Bruce Jessen Resigns As LDS Bishop In Spokane One Week After His Ties With CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques Were Publicized

On October 14th, 2012, Spokane Stake President James Lee presented the name of Bruce Jessen to the congregation of the Spokane Sixth Ward for a sustaining vote as their new bishop. Since the sustaining vote was unanimous, the appointment immediately took effect. But just one week later on October 21st, Bishop Jessen suddenly became Elder Jessen once again, having stepped down from his position. Most bishop serve for at least five years.

What happened? Immediately after Jessen was installed as bishop, a number of human rights gadflies started squawking about his past work with the CIA. It seems like Jessen and another LDS member, James Mitchell, both clinical psychologists with no previous interrogation or intelligence training, were contracted by the CIA in late 2001 after the 9-11 attacks to develop what are called “enhanced interrogation techniques” and to train interrogators during live demonstrations. Among the techniques were sleep deprivation and waterboarding, according to a 2009 U.S. Senate committee report. Jessen drew from his prior experience as an Air Force psychologist who helped develop training for air crews and other military personnel to resist interrogation at the Survival School at Fairchild Air Force Base; the interrogation techniques he and Mitchell developed for the CIA following the 9-11 attacks were reverse-engineered from that resistance training. William Norman Grigg published a much more detailed account of Jessen's CIA activities on the Lew Rockwell website.

But Jessen's calling as bishop displeased some groups who have denounced him and James Mitchell for teaching the controversial techniques. Shahid Battar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, a self-styled national grass-roots network for civil rights, civil liberties and the rule of law, said “I can think of no one less qualified for a position of moral and spiritual leadership”. But while Battar did not specifically criticize the Church, he added “It’s depressing how little human rights seems to matter to people.” Rusty Nelson, a former co-director of the Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane, was surprised by Jessen’s appointment and questioned the message it sends, complaining “He developed enhanced interrogation methods that are universally condemned.” And, of course, anti-Mormons exploited the controversy to question how Church leaders with the power of discernment could make such a choice.

But Stake President Lee explained how the calling came about. Lee said he interviewed Jessen about the controversy during the several-month period that he was being considered for the bishop’s post, and Jessen shared some information that Lee couldn’t reveal. He believed Jessen to be an honorable, trustworthy and humble man who will be able to help other members and keep their confidences. The recommendation to name Jessen as bishop was sent to the LDS Office of the First Presidency for approval, as are all such proposed appointments. But because of security considerations, Jessen is tight-lipped about his work with the government. These considerations are valid; remember how the Pentagon issued a formal warning to Matt Bissonette, the Navy SEAL who wrote the first-person account of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011? They accused Bissonette of violating his signed agreement not to divulge classified information, and threatened him with stiff legal action.

Nevertheless, by mid-week, an LDS spokesman in Salt Lake City disclosed that Church leaders were looking into the matter, and by Sunday October 21st, Jessen had resigned. It is unknown whether Jessen was asked to resign, or whether he chose to do so voluntarily because he decided that his continued service as bishop would inflict harm upon the Church's reputation.

While a number of people are highly critical of the interrogation techniques taught by Bruce Jessen, it should be noted that he has not been investigated, indicted, or tried for anything done in relation to that matter. Consequently, he should be considered a fully law-abiding citizen just as worthy of consideration for a Church post as anyone else. There was no pretext for the Office of the First Presidency to have any doubts about his suitability to serve as bishop.

Understanding An LDS Bishop's "Power Of Discernment"; Callings Not Always Extended Merely To Fill Positions

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe a bishop has the power of discernment. A basic explanation replete with numerous scriptural references is provided by LightPlanet. In a May 1999 Ensign article entitled "The Bishop and His Counselors", Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles states, "Inherent in the ordination to be bishop is both the right and the obligation to be directed by inspiration. The bishop has the power to discern by the Spirit what he is to do. Revelation is the one credential that all bishops have in common. Bishops come from many cultures, many occupations. They vary in experience, personality, and age, but they do not differ in their right to be guided spiritually".

In a May 1997 Ensign article entitled "Bishop, Help!", Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve also states, "Brothers and sisters, the offices of bishop and branch president and counselors are sacred in this Church. The men who hold those offices are respected by the Lord, inspired by His Spirit, and given the powers of discernment necessary to their office. We honor and love them, and we show this by our consideration for them".

But just what is the "power of discernment"? Is it a crystal ball by which a bishop can visualize your entire life and ferret out every sin you've ever committed? If this was so, then why would we need disciplinary councils and Church courts to try people for their membership? The power of discernment is simply the power, granted through the Holy Spirit to a bishop, to provide leadership and guidance to his ward in keeping with his stewardship. But the gift of discernment is not always premonitory.

Nonetheless, anti-Mormons like to point to failed callings as evidence that a bishop doesn't have the power of discernment. But what they don't understand is that when a bishop calls a member to a position, and the person fails in that calling, the calling may also have been extended in order to expose another issue. An example is if a latent child molester is called to work with youth. He's subsequently caught attempting to molest one of his charges.

Perhaps the purpose of the Holy Spirit in prompting the calling was to identify and expose the individual to the world before he could do more damage.

Colorado Springs Gazette Reporter Mark Barna Discusses The Issue Of Unpaid Clergy In The LDS Church

On July 26th, 2009, Colorado Springs Gazette blogger Mark Barna discussed the resignation of Rev. Brad Braxton from the evangelical Riverside Church in New York after some congregants filed a motion to prevent him from being officially installed as senior pastor. The outcry was driven primarily by reports that Braxton’s salary was more than $600,000 a year.

This provoked a column by him entitled, "The Pulpit: Work without pay has rewards, Mormon leaders say", where he further addressed the issue of clergy compensation by citing the example of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a church successfully run by mostly unpaid "volunteer" clergy. The only Church leaders who get compensation are members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, who are in full-time dedicated positions; each member of the Twelve supervises a different major aspect of Church operations.

Barna interviewed several local Mormon leaders. Mark McConkie, the president of the Colorado Springs Stake, said, “We work from sheer conviction... .Not taking a salary protects us from the sin of greed, the temptation to bend to popular causes”.

Bruce Rands, bishop of the Colorado Springs’ 18th Ward in the Fountain Stake, is an attorney in private practice. Like most bishops, he spends 25 to 35 hours a week tending to their wards by performing administrative duties, counseling members, preparing an occasional sermon and overseeing church events. Rands said that if Mormon church leaders were paid, or if salary were based in part on congregant donations, there would be a temptation to “preach things that are pleasing to the ears of men.” Rands added, ...“we want to preach the doctrine of Christ”.

Not only does Rands get no compensation for being a bishop, but he also made an initial financial sacrifice to accept the calling, giving up an "iron rice bowl" job as an assistant DA. Here's why: Rands foresaw that he’d face a conflict of interest with his job as a Fourth Judicial District deputy district attorney. As bishop, Rands would be hearing confessions from ward members, but as a deputy DA, he was sworn to report knowledge of a crime. So if someone confessed a crime to him, Rands would be obligated to report it to authorities. This could violate traditional clergy confidentiality. So he resigned from the DA's office, then opened his own law practice. [Ed. Note: Bishops are still obligated to report certain crimes confessed to them, like sex offenses, for example.]

Mark Barna then directs us to go to his blog, The Pulpit, for more details. Scriptural justification for the no-pay policy is cited, to include I Peter 5:2, ”Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers — not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve.”, and II Nephi 26:31, "But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money, they shall perish.”

The idea of perfectly-coiffed televangelists like Rod Parsley, Paul Crouch, and John Hagee raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary per year is a bit obscene. However, there are many paid pastors who make far less and who are humble followers of Christ, giving back more spiritually than they gain materially in tithes and offerings. So a paid pastor is NOT automatically a corrupt pastor.

However, one additional advantage to the LDS refusal to maintain a full-time professional clergy is that it affords us the opportunity to rotate a larger number of people through the various bishop and stake president positions. A bishop typically remains in place for no longer than five years. The end result is a larger group of trained leaders who can provide effective direction, particularly during times of crises. This explains in part why Mormons in predominantly-LDS area organize so quickly and efficiently to cope with natural disasters.

Mark Barna is a reporter for the Colorado Springs Gazette. He has previously written about Mormons; an index to his columns is available HERE.

Should LDS Church Callings Promote Maximum Efficiency Or Maximum Opportunity? Mormon Times Writer Kristine Frederickson Thinks The Latter

During a visit to the Bloggernacle, I discovered a post by Kim Siever on Our Thoughts which had an intriguing title, "Callings in the church". Imagine my disappointment when I found that Siever had merely posted a link to a Mormon Times article, without any introductory or motivational commentary whatsoever. Fortunately, I set aside my prejudice against such posts, clicked on the link, and found one of the better essays on LDS Church callings I've ever read. The essay explores the two distinctive schools of thought within the LDS community on Church callings; elitism vs. populism.

The elitist view is that Church callings should promote maximum efficiency within a program by calling only those with specific talents to function in a program requiring those specific talents. The populist view is that Church callings should be extended to provide maximum opportunity to the greatest number of worthy members, and trust in other members and in the Holy Ghost to help maximize the efficiency of the calling. A few callings, such as ward organist, may require specialized talent, but most don't.

Since this post, I have found some other information that those who are unfamiliar with the LDS Church might find useful. From the He Said/She Said blog, here's a description of the functional areas of a typical ward in which one will receive a calling: Bishopric (administration/leadership), Priesthood, Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, Primary, Ward Mission, Family History, and Sunday School. A member may also receive a calling at the stake level, in one of the following functional areas: Stake Presidency, High Council, Stake Relief Society Presidency, Stake Young Men's Presidency, Stake Young Women's Presidency, Stake Primary Presidency, Stake Family History Coordinator, and Stake Sunday School Presidency. Rachel Wood's Organization of the LDS Church provides even more background on this subject.

In the aforementioned Mormon Times article, entitled "Callings in the church", Kristine Frederickson promotes the populist view. She believes that Church callings should provide maximum opportunity rather than maximum efficiency. Her premise is that Church callings should be geared primarily to help people grow spiritually, increase their talents, and develop gifts of the spirit as they pursue their callings.

In addition, Frederickson suggests that when one person receives a calling, others in the ward may have a part in that call. Since callings involve ministration to and interaction with others, others can affect the viability of the calling. Consider a Sunday School teacher who is slow of speech and a poor organizer. The class members can choose to either kick against the pricks and complain, or they can participate constructively in the class to help the teacher overcome the deficiencies. In turn, they grow spiritually by learning greater tolerance, and may even uncover hidden talents of their own.

Callings can indeed help uncover and activate hidden talents. For example, an elder may dread being called to be a youth leader. Instead, he tentatively exercises faith, accepts the call, and six months later, those kids become his best friends. A hidden talent was uncovered, and one or two teens who may have otherwise drifted off into inactivity or even delinquency instead may have acquired the one mentor necessary to keep them active in the Church.

Finally, callings increase the overall group expertise within the greater LDS community. The more priesthood leaders with bishopric experience, the better the Church can respond during times of crisis. As each individual member of a Mormon ward or stake pursues callings, the quality of the entire community is improved.

One issue that Kristine Frederickson doesn't explore is one of the "third rails" of Mormonism: Is a calling from the bishop a calling from the Lord? Latter-day Saints are taught to believe that this is so. We're taught that bishops are entitled to the power of discernment. In reality, a small number of callings extended by bishops are probably not inspired. Yet it is not our place to assume the burden of trying to independently "verify" through our limited human perspective whether or not a bishop is "inspired". Instead, the smart Mormon simply assumes the bishop to be inspired and proceeds to more important and pertinent tasks.

That's because we retain free agency. We can choose not to accept a calling from the bishop, without in any way jeopardizing our membership. Of course, there are consequences to such a refusal. First, we deny ourselves the blessings and experiences we could derive from such a calling. And second, we may cut ourselves off from other such opportunities in the future as the bishop may be reluctant to extend other opportunities to one who has turned him down once. This does not mean we must immediately accept a calling; we can ask for time to pray about it personally, and if we are married, we absolutely, positively must bring our spouses on board before accepting a calling, because the spouses will be affected. Case in point: A man who accepts a calling to be a bishop will spend at least 20 hours per week on his duties, not to mention his phone ringing off the hook. His wife will be impacted. If he wants to keep his wife "sweet", he will get her support before accepting the call.

In any event, Kristine Frederickson has rendered a valuable service by reminding us of some of the less tangible but longer-term benefits of Church callings.