Another You Make the Call
From my mystery correspondent:
You are the bishop of the Splitsville 4th Ward. You hear from your wife, who is not above trading in gossip but is generally accurate about such things, that Brother and Sister Schism, an active couple in the ward, both 45 years old and temple-married to each other 15 years ago, are in the process of divorcing. Jim Schism is the Gospel Doctrine teacher. Jan Schism is the first counselor to the Relief Society president. They have one child, a 14 year-old son.
The next day, you call Jan Schism at her office and ask her if she would be willing to meet with you. She asks, “Is this about my divorce?” You respond, “I just want to see if there’s anything I can do to help.” She says, “I’m quite confident that there isn’t, but thanks for asking. I’d rather not discuss it right now. Maybe I will sometime, but not soon. Thanks, goodbye.”
You call Jim Schism and ask him if he’s available to meet. He readily agrees, and you arrange to meet at the chapel that evening. You say, “Jim, I understand that your marriage is ending and I’m sorry to hear that. Is there anything that I can do to help?” Jim says, “Bishop, I genuinely appreciate the sentiment, but I won’t discuss the status of my marriage with you. It’s a personal and private matter. And if that’s all you wanted to discuss, then I’m afraid that we have nothing more to talk about, so I’ll see you on Sunday.”
Both Jim and Jan renewed their temple recommends 6 months before your recent meeting with Jim.
You call the stake president to ask for guidance. He declines to suggest a course of action and says that the question of how to best help the Schisms is entirely up to you. He does say, however, that if he were the bishop, he would be inclined to ask them individually if they were still worthy of their temple recommends, and also if they would like to be released from their callings to be able focus on their family life in this difficult time.
When facing challenges as bishop, it has been your practice to formulate what you think will be the best plan of action for the difficulty presented, based on your experience, judgment, and guidance from other leaders or written command authority, and then to present that plan to the Lord in prayer and ask that he confirm the soundness of your plan by the Spirit, or otherwise manifest to you that it is unsound. You sit down to formulate your draft plan. What do you think you should do about the Schisms? YOU MAKE THE CALL.
Nothing. Why should a bishop get involved in a relationship that has not asked for help?
Strike that–don’t do nothing. Pray for the family. Add their name to the Temple Prayer roll. Ask them if they would like to be released from callings to focus on family. The end.
[A divorce does not signal to me unworthiness for the temple or callings.]
Comment by ESO — March 27, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Count yourself lucky that this isn’t one of those situations where you dearly want to tell the people to get divorced but you can’t because the CHI forbids you from doing that.
Comment by David Clark — March 27, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
Assuming no strong impressions during prayer, I would follow the SP’s advice. (The question about temple worthiness is appropriate if you have no idea why they are divorcing.) If the answers are, “Yes,” and, “No,” accept it.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
I agree with ESO. You’ve let them know that you are aware of the situation and that you are concerned about them. The only thing that the hypothetical doesn’t show is how the teenage son is handling things.
As President of the Aaronic Priesthood for the ward, he is one of your primary responsibilities. How is he doing? Does he even know what’s going on? Are the parents trying to soften the blow of the family’s splitting, or are they using him as a pawn in the divorce? Or maybe the parents have just been staying together for the past few years for his sake, waiting for him to be old enough that they think he can handle a divorce that they both wanted a long time ago.
The divorce seems to be fairly amicable now, but what are the chances that it could get ugly? I would be concerned that, since both have pretty visible callings in the ward, other members of the ward may be taking sides. The last thing you need as a bishop is for this divorce to divide your ward, too.
Comment by CS Eric — March 27, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Why do we automatically assume callings need to be revoked? Oftimes, in a stressful period, a bit of normalcy –plus something constructive to do that isn’t Part Of The Issue –can be a lifeline.
Comment by deb — March 27, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
David, the handbook forbids church leaders from suggesting divorce? Huh, I don’t think I was aware of that. That would be tought for me. I read those advice columns, and I often find myself thinking if it were my column I would suggest a divorce (but they hardly ever do, almost always suggesting counseling instead).
Comment by Kevin Barney — March 27, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Does the Bloggernacle agree that at least one of the two must be acting inapproriately to cause this divorce and mess up this kid’s life?
Comment by Trevor — March 27, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
The 1998 version of the CHI prohibited counseling for divorce. I am not sure if the newer version has the same restriction, though I think it is likely. I think it still is the case because I have some Mormon friends with major marital problems, including infidelity. They had no kids. To me the beyond obvious suggestion was divorce before you get kids involved and make it 10x harder, but the Bishop did not counsel divorce, probably because he could not. I kept my mouth shut because I was pretty sure the Bishop was in a bind on that one. Thankfully, they divorced last year (2 years after seeing the Bishop).
Comment by David Clark — March 27, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
I wish my last name was Schism. Smith is so boring.
Comment by Chris — March 27, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
I think it’s considerate to at least ask if they need to be released from their callings so that they can devote more time to family matters. Other than that, I would let them know I was available to talk in confidence and butt out.
Comment by meems — March 27, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
“Does the Bloggernacle agree that at least one of the two must be acting inappropriately to cause this divorce and mess up this kid’s life?”
Dude, the Bloggernacle doesn’t agree on anything.
Comment by Randy B. — March 27, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
My understanding is that priesthood leaders are not to counsel for or against divorce. Ultimately it is the individual’s decision. This is based on my uncle’s story of his divorce. Is this true?
Comment by Trevor — March 27, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Trevor–no, we do not agree. Maybe they are just plain old obedient and miserable.
I would agree that I don’t think a bishop should counsel for or against divorce. I would also say I don’t think a bishop should advise for or against marriage. Only the people involved should be making those decisions.
Comment by ESO — March 27, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Regarding questions regarding whom to marry or whether to divorce, the CHI says that “Those decisions must originate and remain with the individual.”
I don’t believe that this would preclude the bishop from counseling regarding the pros or cons of divorce. Nor do I think that this would preclude a bishop from counseling a person to separate from his/her spouse if circumstances warranted.
As to the Schism family, I think it would be appropriate to meet briefly with each of the couple and ask regarding temple worthiness and desire to continue serving in callings. That’s a long way from automatically thinking people should be released from callings.
Comment by Mark B. — March 27, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
As a courtesy, the bishop should let them know (if he hasn’t already) that he is there if they want help. Offering prayers in their behalf is also a good idea. Beyond that sort of thing, meems is right — the bishop ought to back off.
I think it would be entirely inappropriate to ask about worthiness or the desire to serve based solely on the fact that a couple is considering a divorce. To be honest, I don’t even see this as a close call.
Comment by Randy B. — March 27, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
OK, full quote from CHI:
“No priesthood officer is to counsel a person whom to marry. Nor should he counsel a person to divorce his or her spouse. Those decisions must originate and remain with the individual.”
I don’t see the wiggle room that Mark B. thinks there is here.
Comment by David Clark — March 27, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
ESO,
So it is possible that both are good people and just are miserable? What could cause the misery if both aren’t selfish and both own up to their responsibilities to this child?
Comment by Trevor — March 27, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Mark B. (#14)
Thank you for the clarification regarding the CHI quote. That goes along with what I heard.
Comment by Trevor — March 27, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Having asked if there is anything I could help with, I would keep out of it. I would work on maintaining a friendly connection with the family, letting them know I am available if needed. But that’s because I’m practically perfect in every way.
Comment by Jami — March 27, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
What that seems to leave open is to counsel a couple to stay married.
Comment by gst — March 27, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
I echo the sentiment to follow the SP advice. Beyond that, as a Bishop you learn to lean on inspiration. Asking about worthiness without any other outward signs, or a legitimate reason, such as a new calling, would be awkward. Assuming unworthiness because of a pending divorce might be statistically sound, but perhaps not correct at this point. As bishop, focus on the son, and lean on the RS and EQ presidents to keep close tabs on Bro. & Sis. Schism, and pray for guidance. Any sign of a negative change, and I’d haul them back in for a chat, individually, and ask them for an update. Above all, listen to the spirit for when you need to talk to them again.
Comment by kevinf — March 27, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Trevor, I don’t want to start judging who did what to cause a divorce if it isn’t obvious. That’s hair-splitting that can end in a terrible mess in a hurry.
I don’t want a bishop counseling people to divorce or remain married. I want a bishop who is there to provide spiritual counsel and insight. The CHI statement is worded very carefully to put full weight for these decisions where they belong - with the individuals involved.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
David:
Then you should spend more time practicing law.
If the person you’re counseling says he is considering divorce, it seems you have all the room in the world to counsel that person on the subject. Not to make the decision for him (which, of course, the handbook says one should never do, no matter the subject of the counseling), but to assist him in taking the steps necessary to consider fully all the issues involved.
Regarding gst’s latest comment: again, there, the instructions regarding counseling say that one should not make the decision for the person, but assist him in making that decision for himself. I think this applies as much to advice: “you should stay married” as to “you should divorce.”
Comment by Mark B. — March 27, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Ray (22),
I agree.
Comment by Trevor — March 27, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Excommunicate them both for failing to sustain their leaders (i.e., by refusing to spill their guts).
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Trevor (17)
Is your question what could cause marital misery other than unrighteousness? The list is nearly endless: bad body odor, sexual incompatibility, tone deafness, a desire to have twelve more kids, big differences in gender role expectations, a sudden strong desire to join the peace corp or move to Alaska, learning they were twins separated at birth, etc.
Comment by Jami — March 27, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Jami, 26,
Honey, is that you?
Comment by Mark IV — March 27, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
Since the Bishop only heard about the divorce through [credible] gossip is it appropriate for him to call them at all?
Comment by Cherylem — March 27, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Although I agree that none of these factors are elements of serious sin, most have aspects of pride or selfishness.
Comment by Joel — March 27, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
Joel (#29),
Amen.
Comment by Trevor — March 27, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Ick. Walk a mile in their shoes before you start saying stuff like that. And I don’t mean similar shoes, I mean THEIR shoes.
Comment by dug — March 27, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Mark IV (27),
You had me laughing pretty good. Great line.
Comment by Trevor — March 27, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
I can speak as one who did sit his bishop when considering divorce. After hearing both sides he said, “As your bishop I’m supposed to tell you to work it out, get counseling, pray about it… but personally, I can’t see why you two should stay together.” We were both worthy recommend holders, too. I have to say, I appreciated his stepping away from the handbook at that moment. We quickly divorced and ended up with partners we truly fit and adored. Do you think the bishop was inspired or just hopelessly frank?
Comment by David T. — March 27, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
Joel, using pride and selfishness as general categories for sin broadens them so much that they essentially lose all meaning. You’re essentially using them as shorthand for “behaving poorly,” which doesn’t really mean anything at all.
People don’t have to sin to be unhappy or to fall out of love with each other! Ridiculous.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
#33 Ack… who did sit with his bishop…
Apologies.
Comment by David T. — March 27, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Of course they don’t. But there is still a question about whether “falling out of love” is a valid reason to seek a divorce.
Comment by gst — March 27, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Joel, Trevor, et al.,
It’s also wise to keep in mind that you likely have NO IDEA what went on in a marriage or a divorce, no matter how astute an observer you think you are. By far the most painful aspect of my divorce has been dealing with the judgment of my ward members, who truly had/have no clue about why we divorced, but have nonetheless found it necessary to assign blame to one or both of us (and with the seemingly endless need of many people to assert that divorce is avoidable in every case where the parties are not selfish, immature, or wicked). I realize that it’s scary to think that divorced people might actually be very much like you, but they really might be every bit as compassionate, selfless, skilled at relationships as you and just have a different cross to bear in this life. Learn to say “there but for the grace of God…” and leave it at that. Please.
Comment by Kristine — March 27, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
GST — Works for me.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Nothing. The bishop is not there to get involved in this family’s personal affairs except as far as he has taken it. Nothing further should be done.
Comment by Dan — March 27, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Wait, wait, wait. If they aren’t divorced, and if they aren’t even talking publicly about divorce, then I would butt out completely. (I would never had called them in the first place based on gossip, but that’s me.)
If I want to be ready for the announcement, Then I’d prioritize the protection of their individual interactions with the church and their son’s interaction with the church ahead of anything else: questions of worthiness are secondary to the maintenance of testimonies and protecting them all from possible foolishness.
You shouldn’t counsel for divorce, but well-placed silence can be a powerful message.
Comment by Norbert — March 27, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Actually, I don’t see anything in the handbook that says that a bishop is supposed to tell people to “work it out” or to go to counseling.
On the other hand, I would think the bishop should always counsel people to pray–about any subject, including marriage and divorce.
Comment by Mark B. — March 27, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Then you should spend more time practicing law.
But then how would I ever be called to be an expert witness again?
Comment by David Clark — March 27, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Mark B. (#41),
Good call. Let me clarify. What our bishop told us was he should advise us to try to work it out and try counseling. I didn’t realize I made him sound so definitive until you pointed it out. Thanks.
Comment by David T. — March 27, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Mark B., I agree that the quoted section of the CHI does not say that a bishop is supposed to tell people to try to work it out; my point is that I don’t think the CHI prohibits a bishop from saying such a thing. What it prohibits him from saying is, 1) You should marry that person, or 2) You should divorce that person. It does not prevent the bishop from saying, “Maybe you should try to work this out and stay married.” Maybe he shouldn’t say that, but the CHI does not say that.
The quoted section is clear: “Nor should he counsel a person to divorce his or her spouse.” It prohibits counseling divorce in the affirmative. It doesn’t say, “Nor should he counsel a person whether or not to divorce his or her spouse.”
That said, my personal view is that bishops aren’t marriage counselors, and should probably rely heavily on professionals in this area.
Comment by gst — March 27, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Kevin,
This is a weird one. Normally an active LDS couple divorces after a long spell of counseling that at a minumum involves lots of time with the bishop(s) and SP(s).
Since they do not want the Bishops influence on this decision there is little he can do or say.
Comment by bbell — March 27, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
Kristine (#37),
I agree with these two quotes of your post:
“It’s also wise to keep in mind that you likely have NO IDEA what went on in a marriage or a divorce, no matter how astute an observer you think you are.”
“Learn to say ‘there but for the grace of God…’ and leave it at that.”
——————
I do not agree that at lease one party isn’t “selfish, immature, or wicked,” especially when children are involved.
Comment by Trevor — March 27, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Go with the spirit. Do NOT give advice, only refer to LDS counseling in the area. I think I would do what the SP suggested and just ask if they are still worthy to hold the temple recommend.
Comment by Matt — March 27, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
“Unsolicited solicitude is trespassing.”
Comment by J. Michael — March 27, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
I doubt anyone over the age of 30 shares Trevor’s view.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
My experience is that some people come to the bishop, throw the problem on his desk, and in effect say, “Here you go. Solve this for me.” I do not think it is a bishop’s responsibility or right to make decisions such for an individual or couple. The bishop must listen, both to the couple and to the Spirit, and give counsel when it is asked. I have been asked, “Should I get a divorce?” I cannot answer that.
That being said, I have said something to the effect that the person should not have to live under certian conditions (abuse) and they should act accordingly. I have strongly advised women to get away from abuse NOW! If that was considered counsel to divorce–so be it.
Comment by Darrell — March 27, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
David Clark, I have a CHI, and I see no such council in it….
Comment by Matt W. — March 27, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
As usual, Elder Oaks has all the answers.
Comment by Eric Russell — March 27, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
The CHI is actually perfectly clear that it’s okay to counsel women not to marry me. By name. It’s embarrassing.
Comment by gst — March 27, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Trevor, just as an example:
There are certain mental or emotional disabilities that, when combined, cause extremely difficult issues to exist in a marriage. “Worthiness” - phrased in any way - should never be implied as a cause of difficulty in marriages where such combinations do exist; being “selfish, immature or wicked” should never be charged in these cases.
Gratuitous advice: Accept the general guideline of letting those decisions be left in the hands of the individuals involved. There’s a reason “Judge not, that ye be not judged” is a good standard.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Case in point: Ray is 31.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Another nice thing to do is to ask each one privately, if they are aware that their soon to be ex-spouse has been guilty of anything that should be brought to the bishops attention. Adultery or other sexual immorality, abuse, criminal behavior, etc. Or if they themselves are guilty of any such thing.
At some future point it is almost a given that one or both sides is going to make such accusations. Such accusations are sometimes manufactured to help negotiations about child support, custody, visitation, etc, or to get even with their ex-spouse about these issues. Generally one or both have moved out of the ward at that point. You may even get a phone call from the new bishop one or two years down the road asking about such accusations. It is nice at that time to be able to say, that you looked both spouses in the eye at the time and asked, and here is what they said at the time. Of course you won’t respond to ward members, etc, that bring such gossip to your attention, but even than, you will be glad you asked.
And yes I know that many of you think this is out of line.
Comment by CW — March 27, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
#55 - Thanks for the laugh, Steve.
My grandpa used to say that once you pass an age, you always are able to claim that age. Once 31, always 31 - so, yes, I am 31.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Holy crap, CW! That’s TERRIBLE advice.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
No, Steve, it’s good advice, assuming that the bishop’s goal is to be called to give testimony at a divorce hearing and have to fork over lots of money to get a lawyer to try to quash the subpoena on some kind of clergy privilege grounds.
Really, CW. What are you thinking?
Comment by gst — March 27, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Come on, Steve. Facilitating one person’s future custody case by providing an opportunity to lay charges against the spouse - when that person might not have thought of the possibility on their own: How can that be a bad thing?
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Welcome to Zion.
Comment by Mark IV — March 27, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
My name is Daniel Plainview, and this is my son and partner, C.W. Plainview. Believe me when I tell you that I am a divorce man. I’ve traveled halfway across this great state of ours to get you to make up accusations against your estranged spouse.
Comment by Daniel Plainview — March 27, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
56. Infidelity carries no weight in negotiating anything. Sex and marriage have no legal connection, at least in my state.
Comment by KyleM — March 27, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Oh, my opinion is to stay out of it until invited in.
Comment by KyleM — March 27, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Joel (29)
Um, yeah. That’s people for you. One might go so far as to call pride “the universal sin.” Temple recommends and callings are given to us folks anyway.
Mark IV (27) Of course it’s me. Although I don’t appreciate you pointing it out on a such a public forum. You’d better buy flowers, some good chocolates and give a lovely back rub tonight. Then all will be forgiven.
Comment by Jami — March 27, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Jami, don’t be selfish; it might lead to divorce.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
#63, you don’t ask such things to deal with legal court proceedings. However when one of the ex-spouses is being subject to Church court proceedings, or is being denied temple clearance to get remarried, or is being considered for a specific calling, it is nice to say, when asked by appropriate Church authority, “Yes I asked, and here is the response I was given.”
Comment by CW — March 27, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
They are more likely to ask, “So, bishop, for how long have you been smoking crack?”
Comment by gst — March 27, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
#68, actually I haven’t ever been asked that question yet, but I will start practicing a good answer for it right now. What answers have worked for you?
Comment by CW — March 27, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
So, let me drop a bomb here…
I feel it my duty as a bishop to butt in when I feel prompted to. And I won’t stop at the first no… or even the second.
Just as the CHI makes it clear that I am to seek out the destitute and provide the assistance without them asking, I feel the same for the emotionally and spiritually destitute. The vast majority of my appointments are set by me, meeting with people I feel have a need for a conversation.
In this situation, I would doggedly pursue this couple until they’ll let me in (with love, of course).
Let me drop a second bomb:
Not knowing anything about the situation, I would focus on the brother.
I would make sure that wife and son are taken care of and have support, and make sure it’s clear that I’m not taking sides… but I’d seek out that brother. We lose far too many men in divorces. They leave the church for some reason — ex post or ex ante — and bishops should proactively try to keep them involved in the church and help them keep their connections to their creator.
Comment by Dave — March 27, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
“Well, pres, I did find out that she homeschooled without credentials…and that he was cited by campus police once for suspicious activities at the BYU. I believed it involved singing between classes while dressed as a hobbit.”
Comment by Peter LLC — March 27, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Dave,
I think your two bombs contradict each other. A hounding bishop would chase me away.
Comment by KyleM — March 27, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Peter LLC FTW.
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
If this question is based on a real life situation, cudos to the stake president. My only differing suggestion would be that the bishop ask the individuals whether they would prefer to be released from their callings so as not to add to the stress they’ll likely be experiencing at this time. Asking if they want to be released “to focus on their family” implies (a) that they must not have been properly focusing on their family before this, and (b) that they’re expected to work out a reconcilliation.
Comment by Nick Literski — March 27, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Not knowing anything about the situation, I would focus on the brother. I would make sure that wife and son are taken care of and have support, and make sure it’s clear that I’m not taking sides… but I’d seek out that brother. We lose far too many men in divorces. They leave the church for some reason — ex post or ex ante — and bishops should proactively try to keep them involved in the church and help them keep their connections to their creator.
I hope you would make sure this focus is on loving support of the brother, knowing that one reason divorced men fall into inactivity is a feeling that men are almost universally seen in LDS culture as “at fault” in a divorce situation. (Yes, I’m sure someone can give examples where everyone blamed the wife, but in reality, that’s far less common.)
Comment by Nick Literski — March 27, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
Nick, you’ve been married. It’s always the man’s fault. See # 26 and # 27 above.
Comment by Kevinf — March 27, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
awkward!
Comment by Steve Evans — March 27, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Why does the man never get the last word in any argument?
Because the minute he opens his mouth, it’s a whole new argument.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
#77 - yeah.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Ummm, if I have missed something, my apologies. No harm intended. Clueless as usual.
Comment by Kevinf — March 27, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
Ray 66–I was thinking of it as being kind to Mrs. IV.
Comment by Jami — March 27, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,695220529,00.html
The link again to the article on teacher abuse. You can find many more by googling.
Comment by KDC — March 27, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
First of all you’re a scumbag for getting involved based on gossip. Isn’t gossip a big enough problem in our wards, now we are suggesting a bishop get involved based on what my neighbors VT heard from their husbands home teaching companion?
Secondly, why would their temple recommends be involved in any conversation? Based on the original post, I defy any of you to tell me what they’ve done that would make it necessary for a bishop to take away their recommend?
They don’t want you to be involve, they’ve made that very clear. If you still feel like you need to butt in, ask them if they’d like to be released from their calling, ask if they’d like you to help set up counseling, and ask if there’s anything you can do for their son.
Damn nosy Mormon gossips, is there anything more annoying?
Comment by jjohnsen — March 27, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
#82 Did I miss something about teacher abuse in this thread?
I kind of agree with jjohnsen (83). I really don’t think I would act without further evidence. I would watch things a little closer and pay special attention to the son. I would try to find ways to causally talk to members of the family but I would not, I think, call anyone in to an interview just based on gossip.
Comment by Darrell — March 27, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
Based on personal experience, I have to agree with jjohnsen.
Comment by JA Benson — March 27, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
#83 & #85:
Paragraph #1) Based on personal experience, calling a bishop who hears about an active couple getting a divorce a “scumbag” for finding out if it is true (which it is) in a *very* innocuous way (calling to ask to meet with someone) is more than just a bit over-the-top.
I don’t like “gossip” at all, but calling this bishop a scumbag just doesn’t match the actions he then takes.
#2) Their temple recommends might be in question due to quite a few very common reasons for divorce in this situation. There is nothing in the advice given that assumes the recommends are no longer valid; there are lots of reasons to think that one or more might not be.
#3) Since a simple question isn’t “butting in”, imo, your proposed actions are exactly what the SP and other comments suggested.
#4) Perhaps someone who calls a bishop trying to fulfill his calling in a very responsible and thoughtful and gentle way a scumbag?
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Hmm, call in the son and ask him what’s up with mom and dad. I mean, if you’re gonna get your info second hand, what better way than this?
Comment by sol — March 27, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
OR just send your wife back to the rumor mill for more goods.
Comment by sol — March 27, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
sol-When you’re right you’re right. Put the RS on it and you’ll have the goods within 24 hours.
Comment by Jami — March 27, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
What are Bro or Sis Schism’s options if one or both are harangued by a well-intentioned Bishop Butinski after politely notifying said Bishop Butinski they prefer to work things out on their own or they wish to be left alone? Can they go to the SP and ask him to tell the Bishop to leave them alone? I suppose they can, but will that work and would that possibly only raise more suspicions on the part of Bishop Butinski, thereby motivating him to redouble his efforts.
I don’t see how any of the Schisms’ conduct described above warrants any kind of inquiry into their temple worthiness status. If either Schism’s temple worthiness can be inquired about, on these fact, then anyone’s temple worthiness standards can be inquired about for any reason, or better yet, no reason at all. Under these facts, any Bishop Butinski in the church could simply pick two or three current temple recommend holders in his ward at random, haul them in and inquire about their present temple worthiness status. Are we all subject to unannounced, random, periodic audits of our temple worthiness by our Bishops? If the Schisms in this example are, then we all are at any time for any reason or for no real reason.
Comment by rbc — March 27, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
After having been much maligned in the discussion already, I only wish to point out that my comment about pride and selfishness was in response to #26’s possible reasons for divorce–not the original situation which I really know nothing about. In addressing the original scenario, I don’t think that their temple recommends or callings should be jeopardy or even in question unless there is some serious sin involved or they voluntarily ask for some kind of release.
On the other hand I think divorces always involve some level of pride or selfishness from one or both spouses–so do most fights, disagreements, or sins for that matter. I’m not saying that there aren’t valid reasons for divorce. I’m not one to judge–especially in a real-life situation. I have enough pride and selfishness in my own life to merit a lifetime of forgiveness. I’m sorry if anyone felt that I was judging them personally
Comment by Joel — March 27, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
#90 - I think everything on this thread but one comment agrees that they should not be harangued.
“If either Schism’s temple worthiness can be inquired about, on these fact, then anyone’s temple worthiness standards can be inquired about for any reason, or better yet, no reason at all.”
Nonsense.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
re 92 Nonsense? re-read the facts and explain what about those facts would prompt a Bishop to call one or the other in to ask about temple worthiness: recommends renewed within the previous 6 mos; both still active; both politely responded to the Bishop; no outward signs of any sin or behavior at odds with any temple standards. From the OP, Bro and Sis Schism could be any active member of any ward-garden variety American Mormons. What about these facts would trigger a worthiness inquiry, that could not also be randomly applied to another active current recommend holder? Is a pending divorce, on its face, the trigger for such an inquiry?
Maybe it is, I dunno. I think I would need more before I started probing in that area.
Comment by rbc — March 27, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
90 and 92 -IMHO the worst thing a bishop could do would be to continue to harangue if a person asked not to be. Those who have been thru divorce know what an intensely painful experience it is - everyone does need the right to handle it on their own terms as much as possible. I find it horrifying the number of judgmental comments I read, imputing sins, selfishness, etc., to people. As a direct recipient of these kinds of judgments during the most painful period of my life, I know how much it hurt and how it drove me and my children from the church - I have returned, but none of my 5 children have, and it seems unlikely they ever will. We really are in the dark ages as a church as to what causes divorces and how to help those so wounded - we generally make things worse by our bumbling efforts. Ah, for a little Christlike love and healing! Also, for someone to appeal to a stake president over a bishop does sometimes work - I did once about another matter, and the bishop was told to back off and he did back off - remember the SP has the right to release if needed.
Comment by chimera — March 27, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
rbc,
1) Your statement was NOT just a criticism of the question; it also was a direct statement that if the question could be asked in this situation it could be asked “for any reason, or better yet, no reason at all.” If this is true, it is ONLY because there is NO reason whatsoever to believe there might be a violation of a temple attendance standard.
2) You said there are “no outward signs of any sin or behavior at odds with any temple standards.”
There are reasons for every divorce, and, off the top of my head, probably at least half of the most common ones deal directly with possible violations of at least one temple recommend question. The other half of them don’t. This alone means that there is cause at least to ask the question, since there is a 50% chance (give or take) that the divorce is caused by a violation of a temple attendance standard.
That simply doesn’t equate with my bishop calling in my wife and I to discuss our temple worthiness, since there is nothing in our lives that raises the type of red flags that a divorce does.
So, my response to, “Is a pending divorce, on its face, the trigger for such an inquiry?” would be, “Yes - as long as it is only a simple question as described in the original post and not an inquisition or accusation or harangue.”
3) Therefore, my response. I’m not saying it’s nonsense to believe the bishop shouldn’t ask the question. I can understand and respect that view. What is nonsense is to say that such a question means the bishop can ask the same question of anyone “for any reason, or better yet, no reason at all.”
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
#94 - chimera, I agree with everything you just wrote - and I never said otherwise. I have said more than once that a bishop should not harangue - that if the question is asked, it should be asked simply and only once. Please don’t criticize my comments for things I have not said.
Comment by Ray — March 27, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
I’m opposed to the temple recommend process generally, to having children within wedlock, and to marriages unarranged by Rev. Moon, so I don’t even know where to begin with this hypo.
AB
Comment by Aaron Brown — March 27, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
My mind is boggled. At first I didn’t even understand what the question was: wouldn’t you just respect the couple’s stated wishes and keep them in your prayers? Bishops carry a pretty heavy burden; is it part of their job to worry about the possible reasons for the Schisms’ schism?
There recently arose a somewhat analagous situation involving someone I admire and care about, so I totally understand being aware that the particulars are none of my business but at the same time being deeply concerned for the person’s well-being. But still, I don’t see how productive it is, ultimately, to speculate.
Comment by Cathy — March 27, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
Maybe my approach to my callings in the Church is too relaxed, but I think what I should do about the Schisms in this situation is go home and spend more time with my wife and my kids. My responsibilities to them are far greater than any responsibility to anyone else in the ward anyway, and having to spend so much time away from them to deal with wiping too many ward members’ noses, I would be grateful that the Schisms understand the principle of self-reliance and go do what I can to help my wife decide she doesn’t want to divorce me. And if my lavishing attention on her gives her less time to participate in ward gossip, so much the better!
Comment by WD — March 28, 2008 @ 12:12 am
Yes, welcome to Zion.
As a bishop, you bet I would butt into their business. Marriages are that important.
Crimony. And friends snub me because I only perform sacred marriages where it is one man + one woman till death.
Most of all, I would doggedly, persistently seek to talk with them about Who truly and fully establishes worthiness, as the whole family is probably extremely torn up and hurting on the inside (though the plastic smiles are so stubbornly plastered when walking publicly in the ward neighborhood).
Comment by Todd Wood — March 28, 2008 @ 12:37 am
Re: 95 In the OP, the Bishop made, what appears to be, a sincere, polite offer to help. Good for him, imo. The Schisms responded in kind. Good for them,imo.
I’m not sure that is the same as determining temple worthiness status. If a Bishop’s reason to inquire re: temple worthiness is the 50-50 odds that one or both spouses have behaved in a way that would justify such a question, those same or at least similar, odds may also be applicable to every other active recommend holde who is not going through a divorce. For example, what if my Bishop saw me and my wife coming out of an R rated movie smiling and appearing to all the world like we enjoyed the R rated movie. What if my Bishop sees me eating lunch or dinner alone with a woman- not my wife- and, at the moment the Bishop notices us, we are laughing about something and appearing to be enjoying one another’s company? Should alarm bells start to ring inside the Bishop’s head and should I be called in and asked if I am honoring my temple covenants? If so, it must really me tough to be a Bishop. (I know the R rated movie is a silly example, but there are silly Bishop in at least one ward in our church.)
My larger point is what is the trip wire for a Bishop? Does he err on the side of caution or does he wait until a sinner is ready to come to him? What is the danger in treating people like adults and giving them the benefit of the doubt with respect to their worthiness to continue to hold a recently issued TR?
Comment by rbc — March 28, 2008 @ 4:15 am
I really wanted to follow this thread,
but I couldn’t get past comment #27…
laughing too hard.
Comment by Sandy — March 28, 2008 @ 7:30 am
If the Bishop has been requested to “butt out” I feel he is obliged to do so. The only thing he should now do is seek the welfare of the 14 year old son. I have seen too many well meaning bishops get involved in similar situations and become social workers, physcologists, marriage counsellors, sex therapists (seriously) all rolled into one!! this is not good practice!!! Leave them alone - you have let them know you are available to them.
Comment by John Deacon — March 28, 2008 @ 7:47 am
This doesn’t seem that tough. A bishop presides over a ward. The Schisms have important callings that may/will likely be disrupted by a divorce. More importantly, they are a family within the bishop’s stewardship that likely need support–not judgment–support. Most bishops would, I hope, reach out to this couple, offer any help as needed, affirm God’s love for both parties regardless of circumstances, seek to assure continuity in important ward organizations, vigorously protect the couple’s privacy/confidentiality, and get out of the way if that is what the couple prefers. But to sit idly by, while a potentially viable option, is not the only option and assessing the situation with love and without passing judgment on either party is completely in bounds. Most in this seem to assume tactless, loveless bishops. These aren’t the bishops I have known.
Comment by rd — March 28, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Let me stick up for the Bishop in these cases. His intention is to equally help both spouses and the children. He has three reasons for this: 1) He’s the designated spiritual advisor for every member in the unit. He is responsible and accountable to fulfill those duties; 2) He’s a judge in Israel and must protect the innocent, the wronged, and the good name of the Church. (That may not be worded exactly right since I don’t have my CHI with me right now.) It’s not all about placing blame though - it’s about helping people when they don’t see the ramifications of their actions; 3) He generally has a high regard for the couple and wants to see them succeed as spouses, parents, individuals and children of our Father in Heaven.
Oh, and yes, a marriages are that important. What does the Proclamation on the Family say? “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” and “to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” There’s a lot of responsibility on the Bishop to help this couple.
I’ve had couples flat out refuse to talk to me or even see me when I learned of pending divorces. My response is to convey that I care for them and am available to help them when they feel the need. But if the couple will speak to me, I try to find out what the reasons are. Not because it gives me satisfaction to hear about a failed marriage but because I want to help. I’m obligated to help when the couple will accept it.
Someone that calls their Bishop a scumbag for trying to do his calling has no idea what the gospel is about.
Comment by Matt Rasmussen — March 28, 2008 @ 8:05 am
I disagree with those advocating aggressive intervention on the part of the bishop.
While bishops can sometimes help us, they can also do more harm than good. We like to think that our priesthood leaders are wiser or kinder than the rest of us, but our practice of lay leadership should bring us back down to earth. Being ordained to be bishop doesn’t make a man any smarter, or give him any particular insight into the relationships of the people around him, but it can, if he isn’t careful, lead him to think that he is smarter or more spiritual, or more important than he really is.
Comment by Mark IV — March 28, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Just a quick question: How does the bishop get around Matthew 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10:11-12, etc? Has that clear NT teaching of Christ been swept away by contemporary revelation?
I can’t help but notice the irony in all these “the bishop shouldn’t judge” comments here.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — March 28, 2008 @ 8:45 am
So he got lucky, the couple really is getting a divorce. That makes it ok to make assumptions and question the couple because of a rumor he heard?
How did you learn of these pending divorces? Because if it was from gossipy whispers in the hall during Elders Quorum, please see #83. Either you people all live in the perfect ward, or you haven’t been the victim of action taken because someone is spreading lies about you during Sunday School.
If the divorce is rumor, it’s rumor. Full stop. It doesn’t matter that you were right this time. How would you feel if I called you into the office to talk about your temple recommend because I heard rumors that you were involved in bestiality? I better call your wife up and ask her about it too.
Comment by jjohnsen — March 28, 2008 @ 8:48 am
108: When rumors are spreading that someone is getting a divorce, I think an approach to the couple is order, if nothing else, to help them combat the rumors (which, if not true, they may be unaware of). So responding to gossip in this kind of situation is not wrong: if they are true, then asking if he can be of assistance, etc., is probably in order, and if false, he has some work to do in the ward to halt the spread of malicious rumors.
Comment by TMD — March 28, 2008 @ 9:12 am
When my (now-former) wife and I made the rather excruciating decision to divorce (she came to me and said that she felt it was the best course, then left town for a week; after two days of the most wrenching prayer in my life, I felt she was right), we made the preemptive move of going to our bishop and telling him that we were divorcing, and why. I think he was so stunned (as were, frankly, most of our friends and family members — we were seen as having the ‘perfect marriage’, and not without reason) that he just didn’t know quite what to say. However, he did not release us from callings, pull temple recommends, etc.; bless him for that.
My (now-current) wife had a similar experience when she and her (now-former) husband went in to their bishop to tell him of their pending divorce. That bishop, bless him, said, “This decision is completely out of my stewardship; just let me know what I can do to help both of you through this period.”
Their experience with their stake president wasn’t nearly so pleasant — and he ended up pulling their temple recommends for three months. But to his credit, when Sandra ran into him a year later, he sincerely apologized and credited his own over-reaction to his traumatic memories of his parents divorcing when he was just five. (Sandra and her former husband had five kids, ages 3 through 13, at the time of their divorce.) Something to keep in mind next time you get snippy about someone in leadership.
I’ve never been a bishop, though I’ve played one when the bishop’s been out of town. Were I in the situation above, I would not act solely on the basis of the ‘gossip’ — I would pray first (Pres. Hinckley: “The most important element of inspiration is information.” Or words to that effect). If I felt prompted to bring one or both of them in, I would do so, regardless of the original source of information; otherwise, I would leave them alone. And unless I had one or more voluntary and credible witnesses as to behavior on the part of either one that might impact their temple worthiness — or, as above, had a very direct prompting regarding that — I’d leave them alone on that respect, too. The temple was a great comfort for me while I was going through my divorce. ..bruce..
Comment by bfwebster — March 28, 2008 @ 9:15 am
In response to Matt’s comment in # 105, and Mark’s comment in # 106, you are both right. Bishops have a responsibility, but are just ordinary guys, thrown into a ridiculously complex and overwhelming position. I’ve seen bishops overstep their bounds; in fact, I’m pretty sure I crossed a few lines as bishop myself.
What we are not accounting for here, which sometimes draws some unfavorable response, is the mantle of the bishop, the spiritual promptings that come to those who serve, often in spite of their own limitations and lack of wisdom. However, I have also seen situations where there seems to be no clear guidance.
Calling these folks in again just to question their worthiness is problematic. Bishops shouldn’t do that. However, if the bishop gets a sense of dread whenever he drives past their home, or their name pops up in some of those quiet times when he is pondering his stewardship, it is justified to talk to them, and just inquire about how they are. If they don’t want to talk, fine. But I would not call them in just to redo a TR interview.
Sometimes, though, something may come up that puts them in your office under other circumstances (ie, a proposed new calling), where a general inquiry into worthiness is appropriate. It would be along the lines of “We are considering some changes in some ward leadership positions. Is there anything that would have a bearing on you accepting a new call?” But no fishing expeditions. There will be lots of other clues through the son, VT or HT companionships, PH & RS leaders, or friends.
Comment by Kevinf — March 28, 2008 @ 10:14 am
Without reading all the comments I’m here to say be experience that divorce is hardly the worse thing in the world for the two individuals or the children involved. I used to be totally against divorce except under very limited circumstances but I changed my opinion when I suffered through a horrible marriage. And despite the trauma of the divorce to all of us involved (our daughter included) staying in that marriage was and would’ve continued to be far worse.
As for the topic: The bishop should pray for them and stay out. I would not recommend asking them about their temple worthiness. And if either wants to be released from their callings, they can ask.
Comment by Lulubelle — March 28, 2008 @ 10:22 am
If my wife and I were headed for divorce and my bishop didn’t ask me about it, I would feel neglected. If I were going through all that divorce entails, I would expect a phone call to schedule an appointment, and if I were too distracted to respond to that, I would hope he would drop by my house, or contact me in some other way. If I were going through the trauma of a marriage breakup, the additional stress of having to tell a bishop I didn’t need any help, (if I didn’t need any help), would be insignificant compared to what was going on already.
And if he didn’t ask about temple worthiness criteria, I would wonder why he was making assumptions about the cause of our divorce rather than asking. To not be concerned about temple worthiness would require rose colored glasses. As the bishop, he is the only one in the ward who is entitled to ask about worthiness, and to make a judgment, guided by the spirit, on the information he receives.
And as far as this statement: “Being ordained to be bishop doesn’t make a man any smarter, or give him any particular insight into the relationships of the people around him,” I would counter with: “Bishops have a power to soothe and to sanctify and to heal that others are not given.” (Larry K. Langlois, “When Couples Don’t Listen to Each Other,” Ensign, Sep 1989, 16) The bishop should not with hold this healing balm from those who very likely need it.
The bishop has such an ability to help both parties, whether they proceed with the divorce or not, that it would be wrong to sit around waiting to be informed about the divorce through proper channels before reaching out to them.
Comment by CW — March 28, 2008 @ 10:41 am
CW,
I agree if we can also acknowledge that bishops can also make the situation worse, and very frequently do. There is nothing about being ordained to an office that promises that everything you touch turns to gold. I think that when we advocate for agressive intervention we need to at least account for that possibility.
I’m also curious about the verbs we have used on this thread which describe how a bishop contacts members of his ward. “Have them brought in”, “haul them in”, “call them in”, etc., as though we are all third graders and the bishop is the principal at school. The attitude those words convey comes through loudly and clearly. Whatever happened to “invite”?
Comment by Mark IV — March 28, 2008 @ 11:51 am
If I was the bishop, I would sit them down, gaze into their eyes, and ask them “When was the last time you masturbated and looked at porn, Brother S?”
I find that if I let the silence just hang there, I usually get a nice, full confession
Comment by Karter M — March 28, 2008 @ 11:57 am
Karter M: I didn’t see any smiley faces. I hope this is satire. If not, I’m glad you’re not my bishop.
Comment by Grant — March 28, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Sounds like someone’s been masturbating and looking at porn!
Comment by Steve Evans — March 28, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Sad to say, Grant, but that is what passes for the spirit of discernment sometimes.
Comment by Mark IV — March 28, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
#116 Grant — Not a bishop. I’m 2nd counselor to the SP. You would be suprised at the number of marriages broken up over pornography and self-abuse. I don’t have the statistics at my fingertips, but I believe it’s around 65%.
We’re not children. Sometimes we have to be direct to fulfill our responsibilities.
Comment by Karter M — March 28, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
I think #115’s comment was made to make this a 200+ comment thread!
Comment by AH — March 28, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Mark IV, #114. I am not arguing in favor of aggressive intervention. Not “aggressive” and not “intervention”. I am advocating in favor of reaching out, in love to help those you have been called to serve. Reaching out in my mind is different than “intervention”. Intervention sounds very authoritative, and as you mention, some of the terms being used are rather militaristic. I am not sure if they really meant to describe an authoritative, condescending approach, but I will admit the terminology sounds a little strong.
I am curious as to your statement that bishops frequently makes things worse. Sometimes? Frequently?? I could probably agree with sometimes, but not sure I could agree with frequently, but perhaps I am splitting hairs.
I do believe that wickedness never was happiness, and when we reach out to those who are violating Father’s teachings on morality, etc, we are not attempting to punish or condemn or point fingers, we are trying to rescue a loved brother or sister. A brother or sister, who at the judgment bar, will be eternally grateful for our efforts. And for whom we will hang our head in shame if we don’t reach out in love to them now.
D&C 84:50 And by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me. 51 For whoso cometh not unto me is under the bondage of sin.
Most people who are involved in sin, will, when approached in love admit they are not happy. However they often feel powerless to change. I liken it to a type of Stockholm syndrome, in as much as they are in bondage, but yet feel loyalty to those people, things and sins that hold them captive.
And I certainly agree with you about the word “invite”. I was impressed by the general authority who talked about the prophet using such words as “would you be willing to” or “could you spare a moment of your time”, etc.
Comment by CW — March 28, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
I think we are prety much in agreement, CW.
If, after I have made my love and concern clear to both partners in a failing marriage, and both of them asked me directly to please not intervene, (those are the conditions in this hypothetical) and then I went right ahead and intervened, I would classify that as aggressive intervention.
And yes, I think not only bishops but other church leaders can often (say, 20-30% of the time) make matters worse, even with the best of intentions. Remember what D&C says about “almost all” men. It is harder to avoid unrighteous exercise of authority than we commonly assume.
Comment by Mark IV — March 28, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
Karter, do you also have a hot poker and some tongs in your office?
Comment by dug — March 28, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
James E. Faust said that divorce might be justified if the marriage constituted a continued assault upon one’s dignity as a person.
Assuming he is correct, and assuming some of the behavior described here is not a joke, we have some people who might be justified in divorcing themselves from the church.
Comment by Mark IV — March 28, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
RE: Karter M–
I’m not sure I buy your direct causal connection. I would guess that in many cases the marital strife and the husband’s solo-time might both be rooted in a deeper underlying problem.
Comment by CE — March 28, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
#122 Dug — What I do in my downtime is none of your business.
Comment by Karter M — March 28, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Just another word about releasing them from callings–evidence here (and in my life) seems to suggest that many people fall away from the church during divorce, especially if both parties stay in the same ward. So if that is the case, why release them from callings which basically guarentee they HAVE to be there.
If these two people have the confidence to tell the Bishop (politely) that they would rather not discuss their divorce, then it seems like they would have no problem asking to be released if they felt it was necessary.
Comment by Melissa S. — March 28, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Melissa S., surely you’re aware that asking to be released from a calling goes against the Unwritten Order of Things?
Comment by gst — March 28, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
Karter M, have you stopped beating your wife?
Comment by KyleM — March 28, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
#129, that was an uncalled for comment.
Comment by AH — March 28, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
It’s no different than hauling someone in and asking them if they still look at porn and whack off. See comment 115.
Comment by KyleM — March 28, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Yes, and hopefully those promptings will tell the Bishop when to continue to reach out or back off. Thanks for bringing that up, Kevin. The Bishop has a duty to reach out to help if people will let him. If they refuse contact he should let them be until they seek him out. I didn’t intend to convey that the Bishop should call every hour or drop in late at night to “catch” them home.
Comment by Matt Rasmussen — March 28, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
Well, whatever it is that the Bishop ends up doing in this scenario, it’s my opinion that he’s WRONG.
Comment by Eric Russell — March 28, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
AH, actually I should have made a better comment. I made two fatal assumtions. That people would know what I was refering to, and that everyone knew that my comment 129 is the classic example of the loaded question. Sorry about that.
But I stand by my thought that his question is founded on logical fallicy.
Comment by KyleM — March 28, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Kyle, your question was the obvious response to Karver’s question. It was NOT uncalled for, it was needed. Many on this thread advocate love, understanding, and patience for this couple. Karver’s method feels a bit more like the Spanish Inquisition. If they float, they’re guilty, if they sink, they’re innocent.
Comment by dug — March 28, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
One quick thing, as I try to catch up on all the comments:
#114 - You used the phrases “have them brought in”, “haul them in”, “call them in” in a way that suggested those who are “supporting” the scenario have used them to describe what the bishop should do. I went back and searched the entire thread for each word and phrase you mentioned; almost every usage was employed by someone arguing against a bishop getting involved - by negatively phrasing the bishop’s actions.
If we are going to critique each other’s comments, let’s make sure we are critiquing thinks we actually said.
Comment by Ray — March 28, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
#129 KyleM — Yes, I have stopped and repented. Have you?
Comment by Karter M — March 28, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
#129 KyleM — And that is beside the point. If I saw bruises on Sister S’s face, I would be obligated to ask if he was responsible. I need no bruises to tell me that most men have a problem with porn/masturb.
Comment by Karter M — March 28, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
If masturbation caused divorce, only 2% of the population would be married.
Comment by KyleM — March 28, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
RE: Karter M–
If that’s true, then what’s so remarkable about your estimate that 65% of divorces involve those problems?
Comment by CE — March 28, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
#138 - “I need no bruises to tell me that most men have a problem with porn/masturb.”
You might not, but you should - and you are making jjohnson’s point for him - the one I was opposing. You are saying you can ask any member about their sexual practices without any reason or probable cause, and that simply is not supported by the CHI. I have served in various positions in my decades in the Church, and I can say honestly that the priesthood leaders who would say what you are saying can be counted on both of my hands.
As gently as I can say this, you are advocating a level of intrusion and micro-managing and guilt-assuming that is the very reason it is hard for me (in a similar position to yours) to discuss these things rationally and with the Spirit. Please consider what you are saying when you claim that “most men” (and, in this context, most “active, visible-calling-holding men”) have serious sexual problems.
I want to say so much more, but I will stop there.
Comment by Ray — March 28, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Coming late to the conversation, let me say I think there needs to be as Ray said and Nick clarifies a question of how to help the situation through callings and other things. I do not think you absolutely want to do anything I just think you should ask if it would help.
I had a friend of mine who married a girl, they were happy and in love, right up until the wedding night. She had been abused as a child and well not to go into too much detail the whole thing exploded after their marriage.
It was no ones fault, I think everyone felt aweful but what else can you do? So he divorced her, accepted that weight and moved on. I do not know his former wife so I could not tell you a lot about her (without out revealing too much).
In the end it was not about selfishness, pride, or anything else. It was what it was.
Comment by Jon W — March 28, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
I am sorry if my speaking plainly has offended anyone. It wasn’t my intent. Pornography use is rampant today, in and out of the church. It’s almost always accompanied by masturbation. You men know this. It leads to many marital issues and is a common wedge driving marriages apart. And yes, I mean among men and women who are carry recommends and are fulfilling callings.
In my stake, this is a huge issue and I think that as soon as we can talk about this openly, it can stop being a hidden, taboo sin and provide relief to those sufferring in silence. Many men who I’ve interviewed are astounded that there are others in the stake with the same problem. They often think they are the only ones, regardless of general conference talks.
I usually ask the question of the men as a way of broaching the topic. Sometimes with a wink or a small smile to set them at ease and to let them know that it’s a common problem and that I understand. Most brothers are grateful that I do it in this way.
Comment by Karter M — March 28, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Karter, it’s not the plain speaking that’s offensive, it’s the assumption of guilt or sin.
Comment by dug — March 28, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
How is a couple who is struggling supposed to go to a bishop like Karter if they know that the automatic assumption is going to be that the man is guilty of porn and masterbation.
When I was in YM, I had a bishop like that. One Sunday he took me aside out of the clear blue and asked me when was the last time I had looked at porn. To freak him out I told him “about 30 minutes before I blessed the sacrament”. I really hadn’t and I was worthy to participate in priesthood ordinances, I just wanted to throw him for a loop. He was just assuming because I had expressed some doubts at times with my testimony which was still very fragile that I must be guilty of something. Instead of trying to build me up and work with me, he assumed the worst. He was not the least bit approachable and it was sad because I needed an advocate and friend not the Stassi inquisition.
No one is going to trust or love a bishop who they think automatically thinks the worst of them before even getting the facts.
Comment by James — March 28, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Karter, as dug said, it’s not plainness of speech. It is bluntness (as in non-sharpness) of speech. It’s like using a hammer instead of a scalpel to perform surgery. You literally are swinging the scythe wildly - risking great damage to wheat as you try to identify tares.
I simply can’t agree that *most* temple recommend holding, high profile calling holding men are addicted to porn and masturbation. I simply can’t agree that any priesthood leader has the right to ask, sans evidence, about my sexual practices. I serve in a position somewhat similar to yours, and the CHI tells me **explicitly** that I should not question others as you have stated - again, sans evidence. A general question of worthiness is one thing; explicit questions of sexual practice are quite another - *especially* when we are talking about both a husband AND a wife.
Comment by Ray — March 28, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Why is pornography so rampant in the church? Is it more rampant than in the community? It certainly had nothing whatever to do with my marital break up. I find Karter’s comments on how he handles divorces ludicrous - I really want to see his statistic source, cause I don’t believe it. I am more inclined to believe Tolstoy’s assertion that happy marriages are all alike and unhappy marriages are all unhappy in their own way.
Anyway if pornography causes 65% of divorces, and finances cause 50% of divorces - it doesn’t add up. (hey my numbers may be bogus too).
Comment by chimera — March 28, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
and Karter, for the record, I am not offended by your comments. I have no right to take offense, since your judgment is not pointed at me. Likewise, I have no right to claim to “forgive” you, either, since your comments have not hurt me. My reaction is not about you at all, since I don’t know you - and since you might be a terrific and inspired priesthood leader in real life, under the direction of the Spirit, dealing with people you know and love.
I am saddened by your comments, since I have seen the wounds and scars such broad strokes too often cause. There is a big difference.
Comment by Ray — March 28, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
#143-
Yucky! What is this, an ol’ boys club? A wink or a smile? That, to me, sounds like it would come across as you being in on the “joke”. “C’mon, buddy, it’s okay. We’re all doing it (wink, wink).” Your approach is disgusting. Your belief about men is degrading to say the least. You are stereotyping your brethren you profess to love and care for into mere animals almost incapable of subjugating lustful desires. How can you even begin to help those you already see as helpless? Your beliefs are severely flawed. You are an insult to your gender.
Maybe that was harsh. Oh, to hell with it. Your reasoning stinks and doesn’t merit anything else.
Comment by sol — March 28, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
#149 Sol — you are misrepresenting my words. You are female, correct? I think your husband would understand much better where I am coming from.
#147 Chimera - what caused your divorce if not moral or financial problems? Just curious…
Comment by Karter M — March 28, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Karter, mind your own damn business.
Comment by Jami — March 28, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
Karter, if you’re really what you say you are, you are one scary church leader. Most men are also awful home teachers, even when they get off their lazy a$$es and do it-check out the stats. (maybe one reason that at least 65% of them aren’t gettnig out is b/c they’re staying home to watch porn and masturbate, I don’t know.) Do these slackers get the same exacting scrutiny in your spiritual gulag?
Is winking at someone during an interview an effective technique? You’ve got to be making that up. You don’t really wink and/or smile at a man when you ask if he masturbates, do you?!?!?!? (Oh, and I would keep you far away from my teenage children.)
Comment by rbc — March 28, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Fwiw, I have had reservations about Karter’s story since his second comment. I have no idea, this being the internet, but . . . what rbc said.
Personally, I am not going to respond anymore. I just don’t want to continue to feed this particular part of the discussion. I hope it dies of neglect.
Comment by Ray — March 28, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
other than to say that #150 was the single most disgusting comment I have ever read on the Bloggernacle. Now I really am done.
Comment by Ray — March 28, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Urg, I was so busy this morning, but I wanted to “make the call” — and now there’s 150 #!$%*! replies. Anyway, here’s what I wanted to say.
If I’m the bishop of Splitsville 4th, I have totally screwed the pooch at this point. I should not have done ANY of the things that Kevin lays out.
(1) Having received gossip from my wife, I should not have acted on it in such a way as to make it obvious that I was acting upon gossip.
(2) Why on earth am I telephoning Sr. Schism? I should never go on a fishing expedition unless I know what I’m doing and I’m prepared for what I might catch.
(3) If I was ready, I would never have followed up being called out “Is this about my divorce?” with a confirmation. What was that? I have completely crashed and burned with the lame-o response “I just want to see if there’s anything I can do to help…” Thankyou Bishop Stupidhead. I have now compromised my wife and her shady (but crucial) network of informants. What if Sr. Schism had only told one friend in the ward and that friend had told my wife? I’ve ratted that woman out and burned my ability to gather important information about the ward. If I were going fishing, I should have been ready with an excuse why I called Sr. Schism. (And I shouldn’t have gone fishing in the first place.)
(4) Having been told to butt out by Sr. Schism, the last thing I should do is pick up the phone and call her husband! Am I a complete idiot? They are probably going to talk about this to each other. If Jan Schism wasn’t mad at me before, she is now. Probably they both are.
(5) Having screwed the pooch, I should call Stake President Dunderbluff? That guy never has anything worthwhile to say, and this time is no different. I should be feeding President Dunderbluff information chosen so that he thinks I’m keeping him in the loop on things, when in fact I’m managing his impression of me as his most effective bishop, not sending him random problems he won’t fix. Again, I should not be calling people unless I already know the answer I want them to give.
* * *
So — now that I’ve screwed up 6 times over, there’s precious little I can do. For example, my hands are now tied about the Schism’s 14 year old son. Any intervention I make there, however innocent, is likely to be viewed by one or the other parent as an unwarranted intrusion. Now, my only recourse is to assign one of my most trusted people in the ward to monitor the boy. Preferrably, someone who is already his Sunday School teacher, Teachers’ Quorum Advisor or Scoutmaster — definitely not bishopric, because it would be too obvious. But if I don’t have somebody in one of those positions, I may have to actually call a key loyalist into one of those roles to make sure the boy is ok.
Meanwhile, what should I have done, instead of screwing up? What I started with was gossip. There are two possibilities. It’s either limited gossip or widespread. I need more intelligence. If this gossip is limited, I have a lot of room to act with discretion, since the secret is being well kept. If it’s widespread, I don’t have to worry about compromising sources — everyone knows. A big rumor isn’t necessarily a big deal, but because divorce is involved, it could turn ugly fast, and my primary responsibility is to the successful operation of the ward. Probably wouldn’t hurt to have somebody give a talk condemning gossip, although hopefully with a little subtlety. That would at least put people on notice that they ought to be toning it down.
Meanwhile, the way to deal with the Schisms it through channels. If I’m not close with either one, then I need to act through somebody who is. I need more information. If they are going to get divorced, then it’s likely we’re keeping one (who’s ever keeping the house, probably her) and losing one. In the end, a ward is like a family, and family fights can be mean, but when it comes to divorce, your former in-law is out of luck. The one we keep is our blood and the one we lose is our in-law. That’s just life in the ward. So we need to keep that in mind, as the likely result, while try to keep the ugliness of the potential fighting contained, so that it doesn’t disrupt or hurt the ward in general.
That’s my call.
Comment by John Hamer — March 28, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
Bishops call to find out if they can help. Sometimes they hear that someone in the family has been in an accident. Sometimes they hear that someone in the family has been a victim of a crime, or arrested, has run away, or has died.
Should bishops refuse to offer help just because it is “gossip”? Should he think “Well, this family hasn’t told me that their child is in the hospital, so it is just gossip so I shouldn’t offer help.”
I think that it is entirely appropriate to call and ask if he can help. Both spouses.
If his help is not needed at this time by this couple, he should listen to what they have said and can back off until prompted to ask again, or is approached.
He can also feel ok about interviewing the son and ask him how things are going in his life.
Comment by JKS — March 28, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
I agree with John (#155) all the way!
Comment by Melissa S. — March 29, 2008 @ 12:30 am
#154 Ray - does that mean I can get a Niblet?
Comment by Karter M — March 29, 2008 @ 12:37 am
But the problem, Karter, is that you are a fake. Do they give Niblets to lying fakes? I haven’t been around long enough to know.
Comment by Jami — March 29, 2008 @ 12:46 am
I, for one, am relieved that Karter is a fake.
Comment by rbc — March 29, 2008 @ 6:49 am
#150- When I repeated your questioning technique to my husband he simply said, “Sounds like he’s projecting his personal addiction onto everyone else. Weird.” Yes, indeed, weird. Karter, maybe you should suggest this line of questioning to your actual stake presidency? Peace out.
Comment by sol — March 29, 2008 @ 9:00 am
As to the actual post, I think the bishop needs to let this couple know what is being said about them. He needs to treat it as gossip until proven otherwise. One of the worst things we can do when gossip is being spread is to not address it with the individual.The bishop should ask his wife who was involved in the chain of gossip, the purpose being trying to ascertain whether this info originated from someone close to the wife or husband. He should then approach that spouse and say, “I thought should know what is being said.” Period.
This is how most gossip should be handled.A bishop may be in more of a position to then offer assistance such as, “If there is any truth to these things I want you to know I am available if you need to talk.” The approach should not begin with assumption that gossip is truth. If the rumor is true, Brother or Sister Schism is welcome to talk to the bishop. They may trust him more knowing he is interested in stopping rumors, not perpetuating them. This also helps Brother and Sister Schism know that one of their trusted confidants is not to be trusted. Not that the bishop should name names of potential leaks, as this is just more speculation.
And actually, it’s what the bishop’s wife or anyone else up the chain of gossip should have done. If you don’t feel comfortable discussing such things with the couple you probably shouldn’t be discussing it without them.
Comment by sol — March 29, 2008 @ 9:18 am
The Bishop should stay out of this private affair. Any interference on his part could negatively impact the spirituality of the two people. They have already politely told him to butt out. It is not his job to dig to try to find a potential sin. it is the sinner’s job to confess when he/she is ready to do so!
Comment by StillConfused — March 29, 2008 @ 10:41 am
I think Karter was being facetious in a cynical way, as though that’s obviously the course that any Mormon bishop would take. I wonder if a Bishop treated him in that fashion at some point. It’s hard not to get cynical sometimes.
For my call, I can’t say what I’d do. People are a mystery to me and I have no understanding of what comes across as bullying or overly-intrusive, or as kind and supportive. Most likely I’d err in one direction or the other.
Of the responses I’ve read, John Hamer’s in 155 sounds the best. It’s so many levels higher in sophistication than I could manage, though, that I’m sincerely glad I’m not ever going to be called to be a Bishop. I would totally suck at it.
Now I’m terrified about being a mom, though. What if everything I try to do as a mom is as clumsy and intrusive as this hypothetical Bishop? My poor son!
Comment by Tatiana — March 30, 2008 @ 8:00 am
From the perspective again of a divorced woman - it is hard for a bishop to do this right. If he totally ignores the couple and the children - that can be just as destructive as jumping in with assumptions, etc. I think the first thing he should do is examine his attitudes towards divorce - if he has the idea that divorce is caused by sin PERIOD - he should stop and do nothing. If he has enough experience of divorce (and I mean in his own family in one way or another) and can imagine the following list of causesmental and emotional issuesfinancial issuesoutside stressorscommunication issuespersonality clashesextended family issuesbelief issueswith NO SIN BEING INVOLVED - it might be all right for him to call each person, state that he is concerned about them in a general way, and ask how he can help. Every step of the way - NO JUDGMENT. If they do seem to want some involvement he should express his love and God’s love for them individually, and generally offer emotional support and validation - then go from there - divorce is an agonizing, sometimes long drawn out process - but ultimately only the couple and the Lord can make the decision when a marriage is irrevocably over.He definitely should address anyone who is involved with the children and ask them to be extra kind and helpful with the kids, but no one in the ward should pry or judge or assume. Ha! Like that is ever going to happen. And BTW I have seen a number of cases of divorce in our ward where the husband stayed active and the wife left.
Generally both have left with their kids, just because the emotional pain is so bad they were protecting themselves from further psychologic damage by well meaning but clueless ward members.
My mantra for any situation like this would be
LOVE
DON’T JUDGE
Hard to do - but better than ignorantly jumping in with two feet and making all the pain worse.
Comment by chimera — March 30, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
So I see a consensus emerging: Judges in Israel shouldn’t judge.
Comment by gst — March 30, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
#154 Tatiana — Thank you. You are the only one who has shown me mercy. Mine was a fake post, but based on a true event. When I read RSR and was troubled enough by Joseph’s polygamy that I asked my BP about it, he asked what I was doing that was making me unworthy enough to read anti literature and have doubts about J.S. He immediately asked me if porn and masturbation were involved.
The inquisition does happen sometimes even in the true church.
Comment by Karter M — March 30, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Kevin Barney, is this post designed to get readers thinking about gossip or ways to help console those going through divorce? The majority of and most lengthy comments are about gossip. Once the flames started rising you didn’t direct them one way or another so I was wondering what you thought.
Personally, I’m appalled that so many people think the Bishop is a gossip hound and a nosy body. While this blog isn’t indicitive of the Church in general, it’s sad so many people think they know better than one who has the keys to care more than anyone else.
Comment by nobody in particular — April 5, 2008 @ 7:04 am