CES Divorce Policy
Just recently an acquaintance by e-mail happened to mention that when he got divorced, he lost his job with CES. Then today I read this interesting article by Peggy in the SL Tribune about Phil Barlow (a gentleman and a scholar he), and he talks about how he was fired by CES when he got divorced, to devastating effect.
I guess I’ve just been living in a cave, but I don’t think I’ve ever focused on the fact that CES has a policy to fire anyone who gets divorced, no matter the extenuating circumstances. Wow–I’m stunned to learn that. Am I the only one to just learn this? What is the justification for such a bright line policy? Is divorce per se evil? If you read about Phil’s experience, I think it’s hard to maintain that.
Chalk this up as number 427 on the list of Church policies I disagree with.
Blimey. I guess kids cannot cope if their Seminary teacher were to divorce.
Comment by RonanJH — September 29, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
My understanding is that CES’s policy is that if you get divorced, for whatever reason, you will be asked to leave. The explanation I’ve heard is that CES wants people who can be examples of marriage - not divorce….and if for whatever reason things don’t work out….you’re done.
Another question to think about….has there ever been a divorced GA?
Comment by Adcama — September 29, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
….has there ever been a divorced GA?
You mean besides the first six presidents of the Church?
Comment by J. Stapley — September 29, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Speaking of Seminary kids and divorce…
I personally think a sensitive teacher could thus explain how even with the best of intentions, marriage can sometimes be tough, and sometimes marriages fail. That would seem like a healthy and realistic outlook on life.
Comment by RonanJH — September 29, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
…I take my comment (#3) back. I couldn’t find whether Lorenzo Snow had a divorce or not.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 29, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
I consider this policy to be a shockingly uncharitable and legalistic. I have a friend who is a superb gospel scholar and who would have liked to have remained an Institute Director for his entire career. However his wife left the church and left him and as his reward he got canned by CES. Lovely. All the more reason for me to find CES to be an embarrassment to our church in general (besides the painfully inane manuals/curriculum and whatnot).
Grrrr.
Comment by Geoff J — September 29, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
My dad works for CES and once mentioned that he would lose his job if he were to get into financial difficulty and declare bankruptcy as it would be viewed as a misuse of tithing funds that formed the basis of his salary.
Not really related to the post, but there you go.
Comment by Talon — September 29, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
This is so frustrating. Policies like this completely lose sight of the individual and place ideals above real people’s lives. Ronan in # 4 is completely correct — this is a lesson that young seminary students should learn anyway: that not everthing works out as people plan and intend and that God is still there for you when tragedy happens. Instead, CES fires him so that seminary students don’t have to have a divorced teacher. What if his wife had died — would that make it difficult for him to teach a class about marriage and families?
Why do we heap ridicule on ourselves through policies such as this?
Comment by john f. — September 29, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
divorce is evil. Period. Whatever the circumstances. As is bankruptcy. Hence the Saviour’s “brightline” in matthew 19.
Comment by michael — September 29, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Isn’t there also a policy that people cannot be temple workers for 5 years after their divorce or something to that effect?
Comment by Katie — September 29, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
I don’t know Katie, but one typically can’t be called as bishop if divorced (though with special FP approval, someone divorced can fill the office).
Comment by J. Stapley — September 29, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Add another innocent person to the pile that has been kicked to the curb by CES. I know a guy what taught institute and whose wife started going to casinos during the day. She ran the family into severe financial difficulty and eventually left him for a sugar daddy she met at the casino, which resulted in a divorce. My friend had sole custody and support of the kids and was valiantly working two jobs, trying to pull back from the brink of financial ruin, when CES told him to hit the road.
We don’t need to worry much about what the anti people say about us when we willingly continue to make horses asses of ourselves in this manner. What a disgrace.
Comment by Mark Brown — September 29, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
I assume #9 is a joke… or from a troll, right?
Comment by Geoff J — September 29, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Katie, I know people who are temple workers who were divorced within the last five years, so I’m guessing that’s not the policy.
It is necessary to wait five years from the time you are re-baptized after excommunication to be a temple worker. Perhaps that is what you were thinking?
Comment by Mark Brown — September 29, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
#3 - I guess they could have been presidents of the church, just not seminary teachers.
Comment by adcama — September 29, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
That’s completely absurd. I would love to know what the prophet thinks about the policy.
Comment by Sue — September 29, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
I think this policy actually sets a very bad example for children. We should reach out to people who are divorced.
Comment by MCQ — September 29, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Mark, well I called my friend who I heard this from awhile ago, and he has the handbook and verified that it says you cannot be a temple worker if you have been divorced within 5 years. So yes, I guess it is indeed a policy.
Comment by Katie — September 29, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
…although since you say you know examples where this is not the case, I guess it is a policy that bishops have the discretion to ignore.
Comment by Katie — September 29, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
#3 — Did Joseph Smith Jr. get a divorce? My favorite was Wilford Woodruff divorcing Brigham Young’s daughter — the one Brigham gave Wilford for Wilford’s birthday. Now, back to CES…
Comment by Joanne — September 29, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
CES employees sign the bottom line when they’re hired. They know what they’re getting into from the get-go — not that that makes the policy anymore palatable to those of us looking in from the outside.
It’s also my understanding that you can’t get hired if you’ve been divorced, disfellowshipped, or exed in the past.
That said, I think the goals of CES have more to do with preparing young people to live faithful lives than with providing job security for teachers. Prospective employees go through a rigorous hiring process and are thoroughly instructed as to the mission of CES. They KNOW what they’re getting into.
Comment by Jack — September 29, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
As with the BYU nonsense code, I hate this as a justification for blanket, myopic policies.
Comment by Norbert — September 29, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Katie, thanks for the additional info. Apparently, the policy is unevenly applied.
Jack, your comment raises a question. I wonder why anybody would want to sign on with that outfit?
And there are some additional questions as well, involving the difference between released time and early morning seminary. I know for certain that at least three of the people who served last year in my stake as early A.M. teachers have been divorced, and one of them has been divorced twice. Does the policy apply only to full-time employees? If so, that is very alarming, because then CES loses the very flimsy pretext and excuse of looking after the impressionable students and is left looking like a bully who ruins people’s lives just because it can.
Comment by Mark Brown — September 29, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Mark,Apparently, CES believes that, at 6 a.m., kids won’t notice if their teacher is divorced.
A man who’s been divorced can’t be a temple sealer but can be a regular temple worker. Since someone quoted the handbook about the five years, that would seem to be the rule.
I remember that, about 15 years ago, the wife of our local institute director in the South, told me that CES wives couldn’t hold a job outside the home, they were supposed to be able to raise their large families on th paltry CES salaries–she also told me their kids qualified for free lunch and breakfast. That policy must have been changed because my niece has worked for years and her husband is seminary principal in Mesa.
Comment by MDS — September 29, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
I’ve taught early morning seminary twice. There is no requirement for those teachers, as they are not employees of any organization - and, I think, because it would be impossible to enforce in most areas. If it were enforced in many areas, there would be no seminary program.
BTW, this comes from a former school and seminary teacher who rarely implies criticism of anything seminary-related.
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Re #23- It must be different for release time teachers than for early morning teachers. My aunt, who has been divorced twice, has served as an early morning seminary teacher twice (once after divorce #1 and once after divorce #2).
Comment by Jennifer in GA — September 29, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
Norbert,
You may be right that it’s a weak justification for said policy, but it ought to be justification enough for those of us on the outside to not lose our heads over it–and rip our hearts out and squeeze the blood out of it and throw it on the floor and stomp on it until it stops beating.
They were made fully aware of the policy when they signed on. And as Mark Brown implies (#23) they don’t have to join the organization if they feel the policy to be beyond the limits of their personal ethics.
Comment by Jack — September 29, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
For all you lawyerly people:
An organization does not employ people who are divorced, and dismisses them if they become divorced, for any reason. It justifies this policy with the argument that a divorced employee undermines its mission and contributes to a lack of credibility. The organization also makes use of unpaid volunteers who perform the same function as its paid employees, but does not enforce the “no divorce” policy with the volunteers.
Question: Is this organization begging to be sued for violation of whatever employment laws might apply?
Comment by Mark Brown — September 29, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
I had an Institute instructor in WA who was divorced. She was also the Institute secretary. Her class was really poorly attended– there is nothing more depressing than to hear the story of being married for 25 years and then he leaves you and the Church for some PYT every single time you go to class.
Given how my father reacted to his divorce– by talking about it to every person he came in contact with– and my experience with this poor sister, I can’t help but wonder if the policy, despite being discriminatory, is to “protect” those of us that aren’t married from the ensuing bitterness and diarrhea of the mouth that occurs in some (but definitely not all) cases of divorce. Because I can tell you that it does not make me want to get married, and marriage seems to be one of the top goals of CES. (institute directors have a stat they like to pull out that says you chances of getting married are infinitely higher if you attend Institute)
Comment by Melanie — September 29, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
1) Comment #9 is not a joke.
2) You must wait five years to be a temple worker if you are divorced, ex’ed, or difellowshipped. You can still be a “volunteer” at the temple but you cannot be a worker involved in ordinances.
3) Most church “policies” have a firm foundation in scripture and that is the case with these CES policies.
It is amazing to me how we love to speculate, discuss and whine on the bloggernacle about church policy, procedure, and culture but we never seek to explore the scriptural basis for these items. There are a number of hard doctrines out there that we are expected to live up to in order to inherit eternal life. And there are evil things in this life that we do which we can be forgiven for. But just because we can be forgiven for them does not taken away their evilness.
Divorce is sin. Pure and simple. Matthew 19 is clear on that. While we can understand the reasons for the sin, it is still sin.
Bankruptcy is sin. It is walking away from obligations you have made with your creditors. While it is possible to understand what lead to the need to declare bankruptcy, it still is a debt you volunarily incurred to support your personal lifestyle. Even if that lifestyle is not excessive.
I speak in absolutes because there are certain principles that are absolute. We have to stop justifying, minimizing, and rationalizing away non-compliance with hard doctrine.
I speak as a gay, LDS convert who is a banker and has been through the excommunication and re-baptism process ( which is why I am familiar with the temple rules).
Comment by michael — September 29, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
There are a number of policies that obviously were instituted (pun intended) after it became apparent that there were issues with a few people. (e.g., married man and married woman leaders traveling together to church meetings.) I can see this happening after CES heard of multiple situations where seminary teachers were venting to their students about their ex-spouses.
Can anyone find out when this policy was implemented?
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
michael,
What do you think of Joseph Smith, jr., who was both bankrupt and divorced?
Comment by Mark Brown — September 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
michael writes that divorce is a sin.
Elder Oaks writes, “There are many good Church members who have been divorced. I speak first to them. We know that many of you are innocent victims—members whose former spouses persistently betrayed sacred covenants or abandoned or refused to perform marriage responsibilities for an extended period.”
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 29, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
I also hope #9 is a joke. If it isn’t, I hope michael is not LDS. If you are, michael, I hope you don’t mean that people who are divorced and or bankrupt are evil. I’m trying to cut you any slack possible, but it’s incredibly hard to do in this case. I can try to distinguish between the situation and those involved, but “Period. Whatever the circumstances.” makes it difficult, especially since Matthew 19 doesn’t address bankruptcy at all - not even tangentially.
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
Mark, he never claimed to be perfect, did he? He must have been forgiven through the Atomement just like we are. Please use your brain when you ask such idiotic questions. And I am sure the divorce of a polygamous wife will add a twist (as well as a whole new comment thread) to the dicussion.
Julie, the quote you take out of context in his talk never negates the fact that it is still a sin. All sin has innocent victims. Just study the history of the world.
Comment by michael — September 29, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
michael, if you concede that one of the ex-spouses can be an innocent victim, then in what sense is it correct to say that an innocent victim has sinned?
Comment by Julie M. Smith — September 29, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
Michael, I am taking a deep breath because I really do want to make sure I understand.
Are you saying that someone who gets a divorce - no matter the circumstance - sins in getting that divorce?
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
michael, please leave my idiocy out of this, as it is already well attested all over the bloggernacle.
JS Jr. never claimed to be perfect, but in his divorced, bankrupt state he was perfectly worthy to instruct people in the gospel, right? So my question is, why do you think people who are divorced now shouldn’t be allowed to.
Believe me, I’m using all the brain power I can muster as I ask this question.
Comment by Mark Brown — September 29, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Also, michael, it never does any good at all to accuse someone of not using their brain when they ask a perfectly normal question. You might think there is an easy answer, but using words like “idiotic” for a perfectly legitimate question is (dare I say it?) not very charitable.
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Divorce is something that could happen to anybody, good or bad. Marriage is a relationship that requires the free participation of two people and at any given time a partner can make a decision to do something that endangers or destroys the marriage.
While I’ve had some wonderful CES teachers, I’ve always felt there was something a little wacky about CES culture. It sometimes draws lines that don’t have to be drawn.
Isn’t there also a rule that places limitations on mothers having employment with CES?
Comment by danithew — September 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
One typically can’t be called as bishop if divorced (though with special FP approval, someone divorced can fill the office).
This was a factor in a ward near mine (a different stake, though), where SLC rejected two potential bishops because they had been divorced and (here’s the key) and not been sealed to their new spouse for 20 years.
(The policy was relayed to the new bishop after they spent months trying to come up with a suitable candidate.)
Comment by queuno — September 29, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Re bankruptcy - The Church is fairly noncommital on Chapter 13 bankruptcies. In these cases, members pay off their obligations, but they are given time to restructure their payments (but are not excused).
Chapter 13 is actually a pretty darn good case of justice and mercy at work. I know of several members who have filed for C13 with the guidance of a Church leader.
Comment by queuno — September 29, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Finally (I wanted to separate my comments) -
I guess I’m not bothered by CES letting a seminary or institute instructor go if they get divorced. I’m a bit of an odd case, but I do not believe that the Church should pay seminary teachers. If early-morning seminary with unpaid instructors is good enough for the non-Zion corridor areas of the Church, it’s good enough for Utah and the rest of the Zion corridor.
As far as BYU goes, I know of plenty divorced and remarried BYU professors and instructors.
Comment by queuno — September 29, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
There are a bunch of people who are divorced at BYU. Maybe they aren’t CES. Wilfred Griggs is divorced… Is he CES as a BYU reliogion teacher?
Comment by Matt W. — September 29, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
michael, the point you’re missing is that even innocent victims of divorce (who even you seem to acknowledge aren’t sinners) lose their jobs with CES.
Comment by queuno — September 29, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
This is a miserable policy for everybody associated with it, with the exception of the students (at least as a group). I can imagine that those who are called on to administrate it have a lot of difficulty dealing with the face to face implementation. I can’t see myself doing this kind of work. If I had say so, I would insist it be done on a case by case basis, and that the financial difficulties brought to bare on those who lose their jobs be handled in a very generous manner.
I think Michael’s point has validity to an certain extend and ought not be thrown out without more thought.
I don’t think that those leaders of the church who are divorced and/or bankrupt should be compared to a CES teacher because their not dealing with youth in the classroom.
If we were privy to the cases that brought on this policy we would be more understanding.
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
What are the cases that brought on a policy like this, and what is the scriptural basis?
Comment by adcama — September 29, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
It wasn’t just JSJ who was bankrupt. Large numbers of early church leaders took advantage of bankruptcy laws, much to the angry astonishment of outsiders and some insiders of as stern a mien as michael (or is it mean a stern?). michael’s point that JSJ did not claim to be perfect is absolutely correct. It does, however, point to the fact that though God certainly forgave him for bankruptcy, CES would not have allowed its founding prophet to teach Institute. That strikes me as a bit odd, even if we make allowances for cultural drift.
And may I please protest the iniquitization of bankruptcy? It could also be a form of civil disobedience or resistance to the manipulations of modern financial institutions (I am not arguing that people should be poor managers of their resources or strive to live beyond their means, merely that the creditors are not innocent bystanders in many of these bankruptcies).
Comment by smb — September 29, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Alright my children, one at a time. I am typing on my iPhone and have to go get ready for my dinner appointment.
I am not in a position to render judgement on anyone and that is the corner you are all trying to push me into. I merely stated true facts. As to why the Prophet was worthy to instruct in gospel principles and a divorced CES teacher is not requires such judgement. As to who is the innocent personin a divorce also requires judgemnt and that is not my place or even possible without investigating on a case-by-case basis.
Divorce is sin. Bankruptcy is sin. We all agree that murder is sin without immediately jumping to a discussion of who is innocent and who is guilty (although it is rarely that cut and dry). So why are you three forcing me to so the same with divorce and bankruptcy?
Could it be that you are treating it more personally than is warranted in this discussion?
Trust me, with everything I have been through, I do not even think in terms of judgement. But I don’t try to victimize away the definition of sin.
Comment by michael — September 29, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
I guess I’m not bothered by CES letting a seminary or institute instructor go if they get divorced. I’m a bit of an odd case, but I do not believe that the Church should pay seminary teachers.
Just reread my comment and realized it’s not exactly what I intended to say.
I do think that the policy as currently constituted is unfair if blanketly imposed. I think, however, that a better solution would be to not pay seminary teachers, but I would be OK with paying institute teachers, since they are obstensibly equivalent to religion professors at BYU-*.
If it were my call, I’d change the policy for institute teachers to look at divorces on a case-by-case basis, and all seminary classes would be early morning and taught by members who are called, not hired.
Comment by queuno — September 29, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Michael - does your iPhone have a patronization-check function? If so, turn it on.
Comment by adcama — September 29, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
#51 adcama–Michael got my respect, he’s got what it takes to come back.
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Jared -
Interesting that someone gets your respect when they call you an idiot and a child….but let’s not get off topic.
Comment by adcama — September 29, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
Jared and Michael - both: Let me make this as clear as I can make it:
I can’t speak for everyone, but I am not trying to make you claim anything. I sincerely am trying to understand what you are saying.
You made a blanket statement twice - that divorce and bankruptcy are “sins”. I agree that they are not the ideal; I agree that, in a perfect world, they would not occur; I agree that, in many (if not most) cases, there probably is some degree of sin involved by someone in causing them. My problem is that it appears you believe that anyone who has been divorced or bankrupted - even the innocent victim of someone’s else sins and mistakes - has sinned. I hope I am wrong, but that’s what it sounds like. That’s what I asked - what I want clarified.
The Church simply doesn’t teach that; the handbook doesn’t say that. Personally, I can’t imagine talking to some of the women I know who have been beaten almost to death by their husbands and saying, “It doesn’t matter that you went into hiding and filed for divorce in order to stay alive and protect your daughters. You sinned in doing so.”
I simply want to know if you think everyone involved somehow in divorce or bankruptcy has sinned.
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
adcama– I recognize courage in Michael and he appears to be dealing with a heavy load that comes with what he has been through. I respect that part.
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Ray–I not sure why you included me in #54. Please reread #46.
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
Threadjack commence!
Why can’t we all just ignore Jared and Michael for a while. They are clearly trolls. For people to show up out of the blue and start dropping comments like theirs is pretty sure sign that Prudence isn’t the only fake around these parts. Didn’t anybody here learn anything from BoH?
Comment by a random John — September 29, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Jared, I respect that, and I agree that what michael shared in #30 is one of the reasons I am willing to respect his efforts here. I hope the fact that I’m not sure I see these issues in as absolute a light as michael doesn’t appear to be a lack of respect. Right now, it’s much more of a lack of understanding.
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Wow, Jared, I was thinking of separate responses and never got to the second part. Sorry; that’s embarrassing.
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
random John–I don’t don’t accept your comment.I don’t think that blogger rage on your part is acceptable.
Please point out what I said that allows you to rage at me.
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Ray-thanks for saying so.
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
rJ, fwiw, I disagree with Jared on a number of things, but I don’t see either Jared or michael as trolls.
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
I can respect a man who has or is repenting, like Michael. I don’t respect someone who attempts to form a blogger gang as random john as done.
For those who are reading this for the first time, please read my comment in #46 that somehow caused random john to rage and exclude in gang style.
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Interestingly, the Catholics, who share many of the same attitudes to marriage as LDS, do not consider divorce a sin. It is is remarriage that is the sin; it is regarded as adultery.
Comment by C.Biden — September 29, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
“I can respect a man who has or is repenting, like Michael.”
I mean this respectfully, but does someone’s perspective on a crazy CES policy get more weight if that person has had a rough time? Still a crazy policy…glad to hear you made it through, Michael.
Comment by adcama — September 29, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
This type of policy is why I encourage any one who will listen not to enter into the Church’s employ. If you accept the King’s shilling you become the King’s man. It is important not to have our financial lives tied up with our spiritual lives. One of the strength’s of the church as a whole is that we have a lay clergy. If I do something which disqualifies me from serving, I’m blocked from serving, not blocked from making a living. (I’m aware that sometimes this separation doesn’t hold). Nothing fetters a person’s mind like the chains of a monthly pay check.
Comment by Sheldon — September 29, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Yeah aRJ,
I think you’re probably right. Troll.
(But a pretty convincing one — I’ll give him/her that…)
Comment by Geoff J — September 29, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Phil was my husband’s Institute teacher in Boston, and was marvelous. Bruce loved the classes. The whole divorce thing happened while Bruce was there, and it was extremely difficult for him to watch. It was even harder to have Phil released.
Recently, Phil sent Bruce a message via a mutual friend. It was on one page of paper in an innocent-looking envelope. On the paper were these words: “Repent of your sins.”
Bruce knew it referred to something from their mutual past, some joke, but couldn’t remember what it was. (Maybe an Institute lesson?) He was agonizing for hours about what sins Phil knew about, and why God was using Phil to convey the message.
Anyway, I guess Phil still keeps track of his former students.
We love Phil. We love seeing him happy.
Comment by Margaret Young — September 29, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
adcama-I think the answer is no if it is an important issue and a lot is at stake. But for commenting on a blog where there is nothing at stake, I didn’t want to see him pummeled.
I didn’t want to jump to a conclusion with his comment in #9. Then in #30 he brought up some points that I wanted to think about. #13, 34, and 51 were personal affronts to him before much was known about his position and when he brought up the personal stuff I felt like taking it easy.
I used to be associated with boxing because my dad was a street/prize fighter, and when I saw someone recovering from a beating I never had the heart to add to their difficulty.
The women taken in adultery was treated with great kindness by the Savior.
Random points with a mix of the heart and intellect.
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
Jumping in a little late here…
I discussed this policy briefly with my wife at dinner this evening, and we couldn’t figure out what a seminary or institute teacher would do for a living after getting fired by CES. I mean, it’s not like you can just move and set up shop elsewhere. I mean, if you teach in CES for 20 years and then get fired, I really don’t know where you can go with your career from there.
Comment by Steve M — September 29, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Steve M-
Yup…ain’t like you can go teach mormon theology for the Methodist youth.
Comment by adcama — September 29, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
“…we couldn’t figure out what a seminary or institute teacher would do for a living after getting fired by CES.”
No problem. They can go get an entry-level blue collar position (at a machine shop or delivering packages or processing food or what-have-you). I mean, it’s not like they were making a professional’s salary with CES.
Comment by Jack — September 29, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Steve M.
That is why CES discourages advanced degrees in religion for its employees. If a CES teacher wants a doctorate, they always encourage an Ed.D. or something in a marketable field. Otherwise, if for any reaseon, they leave their job, they are up the creek.
Mark
Please explain how Joseph Smith was divorced - I am not aware of him divorcing Emma, and plural marriages were not recogn ized under the law.
Comment by Gilgamesh — September 29, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
I don’t think you can justify the CES’ policy simply by virtue of the fact that “divorce is a sin”. Does that mean that, if I ever get mugged, I can’t teach seminary since robbery is a sin? Should we bar victims of rape from ever working for CES? Will homicide victims go into their final judgment with a presumption against them merely because of their involvement with a murder?
On the other hand: Given that seminary teachers are intended to be role models for youth, particularly in matters of family life, I can see the justification for the current policy. But I think it needs to be balanced by an extraordinary amount of continued financial support, in the form of severance and job-retraining. It would be interesting to know whether Mr. Barlow received a severance package of any kind, or the degree to which he received assistance from his ward’s fast offering fund.
By the way, Queuno, a person in Chapter 13 bankruptcy typically does not pay off all of his or her obligation. They go on a payment plan that can last for something like three to six years, but once that time is up whatever debt is left is forgiven.
Comment by JimD — September 29, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
and plural marriages were not recognized under the law.
Wouldn’t that negate most of the Mormon divorces of the 19th century?
Comment by J. Stapley — September 29, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Since Phil left CES a long time ago, do we know if such a policy is still in place today? Our Seminary Teachers are voluntray here, but I think we pretty much would take mass murderers if they were willing to get up and put up with teenagers at 6am…
Comment by Matt W. — September 29, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
To the Specific Authorities of Common Consent
After being labeled a troll (whatever that means) and being the object of a Threadjack commence! directive I’ve decided that I’ll find other things to do.
I visited Common Consent just a few days ago and in that brief period of time I found myself involved in several verbal skirmishes and observed others being intellectually pummeled. This surprised me because this is an LDS blog.
The SA who preside here might consider spelling out what it takes to obtain blogging membership and provide an interview to make sure new members are informed of your expectations.
Based on my experience I would suggest new bloggers be aware of the following if they would like to fit in and be welcomed:
1. Don’t bring up “things of the spirit”.
2. Sustain those who are duly set apart authors when they obliquely or directly criticize the church.
3. Reverence deeply selected church historical events, policies, and figures.
4. When an “outrageous” comment is made by a blogger label them appropriately (unless they are establishment recognized).
5. If a Treadjack commence! directive is issued ignore the offender no matter how you might feel.
6. Avoid the appearance of desiring to author a blog.
I enjoyed my time here and gained experience. I am not offended or angry with anyone, just surprised.
Best wishes,
Jared
Comment by Jared — September 29, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Amen, Jared, Amen!!!
Comment by Michael — September 29, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
FYI — I’m pretty sure this blog is actually called “By Common Consent”
Comment by Geoff J — September 29, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
There was this guy in my ward, who went bankrupt, just around the same time he divorced his wife.
And ya know, people probably wouldn’t have mentioned it so much. Except that it was just a little surprising when his skin suddenly darkened . . .
Comment by Kaimi — September 29, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
I take it back, rJ, and bow to your insight and wisdom. Yikes!
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Jared,
You for got one: dont’ talk about Old Scratch.
~
PS - what you are witnessing is de rigeur in the internet discussion world. I first saw the dynamics on Prodigy, with my 1400 baud modem, circa 1994. I got deeply entrenched as an established figurehead of menace on at least one Usenet group. BCC actually has a relatively mild case. It is at least partly a matter of what you decide to bring with you, what you look hard at, what you tolerate and what you ignore. I’m no regular here - but, Jared, I have a feeling you’ll contribute good stuff if you stick it out.
“You have to do what you feel is right, of course.” - Obi Wan Kenobi
Comment by Thomas Parkin — September 29, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Jared,
I consider myself an unbiased, level headed lurker on this blog - at the very least - certainly (as you put it) not part of the establishment recognized. I understand its sometimes painful to hear about a church policy etc. and then hear little to no defense of it. But let me give you some advice - when expressing a complaint, its better to point to events that actually occured instead of gross exaggerations of such. Like:
When an “outrageous” comment is made by a blogger label them appropriately (unless they are establishment recognized).
or
Sustain those who are duly set apart authors when they obliquely or directly criticize the church.
Your assessments don’t hold much water if you spend more than a week around these parts. The problem is that you’re showing up on a day when Michael claims, Divorce is sin. Pure and simple. Matthew 19 is clear on that. While we can understand the reasons for the sin, it is still sin. Considering the fact that some divorces happen without one of the two having any choice in the matter and other divorces that are even acceptable by the church (abuse etc.) its a pretty bold statement to say that someone is sinning when they had no other logical choice in the matter. Some commenters were simply calling him on it. In fact Elder Oaks called him on it last conference. This isn’t some divine blog where the almighty administrator controls every single comment and the whole of the blog is responsible for the individual comments made by individual agents. Malicious, anti-mormon comments are checked and so is damning people to hell. Besides that, its an open, honest conversation. In short, if you’ve got something to say - back it up. If that’s too much to ask, then maybe the frank type of conversation isn’t your bag.
Comment by cj douglass — September 29, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
Taking Rel 370 (”Teaching the Gospel” — an open enrollment class that is the first part of the hiring process) we actually covered this last week. We were told that there are four things that will get you fired from CES without question: 1) Bankruptcy, 2) Pornography, 3) Divorce, and 4) Church Discipline (I think…) The interesting thing was that most class members were interested and surprised to find that someone who has been divorced before attempting to be hired by CES will not be hired. So, I guess this is still official CES policy as of last week.
We were talking about appearances; what messages are you sending your students if you bring in a Coke to drink while discussing the Word of Wisdom? CES basically follows Paul’s ideas about meat offered to idols (which to me is quite analogous to caffeine): CES hold themselves to a higher standard to protect those of lesser faith and understanding.
Comment by NoCoolName_Tom — September 29, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Jared, it might be helpful to know that BCC self-identifies as a liberal-minded, yet grossly intolerant Mormon blog.
Comment by Eric Russell — September 29, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
I don’t know anything about CES or its policies, but it would make sense to me to require people in that organization have temple marriages.
It also makes sense to me to sacrifice as an individual to uphold community standards that are important, especially in the education of youth.
I don’t believe at all that all divorced people are at fault or should be judged for it, and I don’t believe CES believes that either. Lots of readers here seem to have fully imbibed the radical individualism of modernity, which seems quite far from the gospel, to me.
Comment by mlu — September 29, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
mlu, We aren’t dealing with what CES “believes.” We are dealing with what CES *does*. Actions trump stated beliefs every single time. There might not be a more oft-repeated mantra in the Bible.
I, for one, support the divorce prohibition fully *if* it allows for exceptions when the teacher bears no responsibility for the divorce. I go back to my abuse example, however, if it is applied without exception. I simply am unwilling to support a policy that tells someone who is being abused - or whose children are being abused - that if they file for divorce they will be fired and left financially destitute.
I don’t know if I was included in your final charge, but, frankly, those who know me well would laugh at a characterization of me as having “imbibed the radical individualism of modernity.”
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Folks, I don’t believe that Michael is a fake or a troll, for what it’s worth. I disagree with his views both on divorce and bankruptcy, which are very obviously out of harmony with current Church teachings, but I don’t think he’s a fake commenter.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 29, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Coming in very late here, but someone asked when the policy started. A friend of my parents was fired from his job as seminary teacher, back around 1974, when his wife left him for another man. As far as I know, he had no clue that she was about to leave him, or that she was unhappy. I suppose one could build an argument that he might have been a tiny bit at fault by not being more in tune to her, but I don’t see how this could be called sin. And Steve M. hit exactly on the problem– if you’ve worked for CES for more than just a year or two, you really have a hard time coming up with other career options. (Our friend was able to get a teaching job in the school district, but at the bottom of the salary schedule.)
Comment by Paula — September 29, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
Don’t many members who get divorced end up being disfellowshipped regardless of the reasons for said divorce?
Comment by Tim J. — September 29, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
RE: 40
I know this is kinda late in the game, but I thought I would add my two cents. # 40 asked if CES has any policies regarding women.
Back in my BYU days I worked for BYU’s Student Health Center. My boss had a daughter who taught seminary at my old high school (pure coincidence, I promise). At the time she was hired, she was married, but not yet pregnant. She taught for a while and then became pregnant. When the powers that be learned of her pregnancy, she was terminated. She was told (according to my boss, who was her father) that no way could the church employ a woman who was pregnant or had kids, because that would send a terrible message out to the rest of the membership. I don’t really agree with that policy, but as an interesting historical anecdote, I thought I would share this story with the rest of you. Also, I don’t know if she was an official CES employee and I don’t know if CES has an official policy regarding the employment of women and any contingencies regarding pregnancy. Nonetheless, she was working alongside bona-fide CES teachers, and once she became pregnant, she was terminated.
Comment by neal — September 29, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Tim, not that I’m aware of in my years dealing with disciplinary councils. Divorce is not considered by the Church to be a sin in and of itself for all husbands and wives - so, therefore, it is not automatic grounds for disciplinary action.
Comment by Ray — September 29, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Wow. That would seem to be a terrible policy. However, it can be seen in a clearer light when you consider the simple fact that divorcées were less valiant in the pre-mortal life.
As BH Roberts said:
that [group] is the one through which it is ordained those spirits that were not valiant in the great rebellion in heaven should come; who, through their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, rendered themselves unworthy of [CES employment] and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day.
(But, having never been excommunicated, I guess I don’t have the moral authority to make a judgment.)
Comment by Latter-day Guy — September 29, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
Elder Charles W. Penrose Conference Report, April 1911, Afternoon Session regarding Matthew 19 as it relates to divorce
Comment by Howard — September 29, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
I dont know what everyone is getting so worked up about. It clearly states that this the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SAINTS, not Latter-day sinners. Creating a church for sinners is like creating a bank for poor people. Sinners (and those foolish enough to marry soon-to-be sinners) should have no place with saints. He should have read his membership contract.
Comment by Matt M — September 30, 2007 @ 2:07 am
I mentally wrote off CES (in order to avoid a feminist-rage-induced stroke of course) a number of years ago, when I found out about the no-divorce rule, in addition to the fact that, yes, married women employed by CES will be terminated if they become pregnant. And we all know there’s no better time to get the sack than when you have a new child on the way. If they were really interested in supporting and helping FAMILIES, they wouldn’t kick people to the kerb just when they need help the most. Ridiculous - utterly so. A better example of authoritarian bureaucracy gone absolutely awry would be hard to find. That they are being paid for by the tithes and offerings of members of Christ’s church? Revolting.
The additional very dumb thing? If you are a woman who works for CES in a non-instructor position, you will not lose your job for having children. So, the instructor (one of, let’s face it, not so many full-time CES women) gets sh**canned for following the commmandment to marry and multiply and replenish; but the secretary that’s making utter crap wages (and no benefits) is allowed to stay on. Please.
Also - if exceptions were made for those who are “innocent victims” in a divorce, I’d love to find out who gets to determine who’s at “fault” and what the, ahem, objective criteria are to come to that conclusion. What about two people in a miserable life-term of a marriage who decide to end it? Who do you blame? And are you now nothing more than a sinner who is a bad example for young *adults*? The rules we make ourselves live by are miserly and mean and seem to have no regard for people’s humanity.
Speaking of which, I could not call people sinners so easily. Michael, I’m very sorry that you as a gay man have felt that you have to be under such strict rules about what is acceptable about YOU and who you are; and yet, I feel you are wielding a similarly strict set of black-and-white rules for others. It strikes me as very sadly ironic.
Sheldon - “Nothing fetters a person’s mind like the chains of a monthly pay check” - is great. Did you make that up? Fab.
Comment by RE — September 30, 2007 @ 6:37 am
My understanding FWIW, is that CES, as it now stands, will not allow those divorced to teach in the classroom but will attempt to provide them with another non-teaching position. Don’t ask me what those positions are or where they are located; this was just the way I recall it being explained to me by others going through the CES training program at BYU.
Comment by SmallAxe — September 30, 2007 @ 7:34 am
Re: #84
CES basically follows Paul’s ideas about meat offered to idols (which to me is quite analogous to caffeine): CES hold themselves to a higher standard to protect those of lesser faith and understanding.
Well, as an avid Coke drinker, I guess I’m not CES material.
I wonder how many people would really lose their testimonies over a Coke-drinking seminary teacher?
Comment by Steve M — September 30, 2007 @ 7:46 am
You’d better take it easy on my brother–I’ve got connections.
The following might be interesting to some of you regarding divorce, but more importantly those involved with it.
Spiritual content alert!
Carlfred Broderick, One Flesh, One Heart: Putting Celestial Love into Your Temple Marriage, 50-53.
Saviors on Mount Zion
The term “savior on Mount Zion” is ordinarily reserved for those engaged in vicarious work for the dead. Truly, Saints who selflessly devote themselves to genealogical and temple work deserve the title. They perform Christlike service in lovingly opening the gates of exaltation to others who without their work would not have that opportunity.
But I believe that the term might also be applied to another group of the Saints. These have been called to sacrifice for the sake of saving the living, often of their own household.
I first began to think in these terms as a result of counseling two women who had hard life assignments. The first had convinced her boyfriend to join the Church and one year later to marry her in the temple. Unhappily, the conversion didn’t “take,” and soon thereafter he returned to his worldly ways, which included all of the minor vices and several of the major ones. They had children who seemed to elect their father’s life-style rather than their mother’s. I watched this good sister struggle with her rebellious family over the years, and I am ashamed to admit that I had sometimes judged her harshly. For example, if she had asked my opinion, I could have told her before she married him that her husband-to-be was more committed to her than to the gospel. Also, I felt that she had been overly permissive with her children. In short, I self-righteously judged that if she had made better choices (as I had, for example) her life would have turned out better (as mine had, for example).
It eventually became necessary to excommunicate her husband, and in agony of spirit she asked me, her stake president, for a blessing to guide her as to what her duty was under the circumstances. In that blessing I learned a few things that even now make me burn with shame for my earlier spiritual arrogance toward that sister. The Lord told her that she was a valiant spirit in the premortal existence who had volunteered for hazardous duty on earth. Not for her was the safety of a secure marriage to an equally valiant partner. Not for her was the relative ease of rearing naturally obedient children. She had (perhaps rashly) volunteered to live her life in the front lines, as it were, of the continuing battle for men’s souls. Twice, the Lord continued, she had been given the option of an honorable release from this difficult assignment. (After the blessing she confirmed this.) Twice she had been on the operating table at death’s door and was given the free option of coming home or going back to face her challenging responsibilities. Twice she had squared her shoulders and returned to her difficult family. In the blessing she was told that the Lord loved her husband and her children despite their rebellious spirits and that if they were to have any chance at all it would be because of her Christlike patience and long-suffering with them.
When I took my hands off her head I bowed my head in shame, realizing that I stood in the presence of one of the Lord’s great ones, truly a savior on Mount Zion.
True to her promise, she is succeeding against all odds in her mission. To everyone’s surprise, her rowdy eldest son straightened out his life and went on a mission. He came back on fire with the Spirit and committed to the gospel. Her second son, who had often stated his intention of playing football instead of going on a mission, was helped by his elder brother and has also completed a successful mission and is headed for a temple marriage. Her daughters are slower to turn around, but I begin to see some softening there. Even her husband, the toughest of all, is beginning to mellow at the edges and to talk about putting his life in order (no action yet, but I am prepared to believe in miracles in this family).
The other case involved a man who came from a stable Latter-day Saint family background and a wife who was a convert. Together they were rearing a quartet of healthy young boys. Their problem was the wife’s recurrent bouts with anxiety and depression. We got into her background and discovered that she had been raised by an abusive, alcoholic father and a neurotically sick mother who stayed in bed all the time and let her little girl do all of the cooking and cleaning. She confessed that she was still full of rage at her parents for so badly abusing her and full of envy for others who had experienced a normal, loving family relationship. She said that on several occasions when she had seen little girls being hugged and kissed by their loving fathers in Church she had to get up and leave. “The Lord knew what he was doing,” she confessed, “when he sent me only boys to raise. Girls would have been too hard.”
Then she turned to me and said, “Where is the justice? How can God pretend to be just and send some little girls into homes where they are loved and petted and made to feel like somebody and others into homes where they are beat and molested and abused and neglected? What did I do in the pre-earth life to deserve such a family?”
I felt inspired at that time to tell her that she had volunteered in the preexistence to be a savior on Mount Zion, to come to a family drowning in sickness and sin and to be the means of purifying that lineage. Before her in that line were generations of ugly, destructive, family relationships. Downstream from her purifying influence every generation would be blessed with light and love. The role of a savior, I said, is to suffer innocently for the sins of others that still others may not suffer. There can be no higher calling.
She knew by the Spirit that what I suggested was true. That perspective gave her the strength to get on with her life. The last time I heard from her she had also exercised her prerogative to purify her line backward through temple work and was working hard on bringing her parents to see the light.
I suspect that many of us, more than most would ever guess, have made such premortal choices and accepted such divinely demanding missions. More than once I have felt impressed to tell a righteous, long-suffering person that although his or her mate had provided legitimate grounds for divorce and a later cancellation of sealing, that it would please the Lord if the person would refuse to abandon the assignment to help shepherd that straying soul back to the fold. Occasionally someone says to me, “But don’t I have any right to happiness?” The answer, of course, is that for those of us in the service of the Lord, the happiness comes from the service and from the close relationship to our Master that goes with it. If one is looking for a happy, settled, unchallenging life, one probably ought to choose a different master.
I am not suggesting that there are never grounds for separation or divorce. I am suggesting that only the Lord can righteously release us from a responsibility we received from him.
Comment by The Brother of Jared — September 30, 2007 @ 8:16 am
bro of Jared, there’s a limit to how lengthy comments should reasonably be before someone should just get their own site.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 30, 2007 @ 9:29 am
RE: 95
Matt M. claims that because this church is not a church for sinners, then clearly divorced people (who, according to Matt, must be sinners) have no business teaching CES.
Matt, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. I’m going to assume that you’ve never heard of the New Testament or Jesus Christ.
In Matthew (pay attention here Matt, because this book shares your namesake) Chapter 9, versus 11 and 12 read:
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
Look, Matt, despite the fact that the title of the church includes the moniker ‘Saints,’ the church IS a church for sinners. We’re all sinners Matt, we’re all not perfect. That’s the WHOLE point of the gospel and going to church. If we were already perfect and already saints, then we wouldn’t need to go to church (or have our kids taught by a CES employee for that matter).
CES really should re-think the policy in question. Their message says (loud and clear) that only perfect people need apply to be CES teachers. No one is perfect.
Comment by Neal Peters — September 30, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Neal, I suspect that Matt was engaging in verbal irony. I agree with your mystification at the behavior of CES.
Comment by smb — September 30, 2007 @ 10:02 am
But Neal, Matt is right. Divorced people don’t have any business teaching in CES — or Gospel Doctrine, for that matter. Neither do single women. In fact, I’m pretty sure single women shouldn’t be participating in church services at all. Or on blogs.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — September 30, 2007 @ 10:03 am
#70:
If you get fired from a lifetime career of CES, you do the same thing that a few emeritus GA’s have cashed in on. You guide tours to Mormon history sites, as well as Mexican/Central American/South American ruins. Seriously. One example would be Hartman Rector Jr., who brought several tours to Nauvoo while I lived there.
#90:
Don’t many members who get divorced end up being disfellowshipped regardless of the reasons for said divorce?
My ex-wife certainly didn’t. Instead, she got a basically congratulatory e-mail from her bishop, identifying me as an agent of the devil (I kid you not). Unfortunately for that bishop, he couldn’t tell the difference between her e-mail address and mine, so I received the e-mail instead!
Comment by Nick Literski — September 30, 2007 @ 10:19 am
RE: 101 & 102
Heh!
Yeah, you people are right. Maybe women should start sitting in the back of the chapel during sacrament meetings, with the babies! CES would probably approve of something like that.
Comment by Neal Peters — September 30, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I am perfect. Thus, CES should really be trying to employ me. However, I want to warn CES that I will refuse to teach about Alexander Velikovsky in the Genesis section of the OT course, so maybe that makes me too controversial.
If I kill myself to escape the boredom of having to read a dozen comments about whether or not commenters “respect” each other, is that a sin?
Neal Peters, good to see you around these parts!
Please, Thomas Parkin, you’re “no regular here”? You kid yourself.
The problem with Michael isn’t that he’s a troll? The problem is that he makes these blanket statements about what is or is not a sin (which are ridiculous for the very reasons many of the commenters have mentioned), asserts that the scriptures support him without really engaging said scriptures, and then utterly fails to explicate how his assertions, even if true, support the CES policy. It appears Michael thinks he has a rock solid case. But in truth, Michael hasn’t really even set forth a case. That the structure of your argument is clear in your own mind doesn’t mean it’s been expressed clearly on the written page.
I wonder if those who dislike the CES policy would really like it any better if CES started inquiring into the causes of its employees’ divorces and adjudicating the relative faults of the marriage partners in those divorces. Wouldn’t that be an even more undesirable state of affairs? Wouldn’t we find that to be even more outrageous? I certainly agree that some divorces, perhaps many, are largely or entirely the fault of one party. But many others are the fault of both, and I for one don’t trust some CES bureaucrat to sort out the truth of such matters.
Where does that leave me? Basically, it makes sense to have a blanket rule against divorced members teachers, or no such rule at all. I would favor the latter. I understand the example-setting function that CES instructors are supposed to fulfill and the Church’s concerns, but I think the message that an automatic termination policy sends to the youth is potentially even more damaging (not to mention the damage done to the livelihood of folks like Barlow).
Aaron B
Comment by Aaron Brown — September 30, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Aaron Brown,
The problem with some of the recent commenters is a lack of a track record. While I feel that visitors, and especially new visitors should feel free to comment, they should also be aware that if their first comments are relatively bombastic that some will take them to be trolls.
I think this is a weakness of the bloggernacle, we don’t do a great job of welcoming new commenters because we’ve been burned by anonymous types that show up out of nowhere before. Of course everyone has to write a first comment, but usually it isn’t as divisive as some of what I’ve read here recently.
Clearly this isn’t my blog so what I say is merely the opinion of a long time commenter, who has seen many a troll come and go.
Comment by a random John — September 30, 2007 @ 11:43 am
RE:random john
It seems like most LDS blogs are created to welcome an open discussion of doctrine/belief/culture of the LDS church. The beauty of the Internet blog forum is that it opens up a discussion medium that otherwise could not exist. The type of open and critical discussions that happen here would probably never happen in church–and they probably shouldn’t happen in church, as church service carries with it a whole different purpose.
Anyway, as for everyone worrying about trolls posting here, I must say, I’m a little confused. Sometimes trolls and their abundant criticism of the church does a lot of good. It brings up real issues and opens up issues that probably should be talked about. Unfortunately, more often that not, troll Web sites can offer some pretty reliable historical data concerning 19th century mormonism. I’m not going to say that people should trust every and all they see in troll literature and on troll Web sites, but it can be helpful. One of the best classes I took as an undergraduate at BYU was the 400-level philosophy of religion class taught by Dr. David Paulsen. The whole class was based around a few anti-mormon books (and their apologetic counterparts). We’d sit around in class and talk about the very poignant criticisms found in the anti-mormon literature. It was in that class that I really started to understand why certain churches heap tons and tons of criticism on Mormons and how I could respond that criticism in a positive way. It was in that class that I first realized that there really are some cultural flaws in our church and that perhaps, we as members, should slowly try and correct those flaws in an appropriate manner.
In other words, I don’t think people who sound a little too critical at times should be pounced on or assumed to be trolls. I’m not sure what good this really does. Even if they are trolls, so what? What they say just might really add to the discussion.
Comment by Neal Peters — September 30, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Not long after my DH started his job, several faculty members were denied tenure. They all got the option to stay for a year while they looked for a new job. Most of them found new work quickly; one did not and he took the year.
Such a modification sounds like a workable compromise to the CES policy. The “year to look” could be omitted if there is other disciplinary action.
Comment by Ann — September 30, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
I heard that, as of this school year, this is now the policy for *all* BYU faculty (not just religion). Namely, all faculty who are (a) not LDS, or (b) aren’t married, have just been asked to leave (maybe some have been given this year as a grace period to find a new job?). (Until now respectful and honor-code-following non-LDS faculty were allowed. As well as unmarried faculty.)
Can anyone confirm or deny?
Re: CSE policy and #108: I would think a better policy would be to immediately put anyone whose marriage is in separation or divorce on some alternate out-of-classroom assignment (with the same pay). Then, assuming there is no disciplinary action, after 2 years or something they go back to teaching. I can see that someone in the midst of a divorce would be so distracted that they wouldn’t be in the best frame of mind for teaching, but this seems much more merciful and in line with church doctrine and policy than just firing them.
Comment by anonymous coward — September 30, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
Neal, you’re hilarious, man. To the casual blog participant, trolls are part of the spice — but to the admin they are weeds to be constantly removed. Believe me, without our policing BCC would be of EVEN LESS value, incredibly enough.
Comment by Steve Evans — September 30, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
Let me just say that I’m thankful for the BCC administrators’ caution in moderating comments. I’ve felt free here to express my views, even if unpopular, so long as I do so respectfully.
In another LDS-oriented blog, I have been placed on moderated status. A high percentage of my posts there are summarily deleted. I have been informed by the powers that be there that I am under a “higher standard” because of the fact that I had my name removed from the records of the LDS church. Therefore, when I make the same comments that others do, mine get the boot and the others remain. In particular, if my posts mention in any way that I left the LDS church, they are quickly removed for (this was actually told me by one of their administrators) “encouraging apostacy.”
BCC is by far one of the more reasonable and welcoming places on the bloggernacle.
Comment by Nick Literski — September 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
And that was the great discovery of microcredit — the poor, who need access to capital far more than the rich do, if they are willing to follow a few guidelines, can be excellent credit risks! A great analogy!
Comment by mrs — September 30, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Or maybe it is like creating a hospital for sick people.
Comment by Katie — September 30, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
“Believe me, without our policing BCC would be of EVEN LESS value, incredibly enough.”
Steve Evans–these are your words, are they not?
Would you mind demonstrating how this works? Would you go through the comments Jared made within the last week, for example, and give this forum an example of what Jared said that caused you and a few others to “police” him?
Please let us know your criteria and maybe you could even reveal details of your policing methods.
Comment by The Brother of Jared — September 30, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
Anonymous Coward: Where’d you hear that rumor?
Comment by Matt W. — September 30, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Aaron, I agree, I don’t think there should be any divorce policy. I think it should be like the approach of the Utah and Arizona Attorneys General to polygamy. You don’t prosecute polygamy simpliciter; you only go after substantive offenses (statutory rape, abuse welfare fraud, tax fraud, etc.). Similarly, if a CES teacher gets divorced because he was having an affair or something like that, fine, fire his ass. But if he just gets divorced and there is nothing about it that warrants church discipline? Let him be. I think in 2007 divorce in and of itself is not the great moral evil that CES administration seems to think it is.
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 30, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Anonymous coward, I can’t absolutely disconfirm your rumor, but I would be very surprised if it were true. There are some key professors who are stars on campus and are not LDS; it would be a horrible move for BYU to shoot itself in the foot like this and fire some of their top talent.
Comment by Kevin Barney — September 30, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Bro. of Jared, who also happens to be Jared, I’ll give you an example, by placing you in the mod queue. ZAP!
Comment by Steve Evans — September 30, 2007 @ 5:43 pm
I heard the first half of Anonymous Coward’s policy rumor when last I was on BYU campus, from a faculty member IIRC.
However, I haven’t heard ANYTHING about firing divorced or single professors. I don’t think they’d go that far, and it would be folly if they did.
Comment by Nitsav — September 30, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
People, please, let’s back away from the cliff, shall we? Many people associated with this website continue to support a civility pledge that requires us to avoid airing deep and bitter disagreements in public. We can’t make everyone live up to that standard, but I would ask you all to please try. If you have personal disagreements or grievances, email or other private fora are the proper places to air and resolve them. Please, if you feel the need to complain about — or for that matter praise — BCC editorial policy, email us as the address listed in the about page. I promise that your message will then be read by the people responsible for the policies in question. Please, no more on these points, or on grievances about other individuals or websites, in public! It’s just not the way that Saints handle this stuff.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — September 30, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
“Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it.” *grin*
If anyone has problems with the moderation that happens on this site, try going to sites that are not moderated. I, for one, am glad this is moderated - and I think the flare-ups generally are understandable. Perhaps they aren’t always justified or come from misunderstanding, but they are always understandable.
Fwiw, when I first started blogging, I made some pretty stupid mistakes. I didn’t control my twisted sense of humor the way I should have (since humor sometimes is hard to translate in this type of forum), and I made some comments I should not have made. Luckily, I didn’t attack anyone terribly egregiously, and the one person I appeared to disparage was man enough to let it go. I apologized and explained my ignorance, and he let it go.
Again, fwiw, I second Aaron Brown in #106. The difference with the last few “new commenters” and others is that they came in with their first comments making some pretty outrageous comments - or arguing without equivocation that others were dead wrong - and more. They didn’t seem to be interested in conversation and mutual edification, but only in converting everyone else to their views. In the process, a couple of them made some incredibly caustic and condescending comments.
I chose this blog because of its good balance between free-flowing acceptance and moderated protection. Imo, anyone who thinks the administrators here are too forceful either has no clue what it’s like in other places on the web or likes anarchy and chaos.
May we go back to our regularly scheduled program?
Comment by Ray — September 30, 2007 @ 6:09 pm
Sorry, JNS. I was typing as yours was posting.
Comment by Ray — September 30, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
That came up at BYU once, in the “shoot the dog” campaign.
Interesting how nothing is ever new.
The speaker who delivered a midrash on Hebrews at one of the funerals in my family was a Methodist minister who had been Baptist — but when his wife left him he became unemployable as a Baptist preacher. For life.
I wouldn’t put what he is doing as “cashing in” but rather doing something he loves. Cashing in would be completely different, given his credentials and the level of income he could have traded them in for. Especially given his age and his time of service, the statement about him is quite unfair.
Hmm, you mean the snarkernacle part of things
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 30, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_7028539
Adds some perspective to all of this.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 30, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
A related marriage/divorce policy is also in force among LDS military chaplains who are at risk of losing their endorsement by the church if a divorce occurs. I believe there is a little more tolerance for LDS chaplains in this matter- but not much.
Comment by Aaron L. — September 30, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
At least the CES policy is based in honest and pragmatic recognition of the high potential problems stemming from divorce. At least from the employers perspective, presenting a problem employee with the opportunity to seek another position is always a good and viable solution to such a case.
Comment by Jim C — September 30, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
Bankruptcy is most definitely not a sin, Michael. Most people go bankrupt over catastrophic events that require medical costs.
Your argument might be correct if the Good Samaritan had enslaved the beaten man.
Bankruptcy is merely the contemporary version of the Jubilee and that is scriptural.
Comment by Hellmut — September 30, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
#84 NCNT
Did they also mention that you cannot be hired on full time/permanent if you aren’t married? Past practice has been that unmarried prospects can be hired on with a “probationary” period granted whithin which they must find a spouse. At the end of that period if they are not married, they will be let go. I am assuming that this is still the case currently. I think the period granted is two years. Again, this policy applies only to full time paid employees of CES.
Comment by Talon — September 30, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Within, not whithin…..stupid laptop compound by Simpsons distraction…….
Comment by Talon — September 30, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
So, not to be a doubter but is this ‘policy’ written down anywhere that a layman may confirm it? Perhaps a CES handbook of instruction or something? Id never mention this to anyone if I couldn’t confirm it for myself. Picking up little tidbits of info like this is patently useless if they can never be used in upstanding conversation.
Comment by Matt M — September 30, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Michael, your murder analogy makes no sense. It would have to be homicide to compare to an innocent divorce.
Even though there is a commandment that says “Thou shalt not kill,” I would be very much surprised if a CES teacher got fired for causing a traffic fatality or killing someone in self-defense. A CES teacher will certainly not get fired for killing as a soldier.
If we extend the homicide analogy then it becomes pretty easy to accept that there are good reasons to get divorced.
Besides, if you read Matthew 19 a little closer then you might notice that the divorce prohibition is about protecting the livelihood of wives. Jesus is prohibiting the abandonment of women just because a guy lusts after somebody else.
Comment by Hellmut — September 30, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
The CES policy that divorced persons could never be hired (or would be fired) was certainly the case when I went through the class to teach seminary in the early 1990s. The instructor claimed that it arose from a statement by an earlier prophet (Joseph Fielding Smith, IIRC) that the church “could find better” than divorced persons. I’ve never found independent verification of that statement though, so THAT part I can’t vouch for.
Comment by Nick Literski — September 30, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
I gather that, even among some Church employees, CES is sometimes referred to as “the Church within the Church.” At least two of my bishops and one of my stake presidents were divorced and remarried before being called. If this policy is still in place (and it sounds like it is), it is interesting to me that my ecclesiastical leaders would have been considered improper role models to serve as employees within “the Church within the Church.”
But as Kevin noted, I will just add this to the list of policies of the Church or its agencies that I cannot defend.
{Regarding divorced men requiring First Presidency approval to be called as bishop–First Presidency approval is required for any man to be called as bishop.)
Comment by DavidH — September 30, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Re 132 - Not in anything that I have access to, and I am currently in the first round of classes for CES hirings. We only heard about it from our teacher who put the four things on the board without much discussion.
Re 130 - It didn’t come up, but I’ll definitely be asking in class on Tuesday.
Comment by NoCoolName_Tom — September 30, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
I have a question. Maybe you all can help me. I know this is not related to the subject, but it is something that has bothered me. I was ex-communicated 20 years ago. A year later, I was re-baptized. My new baptizmal date showed up on my records for years at tithing settlements. I had two baptizmal dates and a lot of nosey records clerks. I asked the bishop to please remove my resent baptismal date and and use my first one. (I was eight years old at that time.) He approved and it was done. I have moved from ward to ward over resent years, and have been faithful in what ever calling I have been asked to do. My question is this: Even though my ward record does not show my other baptizmal date, is there a special record that always shows it somewhere? I have had two bishops that seem to know this had happened to me even when I have said nothing about it. I thought when you repented, the sin is not remembered.
Comment by Marie — September 30, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
I got curious about the CES policy for hiring instructors after teaching an institute class on Kirtland history as an invited volunteer, to the morning time slot that was populated by women like me, who weren’t enrolled at the college.
I would not be able to be hired because I am female have young children living at home. CES also does not hire the divorced or anyone who has declared bankruptcy. The institute director speculated to me that the reason was CES wants unproblematic examples before teenagers and young adults.
As an early-morning program seminary graduate I can’t relate to or understand release-time seminary at all. To me, a grown-up who makes his career teaching seminary is not a useful example to young people. The grown-up who volunteers to teach early morning for a couple years is an example of mormon service and sacrifice situated in a real life.
Comment by Johnna — October 1, 2007 @ 12:12 am
Marie: why don’t you just ask your bishop?
Comment by Johnna — October 1, 2007 @ 12:13 am
Mark Brown (#28),
Religious institutions have legislated exceptions to the pertinent employment laws. For example the Civil Rights Act subchapter on equal employment opportunities has the following exception:
I would hope that some sort of grace period is provided for the person concerned to obtain other employment.
Given the perceived need to implement such draconian termination rules, perhaps the best option would be for CES to quit hiring full time instructors at all.
Comment by Mark D. — October 1, 2007 @ 1:02 am
Mark D., # 141 -
Thank you for your response.
Comment by Mark Brown — October 1, 2007 @ 5:38 am
AC (109) - My relatives who are employed by BYU (in two different colleges and the administration) say that it’s not true.
Comment by queuno — October 1, 2007 @ 7:27 am
JimD (74) - Thanks for the clarification. My understanding was based on my knowing 4 individuals or families who filed for Chapter 13 and in all four cases, the individuals repaid the full amount. IANAL.
Comment by queuno — October 1, 2007 @ 7:31 am
Marie: I’m not sure if this helps, but we recently moved to east TN where our new bishop asked which ward we came from. I’ve had clerks ask me that before for record transfer purposes but this bishop admitted that it was standard practice among gaining bishops to call the losing ones and inquire about new move-ins. I told him that we were only in our last ward for four months. He asked where we were before that and the name of the bishop! My gut tells me that this is precautionary, but I’m uncomfortable, confessions or no, with the practice of digging so deep. I hope that you’re able to find closure with your situation.
Aaron
Comment by Aaron L. — October 1, 2007 @ 7:34 am
We couldn’t figure out what a seminary or institute teacher would do for a living after getting fired by CES.
I’m sure there’s a great new Utah-based MLM out there looking for a few new sales people.
Comment by queuno — October 1, 2007 @ 7:41 am
Marie: as a Bishop I have assisted a couple of people through rebaptism. It has been my experience that when the records arrive, the original baptism date is the one on the records. I am sure that somewhere in the records kept in SLC both dates are recorded but I am certian that wards do not normally have access. This has always been a testimony to me of what you said, “…when you repent, the sin is not remembered.”
Comment by Darrell — October 1, 2007 @ 7:43 am
Aaron - I have served as a ward clerk a couple of times. The practice is as you describe — bishops often call previous bishops just to find out more about the individual. When a ward clerk sends *out* records, he can check a box indicating to the next bishop to contact the current one.
Our bishop prefers to send out records and not wait for new wards to request them, specifically so that we can check the box asking the new bishop to call him. He does this for *every* move-out.
He also calls *all* former bishops, no exceptions, to ask about the member who has moved in. He just wants to get to know the people who are moving in. There’s nothing seedy about the practice.
We have a info form we give new members that asks for previous address and ward and bishop (but we can look up the ward and bishop from the address if we didn’t have it before). Also, this isn’t really necessary. Any record that comes in shows the previous unit and the date it was transferred in at the bottom of the record. You can look at any member and figure out where they most recently came from and how long ago.
The Lord may “remember our sins no more”, but from a practical perspective, there are situations where the Church needs to remember certain administrative actions.
Comment by queuno — October 1, 2007 @ 7:49 am
Thanks queuno-
I agree with you.
Comment by Aaron L. — October 1, 2007 @ 8:04 am
Queno: Good to hear it’s just rumor. I couldn’t recall who my source was at BYU, so I’m glad someone has a reliable one.
Comment by Nitsav — October 1, 2007 @ 8:11 am
There are certain callings, such as a temple sealer or counsellor in a temple presidency, which are truly “off limits” to those who have had church discipline at any time in their lives. For this reason alone, there must be a record kept somewhere to verify “eligibility.”
Comment by Nick Literski — October 1, 2007 @ 8:18 am
I don’t have time to read the whole thread, but I wanted to point out that my divorced mother served a CES mission and taught in front of a class as a volunteer both before and during her mission. Her students were mentally handicapped. Maybe that mattered.
Comment by Last Lemming — October 1, 2007 @ 9:00 am
Thank you Aaron, queuno, Darrel & Nick for responding to my question. In the last 7 years I have served two missions with my husband. The missionary recommendation form does not ask about church discipline, but both mission presidents knew about my ex-communication. It has been a frustrating experience for me. After all these years and service it still haunts me. Can’t imagine why they chose to bring it up to me when I was out serving the Lord. I am not really embarrassed by it anymore. I never talk about it, so the only thing I can think of is, that they are embarrassed and curious.
Comment by Marie — October 1, 2007 @ 9:17 am
Let’s sum this thread up with what is apparent now (if it wasn’t already before)…CES is darkness. And the darkness is spreading…
My wife does some volunteer Institute teaching at the university that we both attend. She just got word two weeks ago that the Institute Director here just received a new laptop with a webcam. He will be taping all of the Institute teachers periodically and sending taps to be reviewed by the area CES directors. Frankly we were both shocked and appalled. I fully support the right of an employer to review the performance of their employees and make hiring decisions based on that review. Its just that I don’t believe that CES has any idea what good teaching looks like, or accepts the idea that different people can learn in different ways. Most problematic is that the topic this year is Teachings of the Living Prophets. My wife has been treating some pretty controversial topics (homosexuality, women and work, etc.) is fairly nuanced and open-minded ways. CES does not do “nuanced” or “open-minded.”
Comment by AHLDuke — October 1, 2007 @ 9:18 am
I took half a semester of the “Intro to Teaching Seminary” class before I decided it wasn’t for me. The instructor frankly stated that as a CES employee, you are under the microscope. People in the ward will expect more from you and your kids, just like they do the bishop’s family. You need an ecclesiastical endorsement annually that involves having a temple recommend, plus a few more searching questions. I don’t know what the extra questions were.
Basically, they want people who exemplify the ideal Mormon life. So you agree to extra rules and higher standards if you want to be hired. If you don’t want to follow those rules, then you don’t apply. It’s kind of like being a missionary for the rest of your life. Lots of people liked the total gospel immersion and highly structured life of a missionary. They make ideal CES employees. You can mock them if you want to, but there are lots of them. The hiring process is extremely competitive.
Volunteer teachers, as has been mentioned, are not held to those same rigorous standards.
Every rule causes hardship. My cousin was full-time military, but was discharged after being in a (civilian) car accident that caused a chronic injury. It wasn’t his fault, but it ended his chosen employment. He knew that when he signed up. Then he had to go find another job as a handicapped individual. It was really hard on their family. Want to lambast the military for only wanting healthy people in their ranks? He had a desk job that he mainly sat down for anyway and he was physically able to continue in his specific job. Because of the injury someone else inflicted on him, he couldn’t pass the physical fitness tests anymore. He got discharged because of the military policy about wanting only healthy people.
At some jobs, you can get fired just because the boss hates you. Happened to a friend of mine. Then he badmouthed her to other employers in their small specialized field, so she couldn’t get work in a similar situation. She ended up changing careers entirely.
Why should CES have to guarantee total fairness in every employment decision? No one else has to.
Comment by Melinda — October 1, 2007 @ 10:33 am
Jared to BCC: “Don’t tase me, Bro!”
On Marie’s questions, and queuno’s response: Is it not true that a membership record number changes from a ####### to #######a to indicate that some type of disciplinary action has taken place?
Comment by cantinflas — October 1, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
On Marie’s questions, and queuno’s response: Is it not true that a membership record number changes from a ####### to #######a to indicate that some type of disciplinary action has taken place?
It is not true.
There are membership records that have an ‘a’ at the end, a ‘b’ and a ‘c’. This doesn’t indicate anything. If there has been discipline that needs to be noted (as for incest or other more serious problems) there is an asterik on the records with notations from Salt Lake. It’s on the form the Stake Clerk gets.
The number is never changed.
Comment by Bandanamom — October 1, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Nick Litersky at #111:
BCC: Welcoming Apostates Since 2004.
Comment by gst — October 1, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
I myself have a membership number ending with A. I don’t know what it signifies. There are other active, faithful members in our ward with that same numbering scheme. I’ve never seen B or C.
Comment by queuno — October 1, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
Mine is a B; my wife’s is a C; our oldest son’s is a C… which is why we blog here.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
queuno, mine is a B; my wife’s is a C; our oldest son’s is a C… which is why we blog here.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Oops, nothing like a double comment to ruin a mediocre joke.
Comment by Ray — October 1, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Here’s a related article by Peggy on Religion and Divorce.
Comment by Kevin Barney — October 2, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Kevin, glad you posted that link to Peggy’s latest on divorce.
I was somewhat disappointed that no evidence or study was brought to bear, regarding the following quote:
Comment by Matt W. — October 2, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Matt, how would you study that? Or do you just mean the 40% stat? (Even that would be tricky to study, given the church’s extreme reluctance to share demographic data).
Comment by Kristine — October 2, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
I meant “the vast majority have been divorced”. I guess I was hoping for a stat or something impericial to back that up. The 40% stat seems pretty easy to get, and I think has been shared in general conference.
Sorry for not being more clear in my first strike. And I’m not saying Jennifer James is wrong, I’m just saying I’d like some back up on this. The last I’ve seen is that the divorce rate among all LDS combined (married in temple, married out of temple, married to a person of another faith) is just a few points under the national average of divorce, and that the vast majority get remarried.
Comment by Matt W. — October 2, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
#153:
At some jobs, you can get fired just because the boss hates you.
In 33 of the 50 states, you can be fired from your job (any job, not just hireling clergy) just because your boss finds out you’re gay.
In the U.S. military, you can be fired from your job just because you’re gay, even if you’re an Arabic translator, and there’s a shortage of them (yes, several Arabic translators in the military already been fired for that reason, and then the military cries about shortages).
Comment by Nick Literski — October 2, 2007 @ 12:40 pm