As with any office, even in the secular world, the office of bishop comes with a bunch of attachments. It has qualifications that must be met, it has boundaries placed on the authority they may rightly exercise, it has responsibilities to execute. Since the restoration of the office by Joseph Smith, it has evolved in each of these aspects, and the evolution deserves examining.
QUALIFICATIONS
The scriptures list a number of qualifications one is expected to meet if they are to be called as a bishop:
- Blameless, husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach (1 Timothy 3:1-2).
- Blameless, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre (Titus 1:7).
- High priests who are worthy, appointed by First Presidency (D&C 68:15, 19).
- From the Aaronic Expansions (see “Aaronic Expansions”)
- High priests who are worthy, appointed by First Presidency, except they are literal descendants of Aaron (meaning literal descendants don’t have to be high priests). (D&C 68:15, 19).
- The legal right to this office belongs to firstborn descendants of Aaron (D&C 68:16, 18, 21).
- Even firstborn sons of Aaron must be approved by First Presidency (D&C 68:20).
In today’s world we have become so afraid of certain types of “judging,” you would be hard-pressed to find stake presidents comfortable with eliminating candidates for a bishopric on notes such as “he’s not very hospitable,” or “sorry, but he’s just too given to his interest in money.”
Feeling unworthy to judge our brethren in this manner, it seems that perhaps we simply choose not to do it. We don’t require ourselves to measure the candidates against the scriptural qualifications. Instead, it seems we take the easier path of assuming all men have all of these qualities (so long as they are “active” members), and then we can instead focus on whether they have a background that really interests us, such as an ability to drive up numbers, or to “motivate” people into doing what we want done, or to be “smart” with the money they would be managing. These are qualities we have no problem evaluating in our brethren, and may frequently be the basis for the selections made.
SCRIPTURAL BOUNDARIES OF THE OFFICE
The scriptural boundaries of the office of bishop have remained the same for 180+ years. At the widest view, the office of bishop is in administering all temporal things (D&C 107:68). Temporal means it pertains to this world. They are not to attempt to administer in spiritual things, things pertaining to the eternal world, as that responsibility belongs to the high priesthood (D&C 107:8, 10, 12). Joseph Smith appears to have further reaffirmed this in simplicity, in a letter attributed to him, that was published in the June 1835 Messenger and Advocate: “The high council has been expressly organized to administer in all her [Zion’s] spiritual affairs; and the bishop and his council, are set over her temporal matters” (The Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 Num. 9, “To the Saints Scattered Abroad”).
In examining the responsibilities and privileges of the office of bishop, a more detailed and clear picture is painted of the boundaries established here.
SCRIPTURAL RESPONSIBILITIES
As Mormons were once intended to be a self-contained civilization within the world, it was necessary that they should have their own government. The office of bishop fit within that government, the office being that of a paid employee (D&C 42:71-73; 51:14). “Bishop” was essentially a government job. Within that office, the bishop was to handle a wealth of responsibilities pertaining to the temporal well-being and efforts of this Mormon people.
Here are their non-disciplinary responsibilities, according to the D&C:
- The bishop handled all receiving, storing, and distributing of goods through the storehouse, in accordance with the internal laws of the church at that time, which we refer to as the law of consecration. (D&C 42:31-34; 48:6; 51:3-5, 11-13; 57:15; 58:17, 51-55; 72:10-14, 17-19; 84:104; 85:1; 90:30; 119:1; 124:21)
- The bishop is not exempt from also living according to these laws which he regulates (D&C 70:10-11).
- Directing certain conferences (D&C 58:62).
- Overseeing outward (temporal) performance of ordinances (D&C 107:20).
- Receiving accounts of stewardships, certifying the faithful stewards for their interactions with other bodies (D&C 72:5-6, 11, 16-19, 25)
- Presiding over a body of 48 priests, sitting in council with them and teaching them the duties of their office (D&C 107:87-88)
- NOTE: The original transcripts did not give this responsibility to the bishop, but only to a president of the priests. Giving this responsibility to the bishop was one of the many alterations instituted in the 1835 D&C. D&C 107:61 still notes a priest (as opposed to a bishop) is to preside over a body of priests.
As far as disciplinary responsibilities go, bishops have bishops’ councils wherein they are to judge the people. But there are limitations placed on what and how they are authorized to judge.
- All judgment is to be maintained within the scope and boundaries of pertaining only to the “temporal” things (D&C 107:68).
- They are to judge according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God (D&C 58:18; 107:72).
- NOTE: the altered text of the Aaronic expansions in D&C 107:71-76 includes variations and exceptions from the listed items, whereas the original transcripts do not (see “Aaronic Expansions”).
Lastly, it’s worth noting that a bishop will ultimately be answerable to the people in his execution of his duties (D&C 64:38-40). Having judged the people, he will then be judged of the people, creating a balance.
BOUNDARIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES EVOLVING
As Mormonism progressed, rapidly moving away from a “people” model into a “church” model, the church surrendered rights and responsibilities pertaining to the well-being of the people. The law of consecration was done away with (in practice but not in oath, a dangerous thing), and the bishops stopped judging matters in the people’s “civil” disputes. In other words, they greatly surrendered sitting as judges in the people’s temporal matters.
With the loss of these temporal responsibilities, which once constituted the bulk of their office, bishops found their plates rather empty. Eventually it would be filled again with countless meetings and auxiliary programs and so forth, but none of these responsibilities involved working as a “judge,” a title granted in scripture that certainly no man would want to lose. So a solution was instituted, involving the high priesthood delegating a portion of their judging matters into the hands of the bishops. This would lighten the load on the high priesthood, give the bishops responsibility to replace that which they lost, and seem to fulfill their scriptural title of “judge” once again.
To justify this, the determining line for which court was to judge someone needed to be shifted. Instead of the nature of the crime determining which court would try a matter, which kept God from appearing to be a respecter of persons, the distinguishing line became how much “priesthood” authority the person had accumulated for themselves, how well-ranked they were on the God ladder, making the Lord out to be precisely a respecter of persons.
If you have the high priesthood, you’re apparently more important than those who don’t, and therefore you require higher authority to judge you. But all the rest who lack this higher ranking power, they are inferior and can therefore be judged of an inferior court. Women, they can all be judged by bishops. They’re just women, they can’t hold the priesthood even in its lowest form, so they can be handled by the lowest of judges, even if their crimes are spiritual in nature. And men, well if they don’t hold priesthood higher than Aaronic, then there’s no need to bother with having a high priesthood holder spend their time judging them, even if their crimes are spiritual.
The rationalization that is used for this shift is built on noting that the bishop is a high priest with Melchizedek priesthood (D&C 68:15, 19; 84:29; 107:17), and therefore he is enabled to also fulfill responsibilities theoretically limited to the high priesthood, i.e. spiritual matters.
But an office has limitations, regardless of the powers of its occupant. Within that office, only that which belongs to that office can come forth from that office. To act outside the bounds of an office to to act outside that office, without any of the authority or title of that office. The best common analogy I can refer to is switching hats. When a high priest enters the bishop’s office, he switches to the bishop’s hat, leaving the high priest hat at the door. He does what a bishop does, no more and no less, while in that office and wearing that hat. Should he be needed to fulfill a responsibility requiring his high priesthood, he may step out of the bishop’s office and hat, and put the high priest hat back on. He doesn’t perform his high priestly duties from within the bishop’s office with that hat. Only one hat is worn at any given time, the two are not to be worn at once and treated like a singular, all-inclusive hat.
Therefore, if we want be in harmony with the scriptures, the disciplinary actions that bishops are allowed to judge must relate only to crimes pertaining to this world, for example theft, or incorrect execution of outward ordinances. But if the crime pertains to the eternal world, such as broken covenants or intentional teaching of damning doctrines, those are to be handled by the high priesthood. This is the scriptural dividing line for which court is to handle a disciplinary council. It is not gender, or whether the accused holds Melchizedek priesthood. It is the nature of the crime.
