. You’ll do best not to question his experience. |
DKL: wt…? “it makes Baby Jesus cry” how condescending! And Tagore is in Guadalajara? really, Guadalajara Mexico? But you’re obviously getting personal with this so I’m though with arguing with you. |
I owe you an apology. I’ve found you to be so tiresome that I wrote comment #26 in jest — not a word of it is true, except the part about how you keep insisting you know more than others. |
What gripes me is how easily the men of the church accepted this–none of them said, “Huh?” No offense, you guys, but even my own husband thought it was the eleventh commandment and we have argued about it. I’ve sent more than one man searching the handbook, to no avail, on this issue. |
Carlos # 21: “Also not any-priesthood-holder can be called Bishop or Apostle. Any stake president willing to talk can explain this.” Out of curiosity, please expound. |
DKL: Apology accepted. But if you give me an email address, maybe hotmail one, I can send you some forms and letters that aren’t on provocation.net or mentioned in exmormon.org or similar. It’s not about ‘know more than others’ thing; I’m almost 50 and have seen more than I want to remember now. You can call this ‘know more than others’ but no, its just experience. annegb: I disagree, of course. The eleventh commandment is ‘Thou salt attend meetings after meetings after meetings’. Oh, we did say ‘Huh, what’s wrong with a woman giving the invocation’ thing when we argued this way back when, as I wrote before, but in the end we decided to just do what our leaders asked us to, blindly so for the sake of obedience. |
#30 The requirements are on the form for Bishop/stake couselor. Basically married, wife strong and active in gospel, man never have being divorced, full tith payer for 5 years min, endowed, family OK (no kids ex’d), not being subjected to formal discipline in past 10 years including readmission, stable employment or job, preferably own home for stake…..etc etc. New members won’t be called unless there just isn’t another person eligible. This from what I remember since it has being several years since I saw these forms. Ah, for Bishop, stake president must sign of that he ‘personally knows’ the person. Anyway, your stake president can explain this, or better if you become close friends with stake clerk/exec he can explain more since they talk more! But this is to draw up a list of eligible candidates, then they do pray to decide who to recommend and then first presidency actually decides (or the committee actually -thats another issue though) |
I’m not going to deny any of DKL’s description of me in #26, except the banana smoothies part. That’s just ridiculous. I hate bananas. But he’s right, Carlos. Don’t even think about questioning my experience. Have I made myself clear? |
“But he’s right, Carlos. Don’t even think about questioning my experience. Have I made myself clear?” When did I question your experience? ah, when??? |
There is beauty all a-round, Love on the blog, love on the blog. Time does softly, sweetly glide, |
34. Lighten up, Francis. |
Carlos, #34 is a question. And it appears to be a question about questioning my experience. I’m starting to wonder if you’re asking these kind of questions because I’m black. |
Havin’ fun yet Carlos? It is hard to keep these guys (ok, DKL) on track and unfortunately they resort to insults with some frequency. The whole ‘you better not be messin’ with my buddy and his experience’ really took me back to highschool. Too funny. Now, did anyone provide the www for an online CHI? I have one in Spanish, anyone want to translate it? And I think that book mentioned earlier published by Signature only has first presidency messages and not the week to week directives. Finally, (I’m almost done I swear) I do think it is important to keep all the rules written down and available to all members to keep the leaders on track. |
tiredmormon: It’s at http://www.provocation.net/chi/chi00.htm But note that this copy is old, 99, and who ever put it online missed a few paragraphs. And just for the record, no not having fun here. Just pissed off at both mens misleading comments. |
My last attempt, true, Tagore; you wrote to me in #33: “But he’s right, Carlos. Don’t even think about questioning my experience. Have I made myself clear?” So when did I ‘question’ your experience? (or mentioned anything about race? And are you actually in Guadalajara, as DKL claims? ) It would be nice to know that those with whom I politely exchange opinions with online in a Mormon site have basic integrity, enough to tell the truth and give faith (& enough to at least use their real names, like DKL & Tagore? hey?) |
Carlos, my brother. I have felt that pain. |
tiredmormon: I’d buy you a beer -if I wasn’t a mormon! |
Tagore, I didn’t know you were black. I must have missed that introduction. I actually thought you were a woman. Carlos, DKL has endured more insults (sometimes deserved) than anyone on the bloggernacle. He’s been positively reviled. Oh, but there was the bloggernacle awards this year when Kirt got his butt chewed out by everybody and his dog. I’m going to do a new intro thing, tired, you suck. Because you never answered my e-mails and I tried to get to know you on a real level. And I’ve totally given up interviewing people, no offense, Jamie, you’re terrific, because I’m exhausted from it and you missed your chance, buddy. I mean, tiredmormon, not Jamie. Also the other 20 people who I wanted to interview who promptly left the country and changed their names. You all suck. |
Kirt? whats wrong with just Kirt instead of this hollywood DKL? Tagore is an exec clerk so obviously can’t be a women unless he’s with the reorganized church of christ thing. I still wonder about the Guadalajara thing though, just how much spanish does he know. Anyway better start moving on…. Time does softly, sweetly glide, |
# 16 The doctrine on members of the 12 offering doctrine is that they do not. Doctrine only comes through the current Prophet. Therefore, I would agree. # 14 |
Carlos, “this hollywood DKL”? Dude. Can you elaborate on this? I’m not even sure what that means. Anyway, if all you think is that I’m foolish, then I don’t see why we’re even arguing. You and my wife should go bowling. |
Anne: “He’s been positively reviled.” How is it possible to be “positively reviled?” Are you saying that DKL is reviled in a positive or constructive way? Or are you saying that DKL being reviled is actually, for him, a positive thing? |
Hey DKL -aka Kirt- mate, isn’t it obvious? We should never argue off course, contention is of…… (Ah, regarding the bowling? say…next Saturday night OK? just/kidding) |
Carlos, uhm, I’m not Kirt. Never have been. The other names that I’ve published under are Miranda Park Jones an Arturo Toscanini. Never Kirt. Since you’re wrong about the Kirt thing, I’m suspecting that there are things that are “obvious” to you that are not obvious to me. Once again, please explaine. |
I’m betting Kirt’s insulted. I sort of got called a madam once. I wasn’t all that insulted though. |
OK– I give up. I’m not black. And I like bananas. Just messing with you Carlos Cordoba. You can go ahead and question my experience if you want. |
I was thinking “I don’t recall that person was black….I’m so senile, I am truly losing my brain cells…:) |
annegb,
Dang, and I was waiting patiently back stage. :( |
oh anne, you are the cat’s pajamas, you know that? I set up that email for the sole purpose of communicating with you. I didn’t hear from you in a while and stopped checking it and then lost the password. It seems you deem my offense worthy of blood atonement (which it may be) but I am gonna email you again anyways… |
Tagore, are you calling me a liar? |
Every time I e-mailed you, it came back to me that it was closed, no lie. Now I feel bad for saying “you suck.” No, I suck. LOL I’m going to set up a thing here for us to get to know new people. Dan, you are no longer new :) you’re one of us and we all know you. Plus a lot of the internet LOL. |
I guess with this being my 662nd comment here on Mormon Mentality, you would know me fairly well by now. :) |
Kirt (55), are you questioning my experience? |
For those who don’t know Dan, let me introduce him. He’s a very conservative Republican, deeply enamored with George Bush. Also, he wishes that we wouldn’t just stop in Iraq – but that we would invade other Middle Eastern countries in the neighborhood, topple their governments and occupy their lands. Also, he wishes people would stop calling referring to waterboarding as a torture technique when fraternities do a lot worse things to people at U.S. educational institutions. [How am I doing?] |
Not bad, danithew. BTW, when do you want to do dinner? |
LOL Dan … you’re being a very good sport. The next two weeks are not going to work for dinner, due to some plans that we have. When we get back from a trip, I’ll talk to my wife and you guys and see what we can do. |
I want to come for dinner. I have a free ticket with my frequent flier miles. And I have $14 in my wallet and $25 on my American Express card. I have a little card that we never pay off and it’s just as well, long story, because I have this mental problem with putting in a card and money comes out of the machine. So the big cards, Bill keeps. It’s all good. Let me know. I’ll bring my sleeping bag. |
We have a fairly comfortable couch, anne… |
DKL #49 I must have being mistaken. I apologize. |
Another one I am late to: Regarding post #32: A man can’t be called to bishop etc if he’s been divorced? I didn’t know this and it seems a little elitist to me. Honestly, I don’t really care who gives the opening/closing prayers as long as it’s not me. I can’t get my kids to church on time so there’s no way I could do the opening. And by the closing…I’m just to frazzled. To me, anyone they can get to say the prayers should be allowed to say either one. There seems to be no basis for the “rule”. Enjoyed the post DKL and all the interesting responses! |
We have a friend who was divorced and a bishop, also a stake president. |
As far as I know, and that isn’t saying much, a man must be sealed to his current wife to be a Bishop. I am sure there is more to it than that, but it is another piece of the puzzle. |
TStevens – That’s not true. I know a convert who was a bishop who’s wife (of many years) was not even a member of the church, let alone sealed to her husband. |
Thanks for the info. It struck me as odd when I read that post. I am married to a guy who is divorced although I know he has NO desire to every become bishop or otherwise. :) |
I’m begging God to call Bill to something that gets him out of the house on Sunday. I’m promising to keep my mouth shut and go to church if He needs Bill for the bishop. He drives me crazy on Sundays, he can’t be still. And I love quiet peaceful days. The eight years when he was serving on the high council and a bishopric were wonderful on Sundays….although Sarah and I went pretty much inactive LOL. Bill never knew we were missing church. It was good for everybody. Well, in an unrighteous way, of course. |
Julia #65 Probably is elitist, don’t know. Just what I remember from filling out those Recommendation forms many times. Or maybe its only a recent thing or in australia only, or maybe my memory is failing, could be at my age. |
#68 |
Maybe there is something to this divorce thingy. My first wife had an affair with a guy at work and we ended up divorced. I will not profess perfection as a husband, but I gave it all I had and kept my covenants (and I swear I was at least as decent as many of the other smucks I’ve known in the church whose wives have remained faithful to them). As I was going through the divorce, I visited with my bishop. I was looking for words of comfort. The first words out of his mouth were, “You can repent of this.” I said, “Repent of what?” His response, “In the eyes of the church, divorce is a sin.” But, I said, “How do I repent of my wife’s infidelity? Even after the affair, I was willing to work on the marriage if she was willing. She wasn’t.” His answer, “All I know is that divorce is a sin, and you can repent of it.” I chalked it up to an inexperienced bishop (maybe following an unwritten rule) and didn’t hold it against him or the church. I know there are exceptions, that divorced men have been called to some leadership positions, but there does appear to be, at the minimum, a presumption against a divorced person serving as a bishop or higher. I can perhaps understand that because of the importance of example. After my divorce, I served as first counselor to 3 successive bishops. There seemed, however, to be a glass ceiling for me. When the 3rd bishop was called, a member of the ward approached me after the re-organization and said to me, “Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.” That stung, but I love the church and have learned to roll with the punches. I remain good friends with and greatly respect the former Stake President who was involved in those decisions. One day, however,I would love to sit down with him and have an honest discussion about why I was continually passed over. I have always wondered if there is something flagged in my records that eliminates me from consideration. Maybe it is not an unwritten rule, just an undistributed rule. |
Mark, Its not an unwritten rule, what you say here is now the norm and an undistributed rule. President Hinkley took this decision some 6 or 7 years ago or so, I guess. Before that he was reticent but they followed a case by case view. But they wrote to stake presidents and general authorities saying that they don’t want any more divorced men being recommended for bishop but they didn’t say why. I saw that letter because I was stake clerk at the time. It didn’t go to Bishop level. When I’m feeling positive I reason that its because they can’t know all the details of the thousands of recommends they get each week, so they generalize, or that its because a bishop will counsel members about marriage and they don’t want to run the risk of the members saying ‘if my bishop’s divorced then its ok in church’.. When I’m feeling negative and critical I just say that its because of what you describe here, a sin they say, which is the same wall I’ve come up against. They all think this, just about every member I’ve meet or argued with here actually. They will always blame the man for a divorce because we are the ‘leaders’ in a family, or whatever bullshit they come up with… Anyway I better stop now because I’m more negative and bitter than when I started reading this, and I was planning on going to church tomorrow.. |
CAC, Thanks for your thoughtful response. I hope I did not contribute to any further negative or bitter feelings on your part. I do feel a loss (maybe kinda like Mitt Romney suddenly realizing that there is an unspoken rule that Mormons do not qualify to be President of the United States). I believe I could contribute. My patriarchal blessing promised that I would be called to councils that would affect the lives of many thousands of my brothers and sisters. I can only assume now that those blessings have been forfeited. I sometimes wonder what happened to inspiration in these callings. It feels more like the church MBAs have put a system in place to protect the church (and perhaps also restrict any inspiration outside the bounds of this system). I would rather see the church make a few mistakes than lose those great inspirational stories like Hugh B. Brown calling an inactive, smoking member to be bishop. I would love to at least be eligible to serve in those positions. I also love being able to sit with my family and not be away from them attending a zillion meetings. So, I guess I am good either way. Whenever I feel a little negative, I remember my great great great grandfather, Archibald Gardner. He served as bishop of the West Jordan ward for some 40 years. The story is told that Brigham Young once called Bishop Gardner to repentence, from the pulpit, in front of his family and congregation. Afterwards, President Young approach Bishop Gardner and said something to this effect, “Now Bishop Gardner, I don’t want you to apostasize because of the things I said. I just want you to repent.” Bishop Gardner reportedly looked President Young in the eye and said, “Brother Brigham, this is my Father’s kingdom and I have as much right to it as you do. Nothing you can say will ever chase me from it.” |
Yes, true. Especially the Romney bit, although I’m not yet convinced that he’s lost that. There still a small chance. I also wish that the church would rely more on inspiration and not MBA’s but I can’t do much about that. The bosses are working every day in Salt Lake and its up to them to run the place. But on the comments on the patriarchal blessing I suggest that as a stake high council member you would also affect the ‘many thousands’ in a stake of 3 or 4 thousand, for example. As clerk too. And both callings can be done by divorcees still today. Hopefully this won’t change. |
I love that quote, Mark. I think we get caught up in power struggles that have very little to do with the gospel. |
Great quote Mark. It speaks volumes. |
My brother was called as Stake President about a week ago. I had Thanksgiving with him today. He confirmed to me that a divorced man is ineligible to be a bishop or anything higher in the church. He said there are a few exceptions. I expect the exceptions are extremely rare. Ann… At least on my part, it has nothing to do with a power struggle. It has more to do with being eligible for all of the blessings of the gospel. We are expected to sacrifice all. In turn, we are promised all that our Father has. I was not told about the small print that says, “except for those whose wives are unfaithful.” Yes, there are blessings associated with leadership in the kingdom and, in fact, leadership is part of the unique aspect of Mormonism called eternal progression. No matter how righteous I am, no matter how qualified I am, no matter how many times a stake president is inspired to present my name, I will be, for the rest of my life, ineligible for these blessings because I married a woman many years ago who chose to be unfaithful. It seems so unfair, wrong, and bigoted. I still love the gospel but I am really struggling with this. The relevence to this thread is that this policy is not shared widely. It’s kinda like a family secret that you figure out from experience. The problem with this approach is that you feel betrayed when you learn the truth. You feel like you were participating in the gospel under a false belief that you were eligible for every blessing that every other righteous person is eligible for. No one told me why I was passed over while acting as 1st counselor to 3 successive bishops. No one has ever told me (except my honest brother and CAC) that I am ineligble because of the actions of a former wife. This is tough on an eternal optimist. My optimism just got snuffed out. My hope just got snuffed out. My faith took a hit. Charity endures. I will serve where I can, but this changes way more than I can discuss here. It changes my perspective. What to do with this information? I do not want to hijack this thread, so please do not feel obligated to respond. But this would be an interesting discussion somewhere. |
“I will be, for the rest of my life, ineligible for these blessings because I married a woman many years ago who chose to be unfaithful. It seems so unfair, wrong, and bigoted.” It’s more than this. They are simply Discriminating against one group of men and in doing so they help to perpetuate this belief members have that the divorced man caused the divorce regardless of what the wife did or was responsible for. Such biased was also shown here in the ‘Alienation of Afection/Adultery’ post. And off course it isn’t about power or a wish to hold a calling or other nonsense like that (I’ve already being Bishop and just don’t want the job ever again!) Its a question: Why can’t the previously divorced man do these callings? President Hinkley never answered this but did enforce the rule. Even if one does everything under the sun to avoid divorce but the wife wants it, then that’s it -the man is a SECOND CLASS PRIESTHOOD HOLDER for ever. The excommunicated man, repented and then active, doesn’t go through this discrimination once 5 years have passed from the date of restoration of blessings. The excommuncited, former adulterer, can be forgiven and then be Bishop or anything else, but the divorced can’t be forgiven in any way, shape or form. This issue is the one that mirrors the Black & Priesthood issue. The gay issue really doesn’t since homosexuality has always being called a sin. Like I said once before, there’s just no redemption from Uriah’s curse! |
Mark, I see a couple of problems with your reasoning. In your whining about how you’ll never be a bishop, you seem to be implying that a bishop is somehow better than someone who has never been one, and that a bishop gets more blessings than a priesthood holder who was or never will be a bishop. I think that’s wrong. The other thing that stands out is that you talk like you think being a bishop is a kind of “promotion”. It ain’t. It just sounds like you were “bucking for promotion” to be a bishop. I remember thinking about some mistakes I made and later when I came back to church I thought “If I hadn’t taken that course, I would have been a bishop by now.” Very quickly after thinking that, I could feel the Spirit withdraw, and I knew I had to repent of that line of thinking. You are writing (and maybe CAC too) like you _want_ to be a bishop. And in my book, that’s a sure fire sign that you should _not_ be one. |
Bookslinger, Respectfully, it’s you whos missing the point here. Its not about wanting a calling but asking a question of why? Why am I not qualified? And its a similar situation to the Blacks/Priesthood issue. Why couldn’t a black man hold the priesthood in ’75/Why can’t a previously or once divorced man like Ronald Reagan hold the priesthood office of bishop or HP quorum president? I can understand that they demand that the bishop be a married man due to interviews and such, but thats something one can control by actually looking to get married, but sometimes divorce is beyond one’s control especially in no-fault divorce jurisdictions. |
Bookslinger, Thanks for your perspective. I expect that you are expressing what many others have already thought. That is a fairly common response in the church. Unfortunately, it sidesteps the issue. It assumes there is no problem with the church imposing a lifetime ban on certain church callings for divorced men, regardless of guilt or innocence. Does this ban continue into the hereafter? When does redemption occur? When should it occur? Caca responded with some insights that I agree with. Question 1: Is divorce a sin? If yes, have both spouses sinned when one spouse commits adultery? (If you tell me anything short of being a perfect spouse is a sin I am gonna puke). Question 2: Does the church have a written and published position that divorce is a sin? Question 3: Does the church have any undistributed policies about divorce? (Hint: yes) Question 4: Regardless of the answer to question 1, does the church believe in (a) repentence for sin and (b) redemption for mistakes of judgment? Question 5: Does the church provide a path to redemption for those who have sinned? Is that path the same or different for those who have divorced(for those who consider divorce a sin I assume this question is redundant)? If there is a path to redemption for divorce, could you please enlighten me? I must have been asleep during that lesson. |
You’re both still acting as if you have some sort of right to be bishop. Unless you’re a literal descendent of Aaron, you don’t. You’re both whining like your rights have been violated. This is starting to remind me of the “Why can’t women hold the priesthood” whines on the feminist blogs. Rather than me missing the point, I think you’re both fixating on the wrong points. If you have a current temple recommend, there’s nothing you need to be redeemed from in terms of membership status. You’re a full card-carrying member. And if you’re a man with a job, a stable life, and a temple recommend, there’s an excellent chance you’ll get married in the temple, too. Your temple recommend status is between you, your bishop, your stake president and the Lord. And I know that divorced men can have temple recommends and get married in the temple. Another item I think you’re missing is a teaching I’ve heard several times in general conference: “There are no blessings reserved for prophets or apostles (ie, any leader) that are not available to all members of the church.” You’re not missing out on anything. Yet you’re talking like you’re being cheated out of something. You’re acting as if being a bishop is some kind of status or stamp of approval, or some way to get your “ticket punched” along the way to the celestial kingdom. Seeking positions of priesthood leadership in the church is generally not a good thing. Either president Hinckley was inspired, or he was not, when he promulgated the “no divorced bishops” rule. If he was inspired, then it’s the will of God. If he was not inspired, then I don’t think God’s going to hold it against you. I know that several kinds of discrimination exist among members in the church. I’ve seen and experienced discrimination against single adults, against converts, and against members from “the mission field”. I’m guilty of discriminating in some ways too. |
“ou’re acting as if being a bishop is some kind of status or stamp of approval” Totally wrong, I’m not thinking that way. This issue is just a discrimination one. Just try reading all you’ve written but changing Bishop to Police Officer or Governor or Teacher. You see then that all you’re arguing is exactly the same as what other discriminators use to justify only men as police officers or only caucasians as teachers and so on. The issue is discrimination and second class priesthood status, that one isn’t any good for certain callings -and I repeat that I’ve done this already and would never want to be bishop again anyway! Its an unpaid 30hour a week job. Its not about temple blessings, which are available for the divorced after a thourough interview but remember that up until the early ’70 a divorced person needed a first presidency clearance to recieve a recommend (today this has changed). I’ve yet to see or read anything from president hinkley on divorce where he doesn’t generalize to blame both or say both are angry or divorce is just a failure or that mostly men are to blame for divorce. For me its the private views of a man formed in the 1920′s and 1930′s society where divorce was a man’s fault always and women copped the full punishment from society for divorce while men rebuild their lives without any problems. |
Mark,
No, there are not blessings associated with leadership in the kingdom that “regular” members cannot have. And no, you are not “punished” in the eternities for sins your wife may have done. Ezekiel 18:20 states:
The only sins you pay for in the eternities are your own. Thusly, whatever men do here, including this discrimination against previously divorced men, won’t affect your eternal progression. Personally I have no idea why they have this rule, and more importantly, why they don’t seem to have a good explanation, or if they do, why they don’t say it out loud. I mean, what are they trying to say, that only men from perfect families can be bishops? Is that what it will come to? |
Dan, Thanks for a fair and righteous consideration of the issues. You could have just as easily avoided the issues by making personal judgments. I would like to think you are right. I am not as confidant as you are. In the church, we do not want to believe that anyone could possibly be denied any blessing. So, we explain away everything from unfulfilled patriarchal blessings to singleness to other apparent injustices. When we do not see an easy answer in this life, we tend to “punt” to the eternities. I believe that, in the long run, a just God will provide ample opportunity for growth. I am not as confident that the church will provide those same opportunities in this life. Having served in bishoprics, I know there are unique growth opportunities for bishops and their families, along with incredible sacrifice. I am confident that all of us have heard leaders bear testimony of the special “blessings” they have received that they would not have received in any other way. So, I simply do not believe that the average lay member will ever experience some of these blessings. I guess it is up to me to create those growh opportunities elsewhere, either in or out of the church. I am doing the best I can to reconcile this. I have chosen to serve where I can. When I attend church, I will look for those with pain in their eyes and try to ease that pain and make them feel loved. I will try not to do anything that will hurt others and will try to uplift and lighten the burdens of others. That is about the best I can do. I hope it is enough for Heavenly Father. I have to set aside things that I have no control over. The positive side is that I do not have to worry about silly little things like what I wear to church and I can have some fun with this. I can wear the tie my daughters bought me that has the black sheep in the middle of all the white ones. :-) |
Scarlet D., formerly Mark, you probably wouldn’t qualify for bishop anyway because I’m pretty sure guys who become girls can’t be bishop. |
I understand how Mark aka Scarlet Letter D, CaCa and others feel about this topic. Nobody likes being discriminated against. You feel excluded rather than included with the body of Saints. It makes your heart hurt. My records were unfairly tagged in the late 1980’s. Being unfairly judged is a form of church abuse and it puts a needless wedge between you and the Lord. It causes angry feelings that one has to repent for. Ultimately it does not matter who put that wedge between you and the Lord; you are the one who has to remove it for your own sake. By removing that wedge you will experience spiritual blessings, insight and growth that might not have happened otherwise. Healing takes time and everyone is at a different phase of grieving. Our Savior understands how it is to be unfairly judged and found wanting by the world. Lay your burden at his feet and let him heal you. |
LOL annegb…. I think that rule is written….. somewhere. I kinda like the name Scarlet D. You really think it sounds too feminine? |
“Scarlet D” – Dude, I was already thinking of Scarlett Johansson, Anyway, good comments in this divorce issue. I enjoyed reading them. Im sure the Lord doesnt reject someone because of this since he knows all the details and what, if anything, one needs repentance of and so on. But the church doesn’t know. And they do mark some membership records unjustly based on gossip only, and ruin opportunities of the member. Sometimes they seem to be imitating the FBI or so, but instead of criminals they mark all the where once tried in disciplinary councils, once critical of church in the press, once divorced, once black……..or whatever. This is surely a problem area the church has. A problem that doesn’t help anyone. I mean even when they mark the record correctly, like in the case of a convicted pedophile whos being excommunicated and then repabtized, they only add on the bottom of the record ‘Bishop to contact Area Office’ Most of the time bishops never see these membership records. So this hole process only stops some people getting into church headquarters but doesn’t stop a convicted pedophile from home teaching a single mom with kids. The whole process is fundamentally flawed and total rubbish in my book. |
For a church like this, is there a better way? |
Caca and Mark, You guys have some serious questions that you need good answers to, and real-life issues that need resolving, even if the issue is merely a re-assessment of attitude and viewpoint. From what I’ve read in this thread, I don’t see how your situation can be interpreted as you having sinned. And on the other hand, I think it wrong of someone to bemoan that they can no longer be a bishop under current church policies. My humble desire is that you go to your respective stake presidents to get the answers, and not rely on us armchair-quarterbacks on the Internet for answers to those serious questions. I’ve never been married, so I can’t really help you about marriage and divorce. I’ve seen men and women go through the heartbreak of divorce. I know it hurts. And I know the hurt lasts a long time. But obviously I’ve never felt that particular hurt myself. I’ve never held a priesthood leadership position, so I really can’t help you there. I have been a bishop’s executive secretary, so I’ve seen (for a few months) how one bishopric ran. From that experience, of seeing how those three men viewed their callings, your attitude towards you being or not being a bishop is at odds with what I saw in them. I hope that I’ve read you wrong, because reading the attitude that you two have expressed here, I’d be very uncomfortable at this point as someone under your leadership if either of you were my bishop, or my EQ pres, or my stake pres. I hope you find peace. And I hope you find it in the gospel and in the church. I tried to find peace outside of the gospel and outside of church for 15 years and never attained it. I know my only hope for peace in this life and the next is to cling to the gospel, and to the only institution on the earth that is authorized to administer the gospel. Keep the faith. |
Bookslinger: I think you have read wrong. Again, I repeat, it isn’t about wanting a calling. I’ve already being there, done that and would not want it again. I also served as stake clerk filling in the form, although the stake president finished them off. Its a question of why? why am I so bad now that the church won’t let me hold these callings because my wife chose to leave? (I’m still not formally divorced mind you) Why does the church always put some blame on the husband for the actions of the wife, in a defacto way paying for the sins of others ie wife? Look I was bishop for just over 4 years and in those years there where a lot of sleepless nights and mistakes, some very bad ones, I admit. If I was offered this again I’d say no, and ‘no’ for branch president too (who can be a formally divorced man or a single man, notice, since the Stake calls him and not Salt Lake City) But the question still remains: why isn’t there a Ronald Reagan amongst the general authorities for example? Answer because Reagan was once divorced, and the church looks down on the formally divorced man for having failed at home, (as Pt McKay said…….) |
Which begs the question, are there general authorities who are unhappily married, but sticking it out? I bet there are…. |
Or GA wives, for that matter… |
Or GA husbands, for that matter… |
I recently read that Brigham Young hand 9 wives divorce him. It did not interfere with him being President of the Church though. In one of his talks he said that if he caught a wife cheating on him with someone else, he would kill them both on the spot so that their blood would atone for their sin, that would be one way to avoid a divorce ;) |
I think it’s the best way to go because if they’re dead, they can’t stalk you or talk about you or all the other things they do. I know Bill’s lucky to be alive, especially after having five days off work and cleaning non-stop. Seriously, I abhor any judgement call that would say a divorced man isn’t worthy to be a bishop. Or a divorced woman can’t be the Relief Society president (although, God knows, why would anybody want to is beyond me). I bet you guys a million dollars my name is on a list somewhere. And that’s really sad for Bill, because, although he’s divorced, he’s very worthy and honors his priesthood and has a patriarchial way about him even if he doesn’t pray much or read the scriptures. I’d support him for bishop in a New York minute. Not for the right reason, but still….God can have him on Sundays and plenty of weeknights, that’s for sure. Put that energy to work doing good. |
Annegb: Bill may be bishop-material, but ain’t no way you’re bishop’s-wife material! ;-) |
People can change, I’m working on those who already have their talks written because perhaps I will change and they need to keep up to date. I can become quite demure if I’m not constantly annoyed by my husband’s constant movement and cleaning. I don’t know, do you think I’d have to go to church? |
annegb, You would be a fine bishop’s wife. A bishop’s wife needs a finely tuned sense of humor, for survival if nothing else. And, we need more bishop’s wives who are not puffed up and full of themselves. You are probably right that some GAs and their wives, like the rest of us, have their moments. They do not have the luxury of changing their minds. The consequences would be great. The cost of divorce is high. In this church, it carries even greater consequences. I do not know how long you have been in the Cedar City area, but, based on your age, you may know or know of my uncle. Quite a few years ago he was a bishop and an LDS Institute instructor at Dixie College. His wife one morning told him she wanted a divorce. He was released as bishop and lost his job working for the church. I guess the only good thing that came out of it was that I saw him as a very humbled, albeit sad, man after that. He re-married but was thrown from a horse and killed a few years later. |