Did anyone ever go to their bishop with a problem and have that bishop take it seriously, with concerned benevolence, and offer to pray with you about the issue right then and there, like a true minister/pastor? (Optional: And if so, are you female or male?) You who were bishops, please eludicate.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2019 04:14PM by blacksheep1.

1. To protect the morg

2. To collect $ for the morg

3. To keep the sheep in line so they keep giving to the morg

They are lower level management for ChurchCo. Except they don't get any corporate benefits.

did you mean what are they good for?
they are good for nothing.

They are not formally trained for any kind of ecclesiastical work, nor are they trained for (or qualified to be) councilors.

They are managers—doing nearly full time work for no money.

"and offer to pray with you about the issue right then and there, like a true minister/pastor?"

I thought bishop's offering to pray with a member about a problem right then and there in the bishop's office was fairly common.

I don't think that trying to fix problems with thoughts and prayers is what defines a "true minister", nor do I think it is particularly effective.

They are amateur ministers and amateur managers. Some can be pretty good at one of those jobs or the other, a few may be good at both, more than a few are not particularly good at either. Hey, it's just Brother Rasmussen, who didn't want the damn job anyway, but his wife would have had a major conniption if he had turned it down, so he's a bit passive-aggressive-y. :)


Alternate answer: bishops are good for controlling the center of the chessboard from the corners.

Bishops offering to help, truly listen, counsel, and pray is not that common to the best of my knowledge, and it was particularly rare when I was the one with the issue.

I didn't mean that praying with the congregant was the definition of a true minister. Rather, all of the sentence described the way a true minister would act in that situation. The taking it seriously, displaying concerned benevolence (and these two leading to discussion in most cases), typically followed by prayer together, but it may occur before or both before and after.

I also don't hold with excusing them because they're amateurs. The Sunday School teachers don't get excused b/c they're amateurs, mothers who don't cook well don't usually get excused because they're amateurs, ineffective amateur Little League coaches may not last the season, and on and on. You take a post, you do your best to do it well. "A job worth doing is worth doing well" is what I was raised on, and I know I'm far from rare in that. If Brother whoever doesn't have the spine to say no, that's absolutely no excuse.

It's not always the case that someone who receives a paycheck for doing a particular task will be better at it or more dedicated than someone who does it because they believe in the value of the work and have a true love and dedication for the work in question. A friend who is an excellent driver may be a better driving instructor than a paid driving instructor at a driving school who is just putting out the minimum effort needed to earn the paycheck.

But in the case of bishops who are called to be responsible for a long list of tasks related to a congregation that may number from 100 to 400 people or so, including responsibility for staffing and supervising several dozen volunteers in everything from teaching positions involving small children, scouting or scouting -like programs, organization presidencies (RS and Priesthood, etc.), janitorial and maintenance work for the church building and facilities, as well as conducting tithing interviews and "worthiness" interviews every week for numerous different people...ALL WHILE having a full-time job in the real world and family responsibilities of his own?

That's just a recipe for crap. A recipe for garbage. A recipe for systemic incompetence.

It may have been somewhat realistic at a time and place where wards were close-knit communities, consisting mainly of farmers and everybody knew everybody.

But in modern times, it's absurd for the Church not to have bishop positions as real, full-time, PAID ministries. It would not be difficult for an organization that has the resources of the LSD Church to come up with appropriate educational standards, vetting processes and supervisory bodies to help ensure that psychopaths and predators don't get such positions. Heaven knows that there are lots of TBMs who would love to have such positions as a viable career. (If it works for the GAs and their close friends, why not for bishops who are actually on the front line dealing with the members day in and day out?)
The GAs seem to think that THEIR positions are important enough to be full-time paid positions with benefits and expenses covered. Don't they think the position of a bishop is important enough?

But of course we all know that the GAs don't really give a fork about whether the system works well for the bishops and the congregations. They only care that all the money and power flows to them. Paying salaries to bishops as full-time ministers, means less money for the GAs to play with. Plus, conscientious full-time bishops could be troublemakers vis-a-vis the top leaders if the bishops were ever to organize amongst themselves.

the best of intentions, while usually being overworked and made to feel like they have personal responsibility to solve a bewildering array of problems experienced by people who are, in fact, strangers to them.

That's at best.

More typically, they're semi-intelligent, semi-conscientious people, with decent intentions, but who can often be expected to be more concerned about passing the buck on responsibility as fast as they can when faced with complicated problems and often regard troubled congregation members as defective people who need to be managed efficiently and in a way that is not too time consuming.

At worst, they are predators...wolves in sheeps clothing.

In all cases, they really shouldn't be given the authority that they are claimed to have.

Wally Prince Wrote:
> often regard troubled congregation members as defective people who need to be managed efficiently and in a way that is not too time consuming.

Masterful summary, Wally. This is what I observed.

>>''[...] often regard troubled congregation members as defective people who need to be managed efficiently and in a way that is not too time consuming.

Yes! That is what I, like mel, observed, and experienced and heard about, and why I wrote this question.

ensure compliance

Aren't bishops supposed to be experts that work with young people?

If members themselves knew what bishops were for from their leaders why would this site even exist?

https://leadingsaints.org/bishop/

Yes. Male.

Obviously they are for interrogating children about sexual things.

https://kutv.com/news/local/victims-speak

I was a bishop's wife (i.e the "mother of the ward) yuck! I was 26 years old! He was doing a post doctoral fellowship and when we moved into the ward, little did we know that the current bishop was desperate to move and they looked at DH as the answer to their dilemma. We'd been in the ward less than 4 months and when he was sustained, the woman sitting behind me said "who's he?"

Anyhow, he tried to be the best bishop he could. He was run ragged. This was before the block so he was at church all day Sunday and several nights during the week. He kept an emergency basket of food under his desk for anyone who was in need and all they had to do was ask for help.

I know nothing about his interviews except that he took them very seriously and agonized about the problems in the ward. I remember him telling me that "everyone has problems".

I never saw him. We had one car so I was trapped at home day and night with 3 children under age 7. I asked him for a divorce at one point because I was so stressed out and depressed. A story for another time was how the Stake President actually came to my rescue. But, at least from my own experience, he was one of the faithful and diligent ones who really tried to help people.

Is it possible that to be a good mormon GA, the secret that those who pick GAs look for is that a bishop find a way to short change his congregation in a way that preserves the illusion that he really cares for his people, when in fact he remains his own first priority?

It would never serve the church to have a GA who put the people ahead of the organization.

I was lucky.
I had a pretty progressive bishop. When my wife and i lost a son during child birth were she had to be induced. it was pretty rough for us. lots of questions like "why can her crack head cousin have a child and we can't?" my bishop and his wife came over and they told us the best thing.
"Sometimes you have to save the equipment to try again."
She also told us it was Ok to be mad at God.
(i left the church but still believe in god...just not organized religion)
so sometimes they do, do good

Blacksheep,

My bishop in college was more worried about me attending the correct ward in my area. It's a quick story I posted on how I got to the "never more" point with the church.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2197401,2197892#msg-2197892

Thank you for posting that and telling me about it. I'm sorry you were treated so shabbily. I was never a missionary, but I was looked down on by some mormons b/c I wasn't wealthy enough to wear the 'right' clothes, to afford other trendy items of the time, etc. There's cutting people some slack b/c no one's perfect and we're going to church to help us make progress (ostensibly), and there's realizing you're dealing with people without a Christian bone in their bodies.

When my father was made a bishop, he thought it was because he was righteous, well versed in the gospel, and a lovable guy. But it was actually because he was a manager of huge construction projects, and the stake president wanted him to oversee the construction of the new stake center.

"Did anyone ever go to their bishop with a problem and have that bishop take it seriously, with concerned benevolence, and offer to pray with you about the issue right then and there, like a true minister/pastor?"

Yes, this happens all the time. However, bishops are people and it depends on the person. Some will handle it better than others.

I think a lot gets put onto bishops though and they are the whipping boys of the church. I've known some who've quit as a result.

He gave me a blessing the first time I talked to him about it. He seemed to care, but I wonder if he would have counseled his own daughter to marry someone gay or to experiment to see if he could be turned on and he'd still give us temple recommends.

The leaders I dealt with over the issue betrayed my trust. They didn't know anything, so they used me as a lab rat.

I'm sure they meant well. That's not good enough for me.

Oooh, I'm sorry. I agree, 'meaning well' is often not good enough. Whether they're properly trained or not, these 'leaders' are held up as leaders and 'men of god', which gives a certain importance and gravity to whatever they say or do.

Yes, my bishops were amazing. My parents split and I didn't really have a father, he was a prick. My bishops acted like fathers, spent hours with me. Amazing, wonderful men.

That is really good, and I'm truly glad someone stepped up and helped you. My father had died, and the branch president/bishops couldn't have cared less; I was a girl. One of the male members who was in the ward hierarchy somewhere who 'only' had four daughters did take a brief interest in my younger brother.

I know we are obligated to attribute the worst to Mormonism, but bishops aren't all bad.

My brother is a bishop and the nicest guy you'll ever meet. Has helped me with many projects. As a former tree faller, he recently took his chain saw to California to help remove trees in the fire damaged areas. (Only to be told by government agencies that wasn't allowed - likely somebody's boondoggle is threatened).

Somehow we assume that leaders are power hungry jerks and the followers are all innocent victims of oppression.

In my experience, the leaders are simply offering what the members demand. Many members want to be babysat and told what to do, and want "free" stuff and help, just as citizens want from government. They want oppression, as long as it means less work.

"Most men, after a little freedom, have preferred authority with the consoling assurances and the economy of effort it brings."
-- Walter Lippmann

Are you equating asking a supposed spiritual leader for some clarification on spiritual issues, or the spiritual ramifications of a life issue, with wanting to be babysat or told what to do?

And, after tithing 10%, nobody in mormondom gets ANY "free" stuff.

I feel no obligation to anything but the truth, as best as I can determine it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2019 03:15AM by blacksheep1.

Bishops, and I will add, relief society presidents, are the designated work horses that have way, way too much church work to do for no pay while also usually needing do report to a full time job. Plain and simple, what these people are asked to do is slave labor and lots of it.

The 15 top dogs' corporation would not be able to function without all the time and work the bishops and relief society presidents contribute. Does the cult elites treat them with the respect, pay checks and praise they deserve?

Hell no.