Members Excommunicated Who Enter Same-Sex Marriages?

[Duncan]

Oh it just evolved.

 

see?? that's the thing! it isn't so cut and dry, we see through a glass darkly

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm reminded of the Iron Rod V. Liahona approaches to the gospel as I sit here wondering why we have such a challenge communicating on topics like this. Breaking through the paradigm barrier sometimes feels impossible but then I'm heartened by the progress that has been made in just the past few years among many members of the church. And I think of my own shift from Iron Rod to Liahona and remind myself it is possible for others to shift as well, but it's not necessary. The church needs all types.

[rongo]

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?

 

In my experience (I'm serving a second time as a bishop now), inactives who are disfellowshipped or excommunicated face this *because* they are repentant and looking to square their lives with the standards and commandments. In other words, the disciplinary action/disciplinary councils are mutually-agreed on part of the repentance process. I have experience with several cases like this, but I don't "go after" completely inactive people for whom the discipline would mean nothing at all.

 

If I were aware of gay members of my ward who were civilly married (SSM), I would call them in (assuming they were inactive) and discuss things with them, encourage them to repent, and if there were no desire to repent, I would initiate formal disciplinary action.

[Gray]

And that is all that really matters- the church policy, not the government, not society, not the world.

 

It's also church policy not to cook foods from scratch in ward building kitchens. 

[Calm]

We see through a glass darkly applies to all of life and ourselves especially.

 

Does this imply we should not act in certain ways we believe are commaneded even if we don't understand God's reasoning at this time? 

[Gray]

Legally refers to the civil marriage, lawfully refers to the law of God.  Gay marriage might be legal to civic law but will always be rebellion against the law of God.

 

I've never heard legally and lawfully rendered to mean that. You may interpret like that if you wish, of course. 

 

Then again, there is no published law of God on the matter of same sex marriage. That is to say, no claimed revelation, revelation being as near as any Latter-day Saint should probably get in attempting to speak for God. 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Gray

[Calm]

In my experience (I'm serving a second time as a bishop now), inactives who are disfellowshipped or excommunicated face this *because* they are repentant and looking to square their lives with the standards and commandments. In other words, the disciplinary action/disciplinary councils are mutually-agreed on part of the repentance process. I have experience with several cases like this, but I don't "go after" completely inactive people for whom the discipline would mean nothing at all.

 

If I were aware of gay members of my ward who were civilly married (SSM), I would call them in (assuming they were inactive) and discuss things with them, encourage them to repent, and if there were no desire to repent, I would initiate formal disciplinary action.

"if there were no desire to repent, I would initiate formal disciplinary action"

 

Are you missing a "not" as it seems the opposite of what you are saying in the previous paragraph.

[Gray]

The law of chastity applies to all.  For gay people it means they have to be chaste and if that means through their whole life than so be it if they want eternal life.  God is not going to make exceptions to gay people.  If God has to reject the entire population of the earth from the celestial kingdom because they do not live the laws, he will do it.  No unclean thing can enter. 

 

The law of chastity, as currently defined in the temple, is absolutely silent on gay marriage. 

[carbon dioxide]

The law of chastity, as currently defined in the temple, is absolutely silent on gay marriage. 

Probably because its not an issue that really needs to be spoken about.  I can think of other things that it is silent about that does not mean those things are possibly on the table as being viable.  God does not have to tell us his position on every little issue in writing. Some things should be obvious.  And I think the law of chastity is pretty clear in the temple.  No sexual relations ever in any circumstance or situation EXCEPT between a man and woman who are married.  That is it. Nothing else.

Edited May 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Duncan]

In my experience (I'm serving a second time as a bishop now), inactives who are disfellowshipped or excommunicated face this *because* they are repentant and looking to square their lives with the standards and commandments. In other words, the disciplinary action/disciplinary councils are mutually-agreed on part of the repentance process. I have experience with several cases like this, but I don't "go after" completely inactive people for whom the discipline would mean nothing at all.

 

If I were aware of gay members of my ward who were civilly married (SSM), I would call them in (assuming they were inactive) and discuss things with them, encourage them to repent, and if there were no desire to repent, I would initiate formal disciplinary action.

 

 

what would disciplinary action do or prove though? they are already out of the Church, wouldn't it further alienate them? In our ward right now we have this girl, who is maybe 30's? she has the mental age of maybe 12 or 13. Anyways she is something else but she got pregnant out of wedlock. Well, holy goalie, the question then became how did this happen? who is this man that did that? did she know what she was doing? Truthfully, she is not what you would call active, she comes to church things and firesides, sacrament but she is constantly in and out and is at church more than in church. So, CFS took her baby away and that is worse than anything the Church could do to her, I don't know if she takes the sacrament but if she did then whatever but what honestly could the Church do? It seems she is being punished by her actions more than for them

 

just saw Calmoriah's comment! is there a "not" in there, if there then my comment here is moot!

Edited May 8, 2015 by Duncan

[carbon dioxide]

I've never heard legally and lawfully rendered to mean that. You may interpret like that if you wish, of course. 

 

Then again, there is no published law of God on the matter of same sex marriage. That is to say, no claimed revelation, revelation being as near as any Latter-day Saint should probably get in attempting to speak for God. 

If I reply to this by using the same logic but change the words "same sex marriage" to something else, I will be banned from the thread so I will decline going further

Edited May 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Gray]

Probably because its not an issue that really needs to be spoken about.  I can think of other things that it is silent about that does not mean those things are possibly on the table as being viable.  God does not have to tell us his position on every little issue in writing. Some things should be obvious.  And I think the law of chastity is pretty clear in the temple.  No sexual relations ever in any circumstance or situation EXCEPT between a man and woman who are married.  That is it. Nothing else.

 

No matter what law is given to us or decided upon, we absolutely cannot resist building a hedge around it. And then building a moat around the hedge. 

[rongo]

"if there were no desire to repent, I would initiate formal disciplinary action"

 

Are you missing a "not" as it seems the opposite of what you are saying in the previous paragraph.

No (I don't think so).

 

If the couple were not interested in repenting (ceasing from violating the law of chastity by not engaging in homosexual sex any more), then I *would* contact the stake president about initiating a disciplinary council (whether or not they were MP holders would determine whether that would be at the stake or ward level, but all DCs, even ward level, are first authorized by the stake president).

[HappyJackWagon]

 

In my experience (I'm serving a second time as a bishop now), inactives who are disfellowshipped or excommunicated face this *because* they are repentant and looking to square their lives with the standards and commandments. In other words, the disciplinary action/disciplinary councils are mutually-agreed on part of the repentance process. I have experience with several cases like this, but I don't "go after" completely inactive people for whom the discipline would mean nothing at all.

 

If I were aware of gay members of my ward who were civilly married (SSM), I would call them in (assuming they were inactive) and discuss things with them, encourage them to repent, and if there were no desire to repent, I would initiate formal disciplinary action.

 

Rongo, this makes no sense. Your paragraphs contradict each other. Is there a typo in there or something? In one you say you WON't call in the inactives and then in the next you say you will. I'm confused.

[ERayR]

I've never heard legally and lawfully rendered to mean that. You may interpret like that if you wish, of course. 

 

Then again, there is no published law of God on the matter of same sex marriage. That is to say, no claimed revelation, revelation being as near as any Latter-day Saint should probably get in attempting to speak for God. 

 

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

[carbon dioxide]

In my experience (I'm serving a second time as a bishop now), inactives who are disfellowshipped or excommunicated face this *because* they are repentant and looking to square their lives with the standards and commandments. In other words, the disciplinary action/disciplinary councils are mutually-agreed on part of the repentance process. I have experience with several cases like this, but I don't "go after" completely inactive people for whom the discipline would mean nothing at all.

 

If I were aware of gay members of my ward who were civilly married (SSM), I would call them in (assuming they were inactive) and discuss things with them, encourage them to repent, and if there were no desire to repent, I would initiate formal disciplinary action.

Agreed.  There is no difference between a gay couple that has a civil marriage and a heterosexual couple having sex that are not married. 

[rongo]

what would disciplinary action do or prove though? they are already out of the Church, wouldn't it further alienate them? 

The three purposes of church discipline are

 

1) to bring the member to true repentance (*most important*)

2) to protect the innocent

3) to protect the Church's reputation

 

Some people may never, ever reach the point of godly sorrow for their sins unless their covenants are severed. You're right that many people are already functionally no longer in the Church, for all intents and purposes, but formal Church action sends the message to the sinner and to others of where the Church stands.

 

Many people are dismayed about perceived over-leniency on the part of priesthood leaders, and I think that Church leaders should not be afraid to administer "harsh" formal discipline. We're often not really doing anybody any favors by only ever using "informal or formal probation." Subject to what the Spirit dictates, of course.

 

I feel the same way about hetero fornication and adultery. I was known as a "hanging judge" bishop my first time, but none of the people who were excommunicated or disfellowshipped under my watch would say that they felt anything but love and good intentions from me. Including some where homosexuality was involved. It was (and is) a matter of "we need to get square with the Lord and His Church, and the first step is to submit to the keys of the priesthood, humbly take the consequences, and rebuild through the atonement and priesthood keys." I make sure that my people know that it is not punishment, but rather, helping them to square things with God and His Church the correct way.

[HappyJackWagon]

Rongo, no offense but I sure wouldn't want to be known as a "hanging judge" kind of bishop. I get that you're into the tough love model of discipline but this just doesn't work for the majority of people.

So I'm assuming that the people you exed the first go around have all returned to the church?

[Gray]

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

Are you intentionally pitching a softball? 

 

Should I respond will a shellfish-related counterpoint or with the historical context? Should I point out that marriage is not mentioned? Or, should I bring up your failure to obey the scripture and stone those guilty of this act? 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Gray

[rongo]

 

 

Rongo, this makes no sense. Your paragraphs contradict each other. Is there a typo in there or something? In one you say you WON't call in the inactives and then in the next you say you will. I'm confused.

I see where the confusion is (sorry, everyone who pointed that out!).

 

Generally, if someone is extremely inactive (to the point of not really considering themselves to be Mormon, or not even being aware of being Mormon), they are low on the priority list of "reclaiming" (low-hanging fruit, etc.). 

 

If I were aware of gay members who had been married, I would call them in to talk and act based on how that goes, even if they were completely inactive (and it's extremely likely that members who have a gay civil marriage would not be active). This is because gay marriage is directly opposed to Church policy and position (very publicly so, as we all know). On a moral level, there is no difference in terms of seriousness between homo and hetero extra-marital sexual relations ---- both are serious violations of the law of chastity. But, the Church does not recognize gay marriages as valid marriages at all (for law of chastity purposes) ---- regardless of what civil law does, and regardless of people's twisting of the intent of the definition of the law of chastity presented in the temple. The wording of this may need to be changed to reflect the Proclamation's definition because of sophistry by gay marriage proponents in the Church, but everyone knows what the "framer's intent" was/is. When it was written, gay marriage wasn't even a thought exercise or hypothetical.

[Boanerges]

Generally speaking, I think the lack of attendance/participation in church shows that those who are in a same sex relationship don't have a desire to repent. Only using the two that I know as an example (because I only know what they think/feel), they don't want to be a part of the church they grew up in because it discriminates against them. They do not have a desire to repent because they don't believe they are sinning. There's much more to it than that (feeling as though the God we teach about is not a God they would worship, etc.), but holding a disciplinary council (which they wouldn't attend) isn't going to change that for them. I'm not sure about one of them, but the other would welcome it. He doesn't resign from the church only because he doesn't want to hurt his family's feelings, and they support him and don't want him to resign. Were he to be ex'ed - if the other side took the action - he would actually be relieved.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

...regardless of people's twisting of the intent of the definition of the law of chastity presented in the temple. The wording of this may need to be changed to reflect the Proclamation's definition because of sophistry by gay marriage proponents in the Church, but everyone knows what the "framer's intent" was/is. When it was written, gay marriage wasn't even a thought exercise or hypothetical.

 

It's interesting that you're more comfortable making assumptions about intent as opposed to accepting the literal meaning of the words. Yet you are very literal in declaring God's word about gays without questioning any underlying assumptions. That is what we sometimes call irony.

[busybee]

that's the thing though, if you are gay and celibate and enter into a gay marriage, why is that wrong? if it isn't a sin to have sex with your straight spouse then why is it a sin to do it with your SS spouse? 

Because homosexual sex is a sin. Marriage does not negate that.

[rongo]

Rongo, no offense but I sure wouldn't want to be known as a "hanging judge" kind of bishop.

No offense taken. That was my glib catch-phrase, not an actual quote of people. The stake president acknowledges a) that I know my ward better than most, b) that I had used formal discipline to help people more than most other bishops, and c) that many people are comfortable coming to me with serious problems when they haven't been with past leaders.

 

 

I get that you're into the tough love model of discipline but this just doesn't work for the majority of people.

According to whom? I'll tell you one thing ---- slap-on-the-wrist leniency with serious sins "just doesn't work for the majority of people," either. And, it can be psychologically and spiritually damaging to family (particularly wives). When people come in with the burden of serious transgressions and they want to get square with God and His Church, we are honest with each other about what could be required, but we talk about the hope of finally being free of the guilt through the atonement and priesthood keys. You (and others who seem to think that formal discipline should never be used) act like we kick them to curb and leave them for dead. They feel our love, and we counsel with them and help them. The disciplinary action is only the beginning of the way back.

So I'm assuming that the people you exed the first go around have all returned to the church?

 

Many have. Some have not, yet. We do our best, but their agency and readiness to do what they need to do is much more of a factor than our shepherding. One brother was rebaptized last Saturday (involving homosexuality, by the way), and I heard this week from one of my former counselors that a sister we had excommunicated is close to rebaptism as well.

[Boanerges]

If I were aware of gay members who had been married, I would call them in to talk and act based on how that goes, even if they were completely inactive (and it's extremely likely that members who have a gay civil marriage would not be active). This is because gay marriage is directly opposed to Church policy and position (very publicly so, as we all know). On a moral level, there is no difference in terms of seriousness between homo and hetero extra-marital sexual relations ---- both are serious violations of the law of chastity. But, the Church does not recognize gay marriages as valid marriages at all (for law of chastity purposes) ---- regardless of what civil law does, and regardless of people's twisting of the intent of the definition of the law of chastity presented in the temple. The wording of this may need to be changed to reflect the Proclamation's definition because of sophistry by gay marriage proponents in the Church, but everyone knows what the "framer's intent" was/is. When it was written, gay marriage wasn't even a thought exercise or hypothetical.

 

You do realize that just because you summon them doesn't mean they are obligated to come, don't you? You may be a judge in Israel, but you are not their ruler - and they have their agency. And even if they did come, they are further not obligated to tell you anything. I was not in that situation, but I was inactive for a period of time - and refused summons (AKA the ES making an appointment) by my bishop. I allowed him to come to my home if he called and asked, and then I discussed what I wanted to discuss (that only happened once over the period of years). Your Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Boanerges