Farewell Friends, I Was Just Called As Bishop

[_Drifting]

Zelder said ''The church is not a dictatorship.''

A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual, the dictator. It has three possible meanings:
1.A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.
2.A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom.
3.In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

In the 20th century and early 21st century hereditary dictatorship remained a relatively common phenomenon.

For some scholars, a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power (where the power comes from) and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power (what is the government).

In this sense, dictatorship (government without people's consent) is a contrast to democracy (government whose power comes from people) and totalitarianism (government controls every aspect of people's life) opposes pluralism (government allows multiple lifestyles and opinions).

Other scholars stress the omnipotence of the State (with its consequent suspension of rights) as the key element of a dictatorship and argue that such concentration of power can be legitimate or not depending on the circumstances, objectives and methods employed.

I think the Church is far more akin to 'dictatorship' or 'totalitarianism' than it is to any other form of governance.

[_Drifting]

Here is what the Prophet of the Church had to say about Bishops...

We have more than 18,000 bishops in the Church. Every one is a man who has been called by the spirit of prophecy and revelation and set apart and ordained by the laying on of hands. Every one of them holds the keys of the presidency of his ward. Each is a high priest, the presiding high priest of his ward. Each carries tremendous responsibilities of stewardship. Each stands as a father to his people.

None receives money for his service. No ward bishop is compensated by the Church for his work as a bishop.

The requirements of a bishop today are as they were in the days of Paul, who wrote to Timothy:

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

“Not given to wine, no striker [that is, not a bully or a violent person], … not a brawler, not covetous;

“One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

“(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

“Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil” (1 Tim. 3:2–6).

In his letter to Titus, Paul adds that “a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; …

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:7, 9).

Those words aptly describe a bishop today in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Let me now speak directly to the thousands of bishops who are in attendance tonight. Let me say first that I love you for your integrity and goodness. You must be men of integrity. You must stand as examples to the congregations over which you preside. You must stand on higher ground so that you can lift others. You must be absolutely honest, for you handle the funds of the Lord, the tithes of the people, the offerings that come of their fasting, and the contributions which they make from their own strained resources. How great is your trust as the keepers of the purse of the Lord!

Your goodness must be as an ensign to your people. Your morals must be impeccable. The wiles of the adversary may be held before you because he knows that if he can destroy you, he can injure an entire ward. You must exercise wisdom in all of your relationships lest someone read into your observed actions some taint of moral sin. You cannot succumb to the temptation to read pornographic literature or even in the secrecy of your own chamber to view pornographic films. Your moral strength must be such that if ever you are called upon to sit in judgment on the questionable morals of others, you may do so without personal compromise or embarrassment.

You cannot use your office as bishop to further your own business interests lest through some ensuing financial mishap accusation be placed against you by those who succumbed to your persuasiveness.

You cannot compromise your qualifications to sit as a common judge in Israel. It is a fearsome and awesome responsibility to stand as a judge of the people. You must be their judge in some instances as to worthiness to hold membership in the Church, worthiness to enter the house of the Lord, worthiness to be baptized, worthiness to receive the priesthood, worthiness to serve missions, worthiness to teach and to serve as officers in the organizations. You must be the judge of their eligibility in times of distress to receive help from the fast offerings of the people and commodities from the storehouse of the Lord. None for whom you are responsible must go hungry or without clothing or shelter though they be reluctant to ask. You must know something of the circumstances of all of the flock over whom you preside.

You must be their counselor, their comforter, their anchor and strength in times of sorrow and trouble. You must be strong with that strength which comes from the Lord. You must be wise with that wisdom which comes from the Lord. Your door must be open to hear their cries and your back strong to carry their burdens, your heart sensitive to judge their needs, your godly love broad enough and strong enough to encompass even the wrongdoer and the critic. You must be a man of patience, willing to listen and striving to understand. You are the only one to whom some can turn. You must be there when every other source has failed.

Good luck.

[_ludwigm]

Good luck.

May the Force be with you!

Luck is not enough.

[_Drifting]

Everybody Wang Chung

In a different thread you said this:

Could you imagine how different the New Testament would be if Jesus adopted the Church's stance on welfare assistance?

In your new calling (which includes dispensing welfare) will you be seeking to influence the Church's welfare policy?

Which apparently is this:

“And the bishop … should travel round about … searching after the poor to administer to their wants by humbling the rich and the proud.” (D&C 84:112.)

“To the bishop is given all the powers and responsibilities which the Lord has specifically prescribed in the Doctrine and Covenants for the caring of the poor. … No one else is charged with this duty and responsibility, no one else is endowed with the power and functions necessary for this work. …

“By the word of the Lord the sole mandate to care for, and the sole discretion in caring for the poor of the Church is lodged in the bishop. … Whatever help he calls in, he is still responsible.” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., as quoted by Marion G. Romney in General Conference, October 1977.)

[_LDSToronto]

This is not a test of the leadership of the Mormon Church. This is a challenge of Personal Integrity.

What good does it do to serve as a Bishop in an organization that you have personal doubts about? How can one teach morals, truth, honesty, integrity, virtue and the likes to others when the teacher has none of these qualities. This is no better than a Pro Athlete doing public service announcements about the dangers of illegal drugs only to be caught in a dragnet using such. This is no better than an accountant stealing from his client and then explaining it as a market loss or such. This is no better than any other dishonest act of a coward in presenting themselves as something they are not.

Shame on you.

Come, Mighty Builder. E.WC has morals, he is truthful, honest, has integrity and I don't question his virtue. It's hardly fair to level this accusation when you have little experience of the man. I have no doubt that E.WC can teach those things that you claim he doesn't have.

Having come out of the church, I acknowledge the complexity of feelings one has towards the institution, the doctrines, the culture, and the people. I'm sure this was no easy decision for E.WC, and I predict that he will experience great personal challenges if he finds his personal convictions bump up against the machine.

But, to use lingo I've learned in a past life, those are his trials. Perhaps God has put him in this position to try him. Maybe he *can* do some good. Maybe he will be the first bishop to marry two men. Maybe he is the catalyst for some change. And maybe he will crash and burn. Only God knows, right Builder?

H.

[_Buffalo]

Bishop Everybody Wang Chung,

I wonder if your ward has any teenage Zee types. If so, it might be a good idea to at least mention masturbation one time. You could say this:

"Jonny, when I visit with you and ask if there is anything you need to tell me, just know right now that I don't give a s*** whether or not you masturbated last month."

They kind of need that reassurance because they sure as hell aren't getting it from their youth leaders and likely not their parents if they are TBM. The kid (if he is like I was) might be reading into the FSofY pamphlet and Richard G Scott talks too much and causing a lot of grief.

If you stay silent on this, the boy will make assumptions.

In this regard, I think a bishop like Everybody Wang Chung can do a lot of good.

This is one of those posts I start wishing I didn't write an hour later...

Good point, Zeez. Much of the guilt-mongering is coming from lessons in Aaronic priesthood classes.

[_Buffalo]

Either Everybody Wang Chung is kidding, or this is undeniable proof the church is not true.

Unless you consider the parable o the wheat and the tares.

It's proof that the so-called "gift of discernment" is a fantasy.

[_harmony]

I think Everybody Wang Chung will be a wonderful blessing to his ward. I just hope he has influence in his stake and higher.

[_J_B]

I hope you come back soon, as well, Everybody Wang Chung!

[_Jason Bourne]

Everybody Wang Chung is stating that he intends to serve the very Master he has knowledge of being corrupt. The corruption is from its inception and foundation. This is not a good institution gone bad in need of reform, but a cancer on society that has World domination and enslavement as its goal.

Sycophants on the "inside" cannot rise up and lead to truth and honesty, because this system has no truth or honesty to be championed. What is Everybody Wang Chung going to do, on his inauguration state that he has personal doubts about the truthfulness of the the "only true and living Church upon the earth", but he will do his best to serve under the guidelines of the organization and help those he serves? Is he going to state that those who seek Mormon Temple recommends from him need not answer the question about their honesty in dealing with their fellowmen because he himself cannot answer yes? Is Everybody Wang Chung going to overlook the evils in the members because he himself has now become the evilest of them all?

No, this is simply an individual seeking the praise of men for his own purpose.

I understand some of your points but find much of your comments very harsh. You said you were called as a bishop and declined. So you are still a member yet you state:

The corruption is from its inception and foundation. This is not a good institution gone bad in need of reform, but a cancer on society that has World domination and enslavement as its goal.

Really? If you feel that strongly vote with your feet and send it your resignation letter. How is Everybody Wang Chung any more wrong than you? I don't see him at all seeking the praise of men but rather seeking to bless lives. By the way I think your assessment of the Church is over the top. World domination and enslavement? Get real man.

That said I do not think if such a call came to me know I could accept it. I was full TBM when I was called and it was late in my term of service that things feel apart for me as noted. ANd even then I told my SP he ought to release me and he declined. I am glad be did. I still was able to help a lot of people. Sure it was tough. Though I was not as far along the path on NOMness as I am now.

Everyone has to find their own way best that they can. Everybody Wang Chung if you are reading my advice is listen to your own heart and conscience and follow it. One of my great joys in NOMness and my new found independent thinking is I do what I just advised you. To hell with the monolithic Mormons who think I should resign. To hell with the hardened apostates who think I should walk as well. It is your life so live it how you think best. Council with your wife though in all of it. You may want to talk to your SP some too so at least he knows where you are at but even that is up to you.