Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[rockpond]

Elizabeth Grimshaw and her wife of 10 years have been raising their daughter in Salt Lake City.  While not active, they did accept visits from the RS Pres and their visiting teachers.

Their Bishop stopped Elizabeth in her driveway and told her that she would either need to divorce her wife, resign from the Church, or face a disciplinary council.  Elizabeth is a believing Mormon even though she doesn't accept the Church's teachings on homosexuality and therefore hasn't felt welcome to attend.  She took her Bishop's counsel and prayed about it -- the answer she got was to not resign (divorce was never a question for her).  We'll have to see how the rest unfolds.

She tells her story here. (Short 30 minute video or can be downloaded as a podcast.)

[Alan]

The bishop has no option other than to proceed with discipline.

I would do the same.

[stemelbow]

This kind of stuff, like what this bishop is up to, doesn't seem to be helping. 

[ERMD]

There is a problem with this?  Those who do have a problem with it do not understand the purpose of disciplinary councils.

[bluebell]

Is the reason this is noteworthy (and therefore, we should care) because anyone who considers themselves to be a believing mormon should be allowed to be a member of the church regardless of their choices or beliefs?

Or is this an FYI kind of thread?

I know that probably sounds snarky but i'm sincerely asking for a frame work for understanding the OP.

[thesometimesaint]

That's the problem with swinging that two edged sword.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Alan said:

The bishop has no option other than to proceed with discipline.

I would do the same.

Of course he has other options.  How about just leave them alone since they were no longer even active?  

I feel it is wrong to seek people out and call them to repentance or excommunicate them.  Are they doing this to couples living "in sin" who are not married but who are members of the church?

It would be different if this couple had been actively preaching against the church.  Were they?

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is the reason this is noteworthy (and therefore, we should care) because anyone who considers themselves to be a believing mormon should be allowed to be a member of the church regardless of their choices or beliefs?

Or is this an FYI kind of thread?

I know that probably sounds snarky but i'm sincerely asking for a frame work for understanding the OP.

I think it is noteworthy because the person in question was inactive.

Are we going to see a church wide policy where bishops seek out inactive married gay couples and threaten excommunication or is this just an isolated instance?

In the past, in my experience, bishops have usually not pursued disciplinary action against most inactive members.

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is the reason this is noteworthy (and therefore, we should care) because anyone who considers themselves to be a believing mormon should be allowed to be a member of the church regardless of their choices or beliefs?

Or is this an FYI kind of thread?

I know that probably sounds snarky but i'm sincerely asking for a frame work for understanding the OP.

FYI on policy implementation.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course he has other options.  How about just leave them alone since they were no longer even active? 

Is that an "option"?  Sure.

The Bishop can leave anyone committing sins while listed as members of the Church alone.
But then they wouldn't be much of a Bishop.

Quote

I feel it is wrong to seek people out and call them to repentance or excommunicate them. 

Do I really need to start listing scriptures to the contrary?  There are so many.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course he has other options.  How about just leave them alone since they were no longer even active?  

I feel it is wrong to seek people out and call them to repentance or excommunicate them.  Are they doing this to couples living "in sin" who are not married but who are members of the church?

It would be different if this couple had been actively preaching against the church.  Were they?

No, they were not preaching against the church.

Their involvement with the church was occasional visits by the RS Pres and visiting teachers.  Elizabeth said that her wife once took a plate of cookies to an event.  That was about it.  Elizabeth also mentions that it her church membership is important because of the sacrifices her parents made to bring her to Zion (they moved from England in the 60's when she was 3 after being told that they should gather with the Saints).

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I think it is noteworthy because the person in question was inactive.

Are we going to see a church wide policy where bishops seek out inactive married gay couples and threaten excommunication or is this just an isolated instance?

In the past, in my experience, bishops have usually not pursued disciplinary action against most inactive members.

In my years of serving in a bishopric, we've never gone after inactive members who we believed were living in such a way that a disciplinary council was needed.  That's what catches my attention about this story.

[rodheadlee]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I feel it is wrong to seek people out and call them to repentance or excommunicate them.  Are they doing this to couples living "in sin" who are not married but who are members of the church?

 

As a matter of fact, yes. It just didn't make the news.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

In my years of serving in a bishopric, we've never gone after inactive members who we believed were living in such a way that a disciplinary council was needed.  That's what catches my attention about this story.

Leave precedent aside for a moment and look at principle.
Equality of application under the law may always be the goal, but it doesn't provide immunity against the violation of law, nor should it.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Is that an "option"?  Sure.

The Bishop can leave anyone committing sins while listed as members of the Church alone.
But then they wouldn't be much of a Bishop.

I disagree.  I know that my Bishop would never actively "seek out" members in our ward who were sinning just so he could threaten them with a disciplinary court.  How counterproductive that would be to our efforts in helping these inactive members return to church!  Much of our time in ward council meetings and Bishopric meetings are spent on efforts to reactivate, not how we should spend our time searching for members to seek out and threaten.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[TrespassersW]

I'm not sure why this would be either surprising or scandalous. I don't think the LDS church has been in any way unclear that it considers homosexual activity a sin and that it considers same sex marriage apostasy. It kind of feels like we keep getting these kind of stories expecting us to be scandalized by the same news over and over again.

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimes it is better to let sleeping dragons lay sleeping. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, they were not preaching against the church.

Their involvement with the church was occasional visits by the RS Pres and visiting teachers.  Elizabeth said that her wife once took a plate of cookies to an event.  That was about it.  Elizabeth also mentions that it her church membership is important because of the sacrifices her parents made to bring her to Zion (they moved from England in the 60's when she was 3 after being told that they should gather with the Saints).

Thanks for the additional information.  

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I disagree.

I knew you would.

Quote

I know that my Bishop would never actively "seek out" members in our ward who were sinning just so he could threaten them with a disciplinary court.  How counterproductive that would be to our efforts in helping these inactive members return to church!  Much of our time in ward council meetings and Bishopric meetings are spent on efforts to reactivate, not to seek out and threaten.

As I just said to Rockpond - Leave precedent aside for a moment and look at principle.
Equality of application under the law may always be the goal, but it doesn't provide immunity against the violation of law, nor should it.

Just because one Bishop does and another Bishop does not, it doesn't change the principle of excommunication of members for certain sins.

[ERMD]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 Are they doing this to couples living "in sin" who are not married but who are members of the church?

 

Yes, "they" are and have been for some time, especially in cases where the individuals are known in the community to be LDS.  I do not know if that is the case in this instance, of course.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

As a matter of fact, yes. It just didn't make the news.

Where?  Do you have a link for this?  (you can PM me, if you don't want to post it here).

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Yes, "they" are and have been for some time, especially in cases where the individuals are known in the community to be LDS.  I do not know if that is the case in this instance, of course.

They have sought out inactives and held a court on them?  Please supply a link for info on this.  Thanks.

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is the reason this is noteworthy (and therefore, we should care) because anyone who considers themselves to be a believing mormon should be allowed to be a member of the church regardless of their choices or beliefs?

Or is this an FYI kind of thread?

I know that probably sounds snarky but i'm sincerely asking for a frame work for understanding the OP.

The reason why it's noteworthy is because this lady doesn't seem to be doing anything to hurt the Church.  She sees herself as a believer and should be left alone.  She has left the Church alone.

My issue is, I have friends in similar situations as this lady, and they would prefer to be left alone at this point.  It's not as if they don't know that the traditional perspective sees them as living in sin.  One such friend put it to me this way, "I have been giving to the Church my whole life.  I went on a mission and loved my experiences.  I love the Church.  But to be immediately branded an apostate and sent packing when I haven't done anything to anyone, hurts.  It feels like an aggressive attack on me, rather than an effort to hear me, or care for me.  I'm happy and am at peace with who I am and where I'm at.  I don't need people whom I don't know to preemptively come after me."

It feels like a local leader can happily leave any such members alone.  To do something feels forced. 

[oremites]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I feel it is wrong to seek people out and call them to repentance or excommunicate them.

First off, I'm not making any judgements about this specific sister or Bishop.  I don't know anything about the situation.

It is precisely the duty of the Bishop to call people to repentance or excommunicate them.

Jacob 1:19 And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day.

Obviously this has to be done with great care and with the guidance of the Spirit.  In one situation, the right thing to do would be let them alone.  In another, the call to repentance is required.  Letting someone persist in actions that will cause them grief in the long run is doing them no favors.  A day of choosing has to come to everyone where sitting on the fence is no longer an option.

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are they doing this to couples living "in sin" who are not married but who are members of the church?

Yes, they do.  Again, this is the Bishop's call and depends on the situation.

The difference is that most people faced with this don't decide to publicize the situation.

 

 

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, TrespassersW said:

I'm not sure why this would be either surprising or scandalous. I don't think the LDS church has been in any way unclear that it considers homosexual activity a sin and that it considers same sex marriage apostasy. It kind of feels like we keep getting these kind of stories expecting us to be scandalized by the same news over and over again.

I guess it's just a bit jarring that bishops are going around trying to get families to either divorce or leave the church. It's pretty awful stuff.