Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

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. 

This is the 2nd time you've stated this.  You don't really believe that a Bishop has authority or responsibility to discipline nonmembers living within his ward boundaries, do you? 

[ERMD]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

This is the 2nd time you've stated this.  You don't really believe that a Bishop has authority or responsibility to discipline nonmembers living within his ward boundaries, do you? 

You're correct.

A bishop has stewardship over everyone within his boundaries (a duty to serve and help), but where no covenants have been made, no response is necessary (or right).

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

To be fair (for comparison sake), it would only be those who the church leaders consider to be in apostasy or other cases where it is mandatory.  So I should have clarified that....

I see that as appropriate too, in my view, unless they have received special instruction for some reason to focus on one aspect of the list and not the others (though I would be really wondering why).  It does make sense to me to initiate such actions even if the person is inactive if a leader becomes aware of mandatory discipline issues.

This is because I am completely focused on having people out of covenants they are choosing not to follow for their own benefit.  OTOH  I think the Church would be better off if leaders could ignore anyone who was not drawing public attention to themselves, but it seems to me that to allow such to go on it damaging spiritually to the individual and leaders need to fulfill their duty in their care of their stewardship.  They shouldn't just avoid doing something for someone else because it feels awkward.

And I recognize I may be wrong, that the covenant is broken and they are not held accountable even if they are members on paper.  Certainly in the case of women or men being sealed to partners who have chosen divorce them, I think the sealing is broken whether or not it is on paper so I am definitely being inconsistent at this point, but the gut says they would be better off no longer members if they desire to continue to sin in significant ways and have no intent to change.  Wouldn't be the first time my gut impressions were wrong though.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

If only the whole world felt that same sex sexual relations is a sin that is a lot more horrible than incest.

Wow, some of the things you post!

"A lot more horrible than incest"?  Do you know incest includes Fathers having sex with their own sons or daughters?

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, ERMD said:

You're correct.

A bishop has stewardship over everyone within his boundaries (a duty to serve and help), but where no covenants have been made, no response is necessary (or right).

The bishop's responsibilities to people not in a covenant is in essence to try to get them into a covenant with our Lord and also with a suitable spouse and any children they can have together.  And the bishop has and works with ward mission leaders and missionaries and teachers, etc, who are supposed to be helping him in his responsibilities. 

So No ALarson is not correct,  and you aren't correct either for agreeing with him.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

The bishop's responsibilities to people not in a covenant is in essence to try to get them into a covenant with our Lord and also with a suitable spouse and any children they can have together.  And the bishop has and works with ward mission leaders and missionaries and teachers, etc, who are supposed to be helping him in his responsibilities. 

So No ALarson is not correct,  and you aren't correct either for agreeing with him.

A Bishop absolutely does not have the power, authority or responsibility to discipline nonmembers or those who are members of another church. Period.  They can try to reach out to the nonmembers in their ward, offer help and try to teach them the gospel, but how would they discipline them?  Hold a church court for a nonmember?  That's ridiculous.

 

[Kemara]

38 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, use whatever word you choose, but the Bishop came to her about the subject of church discipline.  She did not approach him to discuss repentance or the process she'd need to go through. To me, that's seeking her out, not the other way around (especially since she was also no longer attending church).

Well that is a little bit of a strange response considering the previous clarification your offered, defining your personal use of the term "seek out":

Quote

By saying "seek out", I only mean that the member is not attending and would need to be found and contacted.

Sure, she wasn't attending Sunday meetings but she was participating to some degree in the Church program by meeting with visiting teachers. She most certainly did not need to be found, and contact was already taking place. . 

Your latest definition "She did not approach him....To me, that's seeking her out..." is a little different from your previous offering.  

[Ahab]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is the 2nd time you've stated this.  You don't really believe that a Bishop has authority or responsibility to discipline nonmembers living within his ward boundaries, do you? 

You seem to equate discipline with punishment, but discipline is not about punishment.   To discipline is to teach and train someone (or even an animal) to do what the one disciplining or trying to discipline the potential disciple should be doing, and not do what should not be done.

You could say that someone who will not accept teachings or training from a good teacher/trainer isn't much of a disciple, but to say a bishop should NOT discipline or try to discipline someone in his ward boundaries just because that person isn't a member of our Lord's church... No, that wouldn't be right.

[mtomm]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The bishop's responsibilities to people not in a covenant is in essence to try to get them into a covenant with our Lord and also with a suitable spouse and any children they can have together.  And the bishop has and works with ward mission leaders and missionaries and teachers, etc, who are supposed to be helping him in his responsibilities. 

So No ALarson is not correct,  and you aren't correct either for agreeing with him.

Exactly how does a bishop discipline a non-member? ERMD was saying that ALarson is correct in that a bishop does not need to discipline someone who has not made covenants. Perhaps you missed that, the thread is getting wordy.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You seem to equate discipline with punishment, but discipline is not about punishment.   To discipline is to teach and train someone (or even an animal) to do what the one disciplining or trying to discipline the potential disciple should be doing, and not do what should not be done.

You could say that someone who will not accept teachings or training from a good teacher/trainer isn't much of a disciple, but to say a bishop should NOT discipline or try to discipline someone in his ward boundaries just because that person isn't a member of our Lord's church... No, that wouldn't be right.

This thread is about church disciplinary procedures or process.  If you want to attach a different definition to what the word "discipline" means, you might want to start another thread.

The definition of discipline is:

Quote

"train (someone) to obey rules or a code of behavior, using punishment to correct disobedience."

A Bishop does not have authority to discipline a nonmember in his ward.  They can attempt to teach them the Gospel or serve them if they are in need, but there is no training involved or discipline. (But I agree that church courts are not all about punishment.)

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The bishop's responsibilities to people not in a covenant is in essence to try to get them into a covenant with our Lord and also with a suitable spouse and any children they can have together.  And the bishop has and works with ward mission leaders and missionaries and teachers, etc, who are supposed to be helping him in his responsibilities. 

So No ALarson is not correct,  and you aren't correct either for agreeing with him.

The bishop is responsible for members of his ward.  He is a judge in Israel.  Nonmembers living within ward boundaries are not part of that "Israel."  The bishop also holds the keys to member missionary work within his ward boundaries. 

The mission president holds the keys to preaching the gospel and to baptism in regards to those who are not part of "Israel."  

A mission president can discipline a nonmember in that the mission president can proscibe what steps need to be taken or conditions are to be met before a baptism. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by ksfisher

[VideoGameJunkie]

Has anyone been ex'd yet for gay marriage since the November policy? Would this be the first case we heard about?

[ERMD]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The bishop's responsibilities to people not in a covenant is in essence to try to get them into a covenant with our Lord and also with a suitable spouse and any children they can have together.  And the bishop has and works with ward mission leaders and missionaries and teachers, etc, who are supposed to be helping him in his responsibilities. 

So No ALarson is not correct,  and you aren't correct either for agreeing with him.

Bishops have no ecclesiatical authority over people who are not members of the Church.  He has a stewardship over all who live within the ward boundaries, but he has no responsibility or right to hold non-members to the standards of members of the Church.  As I stated, where there are no covenants, there is no responsibility.

 

[Jim Stiles]

I seem to recall a statement made by Bill Maher where, in the context of Boy Scout leadership, he questioned why everyone seemed to believe that they had a right to be anyone.  I have been told that there are denominations within the larger Latter-day Saint movement that accepts homosexuality.  Why don't she resign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and join one of those accepting denominations?  Or why don't she join the Metropolitan Church of Christ, which is fully accepting of homosexual and transgendered people?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Being a member of an unpopular religion does have its advantages.

To be internally consistent we'd need to hold a Bishop's Court for every Church member who has disobeyed the Law of Chastity in any regard. I don't see that as particularly useful or even warranted. I've been a member for long enough to remember when members became quite upset when Bishop's and other leaders started prying into the personal sex lives of members seeking a Temple Recommend. I really don't want to return to those times. 

SEE "The Gospel Perspective on Morality" page 240.

 

I think what you and a lot of posters on this board have not been willing to recognize is that the church is at war against gays that choose to marry.  They want them out of the church.  They have put in the handbook a mandatory procedure to get them out of the church or break up their families.  Gays are the only ones that require mandatory excommunication for being married.  You just got to get over it.  You belong to a church that has instituted this policy.  This bishop is only following the orders from the handbook issued by church leaders.  

Of course there are other members that are breaking the law of chastity, but the church only labels gay couples not living the law of chastity that are married as apostates.  Inactive straight couples are not being targeted and drummed out of the church.  There is no edict to excommunicate all straight couples living in sin.  There is no requirement for them to get married, split up or get excommunicated.  The sooner you accept the church's position the better.  Pretending that it should be something else does not match up to the facts.  

What you think the church of Christ should do is irrelevant.  The voice of Christ's will rests with the 15.  It is not open to a vote or discussion.  You have two choices.  Accept the fact that the church wants every married gay couple labeled as apostates, their children not allowed to be baptized and the parents excommunicated whenever a bishop finds such a couple living in his ward.  If you don't want to belong to an organization that does this to its gay members, then tough luck.  Live with it or leave the church.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

I think what you and a lot of posters on this board have not been willing to recognize is that the church is at war against gays that choose to marry.  They want them out of the church.  They have put in the handbook a mandatory procedure to get them out of the church or break up their families.  Gays are the only ones that require mandatory excommunication for being married.  You just got to get over it.  You belong to a church that has instituted this policy.  This bishop is only following the orders from the handbook issued by church leaders.  

Of course there are other members that are breaking the law of chastity, but the church only labels gay couples not living the law of chastity that are married as apostates.  Inactive straight couples are not being targeted and drummed out of the church.  There is no edict to excommunicate all straight couples living in sin.  There is no requirement for them to get married, split up or get excommunicated.  The sooner you accept the church's position the better.  Pretending that it should be something else does not match up to the facts.  

What you think the church of Christ should do is irrelevant.  The voice of Christ's will rests with the 15.  It is not open to a vote or discussion.  You have two choices.  Accept the fact that the church wants every married gay couple labeled as apostates, their children not allowed to be baptized and the parents excommunicated whenever a bishop finds such a couple living in his ward.  If you don't want to belong to an organization that does this to its gay members, then tough luck.  Live with it or leave the church.

You have misunderstood. It's mandatory disciplinary counsel. Elder Christofferson specifically said that that does not correlate to mandatory excommunication. 

The court is mandatory but the outcome isn't. 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I'll grant that it's unpopular. Unpopular doesn't mean good, though.

I agree.  That's why I said: "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."

Doing what God has asked us to do is good, even when it's not pleasant (or popular) to do it.

Quote

The church has reformed itself into an anti-family organization with this policy.

No, it hasn't.  If anything, it seems like the recent policy disentangles LDS from covenants that conflict with their desired life choices.  Excommunication releases such individuals from the covenants they had previously accepted.  Perhaps such a release is actually the compassionate thing to do for a person in open rebellion.  Perhaps allowing such open rebellion and covenant-breaking to continue unabated would leave them under a greater condemnation.

In any event. the Church's policy allows gay couples in same-sex marriages to continue with their family choices.  That's not "anti-family" at all.

Also, have you previously accused the Church of being "anti-family" because it excommunicates polygamists?  If not, then you're being rather inconsistent, are you not?

Quote

It's actively trying to break up families.

I don't think so.  I suspect that the Brethren implemented the policy so that bishops would not need to present a "get a divorce or we'll excommunicate you" dilemma to members of the Church.  I think that the act of entering into a same-sex marriage, like entering into a polygamous marriage, is per se grounds for excommunication.  No breaking up of families needed.

Quote

And singling out a vulnerable minority population for persecution is particularly ugly. In my opinion.

Oh, come on.  Membership in the Church is entirely voluntary on both sides.  It's a privilege, not a right.  The Church has every right to impose conditions on continuing membership in the Church.  And as far as discipline, the Church's own doctrines specifically state that "we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them," and that the Church "can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."  And the process of excommunication involves . . . a meeting where a group of people talk and pray and keep the goings-on in strict confidence.  This is "persecution?"  This is "ugly?"  Such inaccurate and hyperbolic rhetoric is not helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Something tells me that there is a bit of bias in that particular reported turn of phrase.

It may just be semantics, but I would hazard a guess the Bishop worded things a bit differently.

With 29,621 congregations, there has to be a few bishops who "as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

My brother no longer believes, and lives in the eastern United States. A representative from his ward contacted him and suggested that he resign his membership.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You have misunderstood. It's mandatory disciplinary counsel. Elder Christofferson specifically said that that does not correlate to mandatory excommunication. 

The court is mandatory but the outcome isn't. 

Could you provide a reference for Elder Christofferson's comments on this issue?  I don't doubt you, I would just like to read his comments for myself.

Excommunication appears to be mandatory for Church members who enter into a polygamous marriage.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the following about polygamy in the Church's October 1998 general conference:“I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

"If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law' (Articles of Faith 1:12).”

I am curious as to why a Church member entering into a polygamous marriage would be more serious, from the Church's point of view, than entering into a same-sex marriage.

Any thoughts from anyone on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Is the church just not big enough for sinners?  Or is it that the church is just not big enough for gay sinners.

The Church has boundless room for sinners, including me and 'gay sinners'. But the entire interplay of church and sinner in Christianity is about inviting the sinner to return and repent. At the point that a person decides to celebrate and cement her/his sinful nature by making it a legal category, that person has moved past sin (common to every single Saint) into apostasy -- in this case (and with this church in particular), having openly rejected everything the community of Saints holds dear and understands to be the very gift of Christ that God desires to bestow upon His children.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You have misunderstood. It's mandatory disciplinary counsel. Elder Christofferson specifically said that that does not correlate to mandatory excommunication. 

The court is mandatory but the outcome isn't. 

Sounds pretty mandatory to me.  Tell me where the wiggle room is. If you are an apostate, you are subject to excommunication.  The handbook specifically states anyone in a gay marriage is an apostate.  But don't worry, straight couples can still live in sin.  They are not labeled as apostates and do not have to choose between being forced to marry, or break up their family or be excommunicated.  The brethren only want the gays and their children kept out of the church.  You gotta just accept reality.  I certainly have.  

 

From Alarsons post earlier in the thread.

Quote

When a disciplinary council is mandatory[edit]

Quote

The LDS Church has instructed leaders that a disciplinary council is mandatory when evidence suggests that a member of the church may have committed any of the following offences against the standards of the church:

1. Murder: the "deliberate and unjustified taking of human life". The church does not classify killings performed by police or soldiers in the line of duty as being murder. It also does not classify abortion as murder.^[13]
2. Incest: defined as "sexual relations" between a parent (or grandparent) and a natural, adopted, or foster child or a stepchild. It also includes sexual relations between siblings.^[13]
3. Apostasy: refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church. Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy.^[13]In November 2015, the church clarified that its members who are in a same-sex marriage are in apostasy.^[14]
4. Serious transgression while holding a prominent church position : "serious transgression" is defined as "a deliberate and major offense against morality" and includes "attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation),^[15] deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing."^[13] "Prominent church position" includes the positions of area seventy, temple president, mission president, stake president,patriarch, and bishop.^[13]
5. Transgressor who is a predator^[13]
6. Pattern of serious transgressions^[13] (as defined above)
7. Serious transgression (as defined above) that is widely known^[13]
8.  

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide a reference for Elder Christofferson's comments on this issue?  I don't doubt you, I would just like to read his comments for myself.

Excommunication appears to be mandatory for Church members who enter into a polygamous marriage.  See, e.g., here:

I am curious as to why a Church member entering into a polygamous marriage would be more serious, from the Church's point of view, than entering into a same-sex marriage.

Any thoughts from anyone on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

That is an interesting question since it seems breaking the law of the land is part of the reason President Hinckley gives for excommunicating polygamists.  Of course gay couples are not breaking the law of the land.  They are just excommunicated because the church leaders have so determined that they and their children should not be allowed to be members of the church.  The reason doesn't really matter though does it?  The bretheren have spoken.  Nothing further needs to be discussed on this issue.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

That is an interesting question since it seems breaking the law of the land is part of the reason President Hinckley gives for excommunicating polygamists.  

Well, possibly.  He could also have simply been citing illegality as a relevant context.

Quote

Of course gay couples are not breaking the law of the land.  They are just excommunicated because the church leaders have so determined that they and their children should not be allowed to be members of the church.  

And that determination has been announced as being revelatory in origin.  I think that is a very important consideration.

Also, children being raised in same-sex parent households can join the Church after they turn 18.  That's an important consideration as well.

Quote

The reason doesn't really matter though does it?  The bretheren have spoken.  Nothing further needs to be discussed on this issue.

Oh, I think the reasons matter to some extent.  Evaluating potential/apparent rationales for such developments can and should be a healthy thing for the Saints.  As I have said before, 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

[smac97]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree, but this is territory that is very new to Bishops and Stake Presidents and it is also a very sensitive and inflammatory topic.  I believe most local leaders are not going to actively seek out those in their wards who are in a SSM and then start the disciplinary process for them.  And, I think that is the correct thing to do.  I know others disagree, but I'm only stating my opinion here.

I know that my Bishop has no intention of moving forward to contact or discipline the member in our ward who is in a SSM.  He has very strong feelings that this is the wrong direction to take with this member.  I'm in full support of him.

I will refrain from publicly commenting on the propriety of a particular bishop's conduct in a particular circumstance.  I will leave such assessments to those who are in authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 26, 2016 by smac97

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think what you and a lot of posters on this board have not been willing to recognize is that the church is at war against gays that choose to marry.  

At war against gays that choose to marry? Really? War requires conflict between two parties, as such gay marrieds must be at war with the Church. Are you willing to recognize that gay marrieds are at war against the church? If it is correct to characterise the issue as a war (personally I think its utter nonsense but will follow along with your theme) then I think its safe to label the church's position as a war of defence in response to the offensive brought to its doors by gay marrieds who knew full well that their decisions conflicted with the church. Gay marrieds knew there would be a conflict and simply didn't give a brass razoo...and this is true even before the policy change. So who can blame the church for defending itself and its values?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

They want them out of the church.  

This is not true, you have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that and I don't think you are really that stupid...very emotional about the issue but not stupid. The church does not want anyone out of the church. What the church wants is for gay marrieds to set their lives straight and live in accordance with church policy and to participate fully in all the programs of the church. The church invites everyone to do so, including gay marrieds. Do you disagree?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

They have put in the handbook a mandatory procedure to get them out of the church or break up their families. 

This is simply not true. This policy only relates to non-repentant gay marrieds who have refused the invitation to participate fully in the church. The invitation is there, it is the gay marrieds decision to accept it or not. Don't you think it is a wonderful thing that the church issues this invitation to everyone including gay marrieds?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 Gays are the only ones that require mandatory excommunication for being married.  

That is not true either, you batting zero so far. If this comment is made in the context that only gays require mandatory excommunication for being married then you are wrong. If this comment is made in the context that only gay marrieds require mandatory excommunication then you are wrong again. So either way, you're wrong.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You belong to a church that has instituted this policy.  This bishop is only following the orders from the handbook issued by church leaders.  

Yes, but the bishop only follows the handbook to its ultimate conclusion when the gay married refuses the invitation. Notice that the Bishop discussed in this thread did just that, it might have been offered crudely and perhaps even rudely, but it is now up to the Sister to decide to accept the invitation to participate fully in the church program or force the hand of the church to do something that it does not want to do. 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Of course there are other members that are breaking the law of chastity, but the church only labels gay couples not living the law of chastity that are married as apostates. Inactive straight couples are not being targeted and drummed out of the church.  There is no edict to excommunicate all straight couples living in sin.  There is no requirement for them to get married, split up or get excommunicated.  

This is correct. So what is your point. Gay marrieds are significantly different to every other classification of chastity laws. So what is the beef about them being treated according to this classification and in a manner that is different to all the other classifications? Should we not treat people who are different according to their differences?

1 hour ago, california boy said:

The sooner you accept the church's position the better.  Pretending that it should be something else does not match up to the facts.  

I have debated you on subjects similar to this on a number of occasions. While you begrudgingly accept the church's position you have most definitely pretended that it should be something else and done violence to logic and reason to try and demonstrate that it should be different. So best to heed your own bad advice before dishing it out. 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You have two choices...Live with it or leave the church.

Wrong again, these are not the only choices. Among others, one could choose to petition the Lord for change. There is ample scriptural evidence that the Lord can and does change his mind, so get to it, be constructive, be proactive, it may lead to absolutely nothing but surely that is better than handing out bad advice and whining about the issue.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Kemara