USU78 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said: However I do not believe that it is wise that we should seek out the tiny fish of an inactive quiet MINO for excommunication. I think we have much bigger fish to fry with the active vocal ones. I happen to agree that seeking inactive folks in order to "clean out the deadwood" is not a useful thing and may be harmful: they may well come back on their own. Do you agree that the nominal Mormon who is committed by covenant to break G-d's law of chastity is speaking by his/her actions, thus putting the Church into disrepute?
stemelbow Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: I completely agree in that I don't think divorce is a valid or reasonable choice for her. But I still think there are also valid reasons for the bishop not to leave her alone. She's a member of the church, and that implies that the bishop can and should be involved in her spiritual welfare. I guess I don't see disciplining her for this is him being involved in her spiritual welfare, particularly since he hasn't been, it appears, until now. 3
stemelbow Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Okay. I was speaking within the LDS paradigm. You are not. That being the case, there's not much point in further discussion. Thanks, -Smac I'm LDS and I speak. I'm not outside of being LDS. But, I'm fine if you want to bow out.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2016 Author Posted February 25, 2016 3 hours ago, USU78 said: Another example of the post hoc fallacy. We know, or can infer, the timing of a particular encounter, but the content of that encounter is filtered through the agendas of the publishers. rp, and others, are making assumptions about the validity of what was asserted, the timing, the background of the particular encounter, and the motivations of the Bishop in question. You, sir, are jumping to conclusions on scant evidence. You are correct that we do not know that motivations of the Bishop in question. We do, however, know that in November the Church published a policy that deemed same-sex married members in apostasy and mandated disciplinary councils. And now we have a bishop confronting a member of his ward who is in a same-sex married, telling her that she must either divorce, resign, or face a disciplinary council. So, regardless of what was going on in the bishop's mind or heart, he was, in fact, implementing a church policy. 4
consiglieri Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 hours ago, ERMD said: Apostasy is as the Church defines it, and there must be guidelines given as to when a disciplinary council is or may be necessary. This isn't meddling. Wrong. Saying that same-gender cohabitation constitutes "apostasy" per se, and then requiring a disciplinary hearing under such circumstances is not only meddling--it is top-down micromanaging. Anybody who says disciplinary matters are purely a local matter has no credibility.
smac97 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 14 minutes ago, Gray said: Unfortunately that is the current stance. It's very ugly. With respect, I disagree. There's nothing "ugly" about upholding the doctrines of the Church relating to marriage and the Law of Chastity. Nothing at all. Now upholding those principles may not always be pleasant, I'll grant you that. But them's the breaks. Being a judge in Israel is not supposed to be easy. Bishops are called upon to administer the Restored Gospel, both when doing so is easy and when it's hard. Christ Himself said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him. I'm quite okay with that. I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing. I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church. Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission. But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity. Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular. He did so because it was right. Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular. He did so because it was right. Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world. He knew that. But He preached it anyway. I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people. But He preached anyway. I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World. Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually): "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words." In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation. Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular. Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right. And when it is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for. Thanks, -Smac 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm LDS and I speak. I'm not outside of being LDS. But, I'm fine if you want to bow out. Though you may be LDS, Smac was correct in observing that you were not speaking within an LDS paradigm.
Kemara Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: By saying "seek out", I only mean that the member is not attending and would need to be found and contacted. I am glad you clarified this I was about to take issue with it. In saying that though, it seems, from what little I know, that the Bishop was aware of this Sisters circumstance, at least to some degree through her contact with the Church (i.e. VT). As such it seems a mischaracterisation of the situation to state that this Bishop had to "seek out" this Sister. 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: I know my Bishop has discussed this with our Stake President at length and I support them both. I think anyone who supports the combined opinion of their Bishop and Stake President on a matter of Church discipline, even one involving apostasy, is on fairly safe ground. In a sense it could be said that both have started the disciplinary process by the very act of discussing it. While policy dictates formal church disciplinary council it certainly does not give it a specific time frame of when the actual council has to happen and the specific processes one must go through to get there. If leaders are serious about their responsibilities they must somehow balance the best interests of the person in question and the Church. I assume that these leaders have decided that, at least for now, the disciplinary process is best instigated in this manner. 2
USU78 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Wrong. Saying that same-gender cohabitation constitutes "apostasy" per se, and then requiring a disciplinary hearing under such circumstances is not only meddling--it is top-down micromanaging. Anybody who says disciplinary matters are purely a local matter has no credibility. So ... uniformity in how a particular sin's practitioners are treated in disciplinary councils of the Church is not useful in your algebra.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Wrong. Saying that same-gender cohabitation constitutes "apostasy" per se, and then requiring a disciplinary hearing under such circumstances is not only meddling--it is top-down micromanaging. Anybody who says disciplinary matters are purely a local matter has no credibility. Nobody here has claimed that the definition of apostasy in the Church of Jesus Christ is "purely a local matter." 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: I happen to agree that seeking inactive folks in order to "clean out the deadwood" is not a useful thing and may be harmful: they may well come back on their own. Do you agree that the nominal Mormon who is committed by covenant to break G-d's law of chastity is speaking by his/her actions, thus putting the Church into disrepute? I for one agree with that.
USU78 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: You are correct that we do not know that motivations of the Bishop in question. We do, however, know that in November the Church published a policy that deemed same-sex married members in apostasy and mandated disciplinary councils. And now we have a bishop confronting a member of his ward who is in a same-sex married, telling her that she must either divorce, resign, or face a disciplinary council. So, regardless of what was going on in the bishop's mind or heart, he was, in fact, implementing a church policy. No argument here that the bishop in question, assuming any of the hearsay reported by the woman on Dehlin's site may be credited [since it perforce cannot be impeached by the actual speaker of the statements allegedly quoted/summarized/approximated], acted by and large in accordance with Church policy both before and after last November's kerfuffle. 1
consiglieri Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, USU78 said: So ... uniformity in how a particular sin's practitioners are treated in disciplinary councils of the Church is not useful in your algebra. I love you, USU. I hope you know (or remember) that. But you are dodging the issue I raise. Over and over, when a high-profile person gets excommunicated, the Church assures the press that top leadership has no involvement in local disciplinary proceedings. The new policy shows that to be untrue.
stemelbow Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Though you may be LDS, Smac was correct in observing that you were not speaking within an LDS paradigm. Being LDS and me speaking suggests I do speak within an LDS paradigm, though. 1
consiglieri Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Nobody here has claimed that the definition of apostasy in the Church of Jesus Christ is "purely a local matter." More dodging. The Church has over and over again stated top leadership is not involved in local disciplinary hearings. Now the leak of the new policy shows this to be untrue. The Church at the highest levels are not only saying that this particular (legal) act constitutes apostasy; but mandates that local leaders hold disciplinary councils. Welcome to the nanny-state.
Ahab Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: I assume you don't actually mean they should be holding disciplinary courts for nonmembers, but just to clarify I am asking since this is how "discipline" is being used in this thread by others. Yes your assumption is correct, in this case. And as someone who tries to avoid making unwarranted assumptions myself I appreciate you asking me for clarification. I simply meant that any active bishop has the right and resposibility to discipline or try to discipline anyone in his ward, whether or not that person is a member of the Church. I think the only way anyone could avoid that would be to ask for no contact from the Church, which would then clear the bishop of his responsibilities of trying to help that person. Disciplining someone is essentially all about trying to teach someone about what they should do to become a better person in some way, in our case following our Lord as our exemplar. People who accept discipline are commonly referred to as disciples.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: I happen to agree that seeking inactive folks in order to "clean out the deadwood" is not a useful thing and may be harmful: they may well come back on their own. Do you agree that the nominal Mormon who is committed by covenant to break G-d's law of chastity is speaking by his/her actions, thus putting the Church into disrepute? I don't know a nominal Mormon within the LDS context is. However I do think that the average Mormon would agree that willful violation of Church Standards could subject them to Church Discipline. I think we have to be very careful when using the terms "putting the Church into disrepute". Obviously serious criminal actions would qualify, Private actions between consenting adults is a bit trickier.
smac97 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 34 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: How will holding a Bishop's Court bring the inactive nonvocal member to true and full repentance?... How will a Bishop's Court for a inactive nonvocal member protect the innocent? ... How is a Bishop's Court for an inactive nonvocal member tearing down the Church? ... Well, that's not quite right. Your questions are a bit off. Clearly your questions were intended to reflect the three-fold purpose of Church discipline as explained by the Church here: Quote Formal Church discipline begins when a presiding priesthood leader determines that it is necessary to hold a disciplinary council. The purposes of disciplinary councils are to save the souls of transgressors, protect the innocent, and safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church. That last part is significant: "{to} safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church." If the Church preached things like the Law of Chastity and then did nothing when its members violated it, then the Church would be guilty of disobeying the mandates given to it by God. And lest we forget, Corianton in The Book of Mormon gave us a pretty good idea of what happens when the Church members don't practice what they preach: Quote 1 And now, my son, I have somewhat more to say unto thee than what I said unto thy brother; for behold, have ye not observed the steadiness of thy brother, his faithfulness, and his diligence in keeping the commandments of God? Behold, has he not set a good example for thee? 2 For thou didst not give so much heed unto my words as did thy brother, among the people of the Zoramites. Now this is what I have against thee; thou didst go on unto boasting in thy strength and thy wisdom. 3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel. 4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted. 5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? ... 11 Suffer not yourself to be led away by any vain or foolish thing; suffer not the devil to lead away your heart again after those wicked harlots. Behold, O my son, how great iniquity ye brought upon the Zoramites; for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words. Last year we had an extensive discussion on this board about "Apostasy, Boundary Maintenance, And Strong Communities." An excerpt from the OP of that thread: Quote In the thread about the excommunication of the Calderwoods, Smac made a comment that I think is important enough that it merits discussion on its own, apart from the details of their case. Smac: Quote Look, I don't want them to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community. Those who know my personal history and the tenor of my posting in the last few years will not be surprised to hear that I would like to see us make our LDS sub-culture more tolerant of doubt and disagreement. So, when I say how much I like what Smac says here and how important I think his insight is, I hope it's clear that it's decidedly not because I'm trigger happy to see people be labeled apostates and kicked out of the church. What Smac says above is simple realism. Abundant sociological research shows, unsurprisingly, that strong community boundary maintenance helps maintain strong communities: i.e., if communities want to thrive, they should set high standards and hold people to them. ... When people knowingly flout the boundaries, and then refuse to take into account or even compromise with instructions on this from their church leaders, the church is not obligated to allow them to perpetually continue these actions as members in good standing. Nor would the church be wise to do so. To not take disciplinary action in such cases fails to reinforce the boundaries, sends the message that the actions taken are okay, and weakens the community. The Church's cohesion as a community of faith is important. And that cohesion is injured when the Church ignores apostasy. The Church's long-term ability to viably fulfill the Great Commission is important. And that ability is injured when the Church ignores apostasy. The Church has a clear mandate from God regarding calling sinners to repentance while also safeguarding the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church: D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you." D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people." D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High." D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people." 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people." D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out." D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out." D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you." Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord." The Church's cannot fulfill this mandate by ignoring apostasy. I think the Church is on the right track here. It's a difficult track, to be sure. An unpopular track. But the right one. Thanks, -Smac 3
Ahab Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I guess I don't see disciplining her for this is him being involved in her spiritual welfare, particularly since he hasn't been, it appears, until now. It is though, even if you don't see it that way. The best case scenario for her would be for her to accept the bishop's attempt to improve her spiritual welfare, which in her case and in any other case like her's would involve her divorcing her "spouse". She should also come back into full fellowship with the Church instead of remaining "less" active. (We're counseled to avoid referring to any member of the Church as an "inactive" member, just less or more active when compared to other members). She should still love the person she is now "married" to but that shouldn't involve being "married" to her or to anyone else of the same sex. Hopefully she'll just accept the bishop's attempt to discipline her without needing him to convene in a bishop's council, but I seriously doubt she is now that open to correction. Edited February 25, 2016 by Ahab typo
consiglieri Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 7 minutes ago, USU78 said: So ... uniformity in how a particular sin's practitioners are treated in disciplinary councils of the Church is not useful in your algebra. That just tripped a memory for me, USU. Do you remember back when John Dehlin and Kate Kelly received their notices of disciplinary council in close proximity to each other? There was a lot of discussion as to whether that was orchestrated at higher levels. A church spokesperson (wasn't it Ally Isom?) came out and said that these matters are exclusively in the hands of the local leaders. She also talked about how wonderful it was that the local leaders could handle individual cases as they were directed by the Spirit. My recollection is she extolled the fact that there was no uniformity in how a particular "sin's practitioners are treated." Found it! Here is what Ally Isom said in her interview with KUER on June 5, 2014: Quote Isom: We are leaving it up to the discretion of that leader to act in the Savior’s behalf and to conduct themselves as prompted by the spirit in how they apply the process. There is in no way an implied wink, wink, now’s the time, take action. I have been in more than one meeting where a member of the Quorum of the Twelve has explicitly reiterated to both staff and other leaders present that those at church headquarters are in no way to impact outcomes or to influence these processes inappropriately. There is actually a high degree of sensitivity around that and very much a hands-off approach. Let us support you but we will not tell you what to do. Here is the part where she talked about how "beautiful" it was that each local leader could decide discipline individually with no regard to uniformity: Quote Fabrizio: Then why…fine. But why then did Kate Kelly’s parents get their temple recommends removed for supporting their daughter and/or creating a profile on that website? Isom: You know, I can’t answer that question because that’s between them and their bishops. Fabrizio: So the church…so there’s no…so you can’t answer broadly…so…so…the question being… Isom: Isn’t that the beauty of all of this? Fabrizio: But isn’t it confusing? Isom: That it can’t be some general, broad brush, here, that it is individually applied. Fabrizio: But there’s either a rule or there isn’t. Isom: Either the Savior knows you or he doesn’t. http://mormonmomma.com/latter-day-saints-and-excommunication-kuer-radiowest-podcast-transcript/ You just can't make this stuff up, folks!
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Over and over, when a high-profile person gets excommunicated, the Church assures the press that top leadership has no involvement in local disciplinary proceedings. What most people mean when they complain about "top leadership [meddling] in local disciplinary proceedings" is a general/area authority getting on the phone, calling a stake president, and ordering him to a) hold a disciplinary council and/or b) have a pre-determined outcome for it. You're moving the goalpost in trying to use this complaint because you're complaining that a policy requiring that a council be held is de facto meddling simply because it requires it. This is a far cry from the ominous general authority phone call. And, above all, the outcome of the council is not pre-determined. It could be no action, formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication. That is fully up to the local leaders. Unless the conspiracy theories about phone calls are true . . . Edited February 25, 2016 by rongo 1
mtomm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour ago, USU78 said: And who is responsible for the consequences? I doubt anyone involved can walk away unaffected.
Gray Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Total nonsense. And there is no sin in being left handed, or being red-headed. But there is in homosexuality. Only because we choose to interpret it that way. Divorce and remarriage is equated to adultery in scripture. But we choose not to read it that way. Edited February 25, 2016 by Gray 1
consiglieri Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, rongo said: And, above all, the outcome of the council is not pre-determined. It could be no action, formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication. That is fully up to the local leaders. Hogwash. Why do you think the letter from the local leaders told the gay member she could resign her membership in lieu of having the disciplinary council? The outcome is already decided. Can you not see that? It's a show trial. The verdict has already been rendered at higher levels.
stemelbow Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: That just tripped a memory for me, USU. Do you remember back when John Dehlin and Kate Kelly received their notices of disciplinary council in close proximity to each other? There was a lot of discussion as to whether that was orchestrated at higher levels. A church spokesperson (wasn't it Ally Isom?) came out and said that these matters are exclusively in the hands of the local leaders. She also talked about how wonderful it was that the local leaders could handle individual cases as they were directed by the Spirit. My recollection is she extolled the fact that there was no uniformity in how a particular "sin's practitioners are treated." Found it! Here is what Ally Isom said in her interview with KUER on June 5, 2014: Here is the part where she talked about how "beautiful" it was that each local leader could decide discipline individually with no regard to uniformity: http://mormonmomma.com/latter-day-saints-and-excommunication-kuer-radiowest-podcast-transcript/ You just can't make this stuff up, folks! this is one of those cases wherein it appears the Church is trying to play us a little. Seems obvious there was some HQ involvement in these.
Recommended Posts