Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[Gray]

According to what I read (I haven't read everything about it yet), they were inactive.

 

Edited to add (and if you read above):

It states he moved back home for the summer and was contacted by his Bishop there.  I don't know if he'd started attending again when he was home?

 

That could be it 

[ALarson]

If the marriage took place on TV I don't think the bishop had to do much searching.

The marriage took place about a year and a half before the Bishop contacted him, so I doubt it was from being on TV.  But, who knows?

[ALarson]

Has anyone listened to the podcast?  Maybe they can give more details.

[ksfisher]

The marriage took place about a year and a half before the Bishop contacted him, so I doubt it was from being on TV.  But, who knows?

 

A bishop might not feel the need to pursue the matter very quickly if the member was inactive and living out of state. 

[Duncan]

I'm surprised to hear some heterosexual adulterers have not had to face any kind of Church discipline. I wonder what that's all about? I'm curious to know if others on the board have heard of similar cases of adulterers who have faced no Church discipline. As most know, the scriptures teach adultery is second only to murder on the list of serious sins.

 

oh heavens, I know a few who never faced any discipline. One guy was my EQ Pres in my YSA ward prior to my going on a mission. He got home in May and came to Church maybe 6 times from May to Sept when he got a girl, he wasn't even dating, pregnant. He was the EQ Pres and so EVERYTHING fell to me and the other guy who were his counselours, he'd just never show up, no call, nothing. We called him but he never get back to us or say he'd be there but nothing. So, yeah he got her pregnant and nothing happened to him. The other thing that gets me is his daughter on FB says her birthday was in 1999 but, no, we all remember it was in 1998 so I don't know what is up with that or if she ever checked her birth certificate. This couple later split up and I don't know if either of them are active.

 

So while that happened the Bishop of that YSA ward had previously molested his daughter (I didn't know it at the time) and he was abusive to his wife. Long story short, NOTHING happened to that guy and he was in the Temple Pres. as a counselour. He's dead now and so he escaped justice here but he won't where he is and his wife was visiting her daughter last year and came to our ward and in all honesty I was surprised to hear she was active, after all that she's been through

[teddyaware]

oh heavens, I know a few who never faced any discipline. One guy was my EQ Pres in my YSA ward prior to my going on a mission. He got home in May and came to Church maybe 6 times from May to Sept when he got a girl, he wasn't even dating, pregnant. He was the EQ Pres and so EVERYTHING fell to me and the other guy who were his counselours, he'd just never show up, no call, nothing. We called him but he never get back to us or say he'd be there but nothing. So, yeah he got her pregnant and nothing happened to him. The other thing that gets me is his daughter on FB says her birthday was in 1999 but, no, we all remember it was in 1998 so I don't know what is up with that or if she ever checked her birth certificate. This couple later split up and I don't know if either of them are active.

 

So while that happened the Bishop of that YSA ward had previously molested his daughter (I didn't know it at the time) and he was abusive to his wife. Long story short, NOTHING happened to that guy and he was in the Temple Pres. as a counselour. He's dead now and so he escaped justice here but he won't where he is and his wife was visiting her daughter last year and came to our ward and in all honesty I was surprised to hear she was active, after all that she's been through

 

When I was on the High Council about ten years ago, members were getting excommunicated on a regular basis for these kinds of transgressions. I'm wondering what forces and societal pressures might be at play that have caused this apparent change? Is serious sin within the ranks of the active membership so commonplace now that some leaders a becoming inured to it all and are just throwing their hands up in defeat? or is there something else going on?

[bluebell]

I know of so many who have had extramarital affairs, broken up temple marriages, etc., who have not faced any type of discipline.  Just a couple of years ago, a wife from one family in our ward and a husband of another family (both in leadership positions, married in the temple with many children), had an affair, left their respective spouses and are now married to each other.  Neither one of them were disciplined (they moved to another ward and are now back in our ward).  I know of others as well.

 

Is entering a same-sex marriage more serious than that?

 

I know many will say that it depends on the ward and stake leaders and I get that.  

 

Just thinking out loud here as I know this shouldn't surprise me!

 

The only instance that i know of where an active, temple recommend holding, spouse cheated ended up in that spouse's excommunication.  It seems incredibly odd that someone could commit adultery and not even lose their temple recommend??

[ALarson]

When I was on the High Council about ten years ago, members were getting excommunicated on a regular basis for these kinds of transgressions. I'm wondering what forces and societal pressures might be at play that have caused this apparent change? Is serious sin within the ranks of the active membership so commonplace now that some leaders a becoming inured to it all and are just throwing their hands up in defeat? or is there something else going on?

I think it has to do with the Bishop or Stake President.  I honestly do believe that most are still disciplined.

 

I just don't know if they seek out the inactive members to discipline?

 

(And again, we're not sure if these couples were actively attending when they were excommunicated or not.)

Edited May 7, 2015 by ALarson

[Sevenbak]

If this is already being discussed on another thread, I haven't seen it (I apologize for the double post if it is).  But is it true that the church is excommunicating gay members who are getting married? (Same-sex marriage.)

 

There's a podcast about it by John Dehlin (I rarely listen to any of his podcasts, but this caught my eye when I was searching for something).

 

Here's a quote:

Why wouldn't they be?

[JLHPROF]

Of course they should be excommunicated.

But if SSM is legal it does make me wonder the extent of discipline on other legal actions that violate Church rules.

Things like legal abortion for instance.  I would imagine that would be disciplined too despite its legal status.

[rpn]

Maybe someone else has mentioned this, but "being tried in a disciplinary court" is NOT the same thing as "being excommunicated".   Disciplinary counsel notices usually state that excommunication will be an option.   But that doesn't mean it is inevitable.    Many of us know of couples who regularly attend LDS services, without apparently causing any stir at all.

Edited May 7, 2015 by rpn

[Duncan]

When I was on the High Council about ten years ago, members were getting excommunicated on a regular basis for these kinds of transgressions. I'm wondering what forces and societal pressures might be at play that have caused this apparent change? Is serious sin within the ranks of the active membership so commonplace now that some leaders a becoming inured to it all and are just throwing their hands up in defeat? or is there something else going on?

 

 

It truly baffles me as well! the EQ Pres' dad was a Bishop at the time, did that have something to do with it? Another couple I know , she told me they had relations 3 weeks before the Tempe sealing, told their Bishop and according to her he asked how many people were invited to the wedding? and he said well, don't worry about it and they Temple sealing went through. That was 20-25 years ago now that this happened but she told me a few years ago and they are still married, she's active but he isn't as much. 

 

Elder Samuelson of the Seventy gave a talk and mentioned this as well, 

 

"At least two of you in attendance have mentioned to me the frustration that occurs when you have felt it necessary to deny a temple recommend to one of these young people only to see them a few weeks later in the temple with a recommend issued from another unit. This ought not to be. We know that you who work with this highly mobile group of young people carry a tremendous load. We also know, and hope you know as well, that we have policies and procedures established for our use that would not make such an unfortunate occurrence possible. Please make the necessary calls and follow the essential procedures to see that we avoid these kinds of errors."

 

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-9-number-2-2008/holy-habits-and-righteous-routines

 

Now, are these people guilty of anything sexual? who knows but it leads into this idea of "Bishop Roulette" see who says what so you can hopefully get into the Temple or get off from whatever you did

[CA Steve]

Two scenarios come to mind and yes I know the second is much less likely to happen.

 

A Mormon gay couple is married and engages in sex.

 

An older gay couple is married but due to age or health issues or for what ever reason never engages in sex.

 

Clearly the 1st couple could be subject to disciplinary action in the Church since the church does not recognize Gay marriage and would see this as immoral behavior.

 

But is the second couple doing anything that requires disciplinary action on the part of the Church? My opinion is no.

[bluebell]

 

Things like legal abortion for instance.  I would imagine that would be disciplined too despite its legal status.

 

Yes, it can be, depending on the circumstances.

[Duncan]

My bro who is a stake clerk said you would be exed for homosexual relations, which nobody is shocked about but he thinks it would be a case for the 1st Presidency to figure out, like why wouldn't you have sex after you were married

[JulieM]

I've mainly seen members disciplined who went to their bishop to confess a sin and who wanted to repent. How often do the leaders contact someone who is no longer active to notify them of a church court that will be held for them?

I admit that my experience with this has been limited.

I did have a close family member go in to confess an abortion she'd had at 19 years of age. She was 21 years old at the time and wanted to get married to a returned missionary in the temple. She was disfellowshipped and waited 6 months before she could go to the temple.

But all those I know of who have been disciplined were active members desiring to repent.

Were these men active?

[JulieM]

One other thought is in relation to the other thread here about hoping gay couples will some day be able to be sealed together in the temple. We're a very long ways off from that happening if inactive gay married couples are being contacted and excommunicated. I don't think the day will come when they can be sealed in the temple. I'm not against gay marriage and have gay friends who are some of the most wonderful people on earth and I love them dearly. But, the most change I think may happen in the church (and that's a huge "may") will be that one day they can participate actively in a ward as a married gay couple and not worry about being disciplined for being in a committed relationship.

[rockpond]

Adultery, fornication, and homosexual relations are all listed in Handbook 1 as reasons why a disciplinary council MAY be necessary.  This leaves the Bishop & SP some flexibility as to whether or not to hold a formal DC or just informal discipline (just between the Bishop & individual).  For example, a bishop may have a ward member who he knows is committing fornication but who has already separated themselves from the church.  The bishop can choose to just let it go rather than convene a DC.

 

In the case of the OP, if the two men in the married couple are not active members the Bishop could have used his discretion to overlook it.  But he is certainly justified (per Handbook 1) in holding the DC.

 

Formal DC's are only mandatory for the following:  Murder, Rape, Child Abuse, and Apostasy*.

 

 

* Apostasy is defined in the Handbook is defined as:  

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

Edited May 8, 2015 by rockpond

[rockpond]

One other thought is in relation to the other thread here about hoping gay couples will some day be able to be sealed together in the temple. We're a very long ways off from that happening if inactive gay married couples are being contacted and excommunicated. I don't think the day will come when they can be sealed in the temple. I'm not against gay marriage and have gay friends who are some of the most wonderful people on earth and I love them dearly. But, the most change I think may happen in the church (and that's a huge "may") will be that one day they can participate actively in a ward as a married gay couple and not worry about being disciplined for being in a committed relationship.

 

Not all inactive gay married couples are being contacted and disciplined.  I'm aware of some who are not being disciplined -- it's very much in the discretion of the bishop (see my post above).

[JulieM]

Not all inactive gay married couples are being contacted and disciplined.  I'm aware of some who are not being disciplined -- it's very much in the discretion of the bishop (see my post above).

Yes, I agree. I know of a couple too. Sorry if I inferred they are all being disciplined, it wasn't intentional.

[Duncan]

Correct me if I am wrong but the handbooks don't say anything about SSM, so I don't see why someone who gets married and has sex afterwards would be excommunicated. Do we want Gay members of the Church? What do you do with gay members in the Church? Do we proselytize in the gay community? are they not deserving of the Gospel just as much as anyone else?The Church has been telling straight people don't have sex until marriage and to gay folks don't have sex either or you'll be exed as well but if the straight couples can have sex after marriage why can't a gay couple? it's all the same until it hits the marriage wall, which is now legal in a lot of places, I don't see why a gay couple would be exed

Edited May 8, 2015 by Duncan

[Russell C McGregor]

Correct me if I am wrong but the handbooks don't say anything about SSM, so I don't see why someone who gets married and has sex afterwards would be excommunicated. Do we want Gay members of the Church? What do you do with gay members in the Church? Do we proselytize in the gay community? are they not deserving of the Gospel just as much as anyone else?The Church has been telling straight people don't have sex until marriage and to gay folks don't have sex either or you'll be exed as well but if the straight couples can have sex after marriage why can't a gay couple? it's all the same until it hits the marriage wall, which is now legal in a lot of places, I don't see why a gay couple would be exed

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not recognise "same sex marriage" (as anything but an oxymoron) and consequently, does not regard the so-called "marriage" as having any relevance to the nature of a homosexual relationship.

Yes, everyone "deserves" the Gospel, to the extent that they are willing to obey it.

Remembering, after all, that the process of accepting the Gospel is frequently summed up as "Faith, Repentance and Baptism."

Perhaps the word "Repentance" is uttered sotto voce in some circles.

[Daniel2]

In all honesty, I'm really confused that anyone would be surprised that the LDS church is excommunicating same-sex couples who marry. Given the church's current doctrine / policy, that is an obvious no-brainer, and it shouldn't shock anyone.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. In fact, I would like to see the church a little more proactively ex'ing those that have no desire to live the gospel specific to temple covenants.

I fully agree with everything Mola says above, especially in light of the new study that recently came out of Utah State University that gays' and lesbians' mental health improves dramatically once they leave the LDS Church.

Reinforcing the division between happily married gays and the Mormon church is probably a win-win for both.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Daniel2

[Duncan]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not recognise "same sex marriage" (as anything but an oxymoron) and consequently, does not regard the so-called "marriage" as having any relevance to the nature of a homosexual relationship.

Yes, everyone "deserves" the Gospel, to the extent that they are willing to obey it.

Remembering, after all, that the process of accepting the Gospel is frequently summed up as "Faith, Repentance and Baptism."

Perhaps the word "Repentance" is uttered sotto voce in some circles.

 

if you don't have sex until you're married then you don't have to repent for that, gay or straight. Gays can have faith, repent, follow the Holy Ghost, be baptized, elsewise God is a respector of persons, if the Gospel only for straight people and gay people get a free pass? if you are celibate, repent for what? in that issue

[carbon dioxide]

A gay couple who get a civil marriage is really no different in the eyes of God than a gay couple who lives together who is not married.  If they are having sex, in both situations the sin is equal.  God does not ask the government to define right and wrong or what is sin.  The government can't force God to change His mind.

Edited May 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide