How do adults view their bishops?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

In my experience, I agree that this example is exceptional. I have had many bishops in my lifetime, and I can only think of one that I would match up as having inspired that kind of feeling in me. And I definitely think of him as exceptional in many ways--he remains a spiritual touchstone for me.

As for how I view bishops now, I guess I generally think of them as nice, well-meaning guys who are asked to do a job. My current bishop is a person I knew before he became bishop, and I think he's fine. He seems dedicated and attentive to the ward as a whole, but I really have very little do with him in his capacity as bishop.

I haven't had a TR interview done by a bishop since my initial one for my own endowment. I don't request any counseling, I don't get any $$ assistance, I don't need a voucher for the storehouse, I don't attend priesthood meetings, and I don't think I'm on the radar screen for special discussion at ward leadership meetings (nor do I think I should be). So I feel very little personal impact from the bishop. That's not meant as a criticism, it's just the way things are.

If you are among the fortunate who do not require frequent interaction with the bishop, it would be very helpful to him for you to be anxiously engaged on behalf of those who do.

To steal from JFK, too often members are too busy asking what their bishop can do for them, when what we really ought to be asking what we can do to sustain him, in blessing and lifting those around us.

Originally Posted by Archaea

"Mantle" is a term for Mormon mysticism, but I'm uncertain how you intend it.

I've seen some insights granted to those in authority, but you won't make an architect, a professional marriage counselor.

There is nothing mystical about the mantle. The term comes from two Old Testament stories: Elisha symbolically assuming Elijah's prophetic role, and Samuel symbolically revoking the Lord's blessing on Saul's kingship. I'm not sure if those stories are in your version of the Bible or not.

The mantle of a bishop is no more or less than the possession of his priesthood keys, which represent the authority to direct the affairs of the church in his ward. Reception of those keys entitles him to inspiration and revelation to that end.

I get the impression you think the calling of a bishop is to be all things to all people ... that folks with problems go into his office and are supposed to magically receive the answers to their ills. No wonder you are disappointed.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So you feel no gratitude for the service of the Apostles, the Seventies or other general authorities? All of them are paid.

Yeah, I thought about that as I posted it. I have gratitude for their service as well and I believe their devotion is authentic. As opposed to people who chose the ministry as a career, most of the general authorities were "drafted" into service after years if not decades of non-paid service, which enhances their credibility in my mind.

But I'm inherently more suspicious of anyone whose livelihood depends on their religious actions. This includes anyone employed by BYU. You have to question a person's motives when they would lose their job and ability to support their family if they stepped out of line. That service just can't be considered "freely given."

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Yeah, I thought about that as I posted it. I have gratitude for their service as well and I believe their devotion is authentic. As opposed to people who chose the ministry as a career, most of the general authorities were "drafted" into service after years if not decades of non-paid service, which enhances their credibility in my mind.

But I'm inherently more suspicious of anyone whose livelihood depends on their religious actions. This includes anyone employed by BYU. You have to question a person's motives when they would lose their job and ability to support their family if they stepped out of line. That service just can't be considered "freely given."

Wait, am I to understand that no LDS general authorities did anything to pursue high callings in the church?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

If you are among the fortunate who do not require frequent interaction with the bishop, it would be very helpful to him for you to be anxiously engaged on behalf of those who do.

To steal from JFK, too often members are too busy asking what their bishop can do for them, when what we really ought to be asking what we can do to sustain him, in blessing and lifting those around us.



There is nothing mystical about the mantle. The term comes from two Old Testament stories: Elisha symbolically assuming Elijah's prophetic role, and Samuel symbolically revoking the Lord's blessing on Saul's kingship. I'm not sure if those stories are in your version of the Bible or not.

The mantle of a bishop is no more or less than the possession of his priesthood keys, which represent the authority to direct the affairs of the church in his ward. Reception of those keys entitles him to inspiration and revelation to that end.

I get the impression you think the calling of a bishop is to be all things to all people ... that folks with problems go into his office and are supposed to magically receive the answers to their ills. No wonder you are disappointed.

Tex, did Samuel the Lamanite have a mantle? Or keys?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Yeah, I thought about that as I posted it. I have gratitude for their service as well and I believe their devotion is authentic. As opposed to people who chose the ministry as a career, most of the general authorities were "drafted" into service after years if not decades of non-paid service, which enhances their credibility in my mind.

But I'm inherently more suspicious of anyone whose livelihood depends on their religious actions. This includes anyone employed by BYU. You have to question a person's motives when they would lose their job and ability to support their family if they stepped out of line. That service just can't be considered "freely given."

So everybody who pursues a career, say as a physician, is doing so selfishly, without an inner calling to render service. Seeking compensation is inherently evil and one should live poorly without compensation?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tex, did Samuel the Lamanite have a mantle? Or keys?

I believe the scriptures are silent on the actual source of his authority.

No idea what this has to do with how adults view their bishop.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Wait, am I to understand that no LDS general authorities did anything to pursue high callings in the church?

Wow, you and Archaea are great at asking questions in terms of absolutes.

Archaea: Do you feel no gratitude for the paid general authorites?

Mike: Really, no LDS GAs did anything to pursue high callings in the Church?

I'm just saying by comparison to a fully paid ministry, I start out being somewhat less suspicious of the motives of people who serve in the Church without pay or of those who served in the Church without pay for many years in the past prior to taking a full-time paid position.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Wow, you and Archaea are great at asking questions in terms of absolutes.

Archaea: Do you feel no gratitude for the paid general authorites?

Mike: Really, no LDS GAs did anything to pursue high callings in the Church?

I'm just saying by comparison to a fully paid ministry, I start out being somewhat less suspicious of the motives of people who serve in the Church without pay or of those who served in the Church without pay for many years in the past prior to taking a full-time paid position.

This sentiment you share is common, but is it actually deserved? Perhaps, but we are suspicious of service by those who are paid. Should we be?

The concept of leaders not being paid is a recent derivation. You are aware that the 19th Century Church saw stake presidents paid ten percent of tithing collections and bishops five percent and that Brigham Young was worth more than the Church when he died?

Whether a person is paid or not is of no moment to me, as I've seen dedicated paid clergy and nondedicated "volunteer" clergy so much that the distinction doesn't matter.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Wow, you and Archaea are great at asking questions in terms of absolutes.

Archaea: Do you feel no gratitude for the paid general authorites?

Mike: Really, no LDS GAs did anything to pursue high callings in the Church?

I'm just saying by comparison to a fully paid ministry, I start out being somewhat less suspicious of the motives of people who serve in the Church without pay or of those who served in the Church without pay for many years in the past prior to taking a full-time paid position.

So am I to be suspicious of the motives of a woman who becomes a Catholic nun? After all, she is getting paid.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So everybody who pursues a career, say as a physician, is doing so selfishly, without an inner calling to render service. Seeking compensation is inherently evil and one should live poorly without compensation?

No, I think teachers, doctors, and public defenders etc. feel called in a religious way and do a great service. Seeking compensation obviously isn't inherently evil.

But as somebody who is inherently pretty skeptical of religion, I guess I just don't understand and am inherently suspicious of anybody who chooses to make religion his full-time job. And there are so many examples in the media of church leaders who live high on the hog on the widows' mites from their congregations.

Maybe my bias results from lack of interaction with very many full-time religious professionals in the past. It's probably largely a result of my LDS upbringing in which I learned a model of volunteer Church service.