Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[Yirgacheffe]

14 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't think the "church" is doing this. Sounds like a bishop was doing this. Perhaps other bishops would handle it differently.  Given how many inactive members the Church keeps on its membership rolls who are not living according to the standards of the Church, I would leave this alone unless they came back to church.  I would not assign them home or visiting teachers.  The Church should just consider them as not members even though the technically still are.

Disciplinary actions requiring multiple members to participate, which are then recorded in church records are church actions. 

[Yirgacheffe]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

If it is in Utah and a few other places (haven't read the stories yet), wards are very small and ward clerks can get to know pretty much everyone in the ward by sight.  My husband is a ward clerk plus takes the dog for walks around the neighbourhood frequently and stops and talks to anyone who wants to visit.

I don't think his employer would be too happy about it at all.  He should have just said "Hi, nice to see you" if he recognized her from previous social interaction.  OTOH, when church friends did come to the store and I could help them out by suggesting toys and books they would be interested in, my employer thought that was good thing.

If a person doesn't attend or socialize in the church how would members get to know them by sight?  I walk around my neighborhood and stop and talk to anyone I see because I know them, honestly in about a 2 mile radius I can't walk be more than 5 houses without passing a house where I know the parent, the child or the child's grand parent who lives 12 blocks the other way.  But that is not what this hardware store fellow did, he approached someone he doesn't interact with socially, while working, to pester her about a church she doesn't attend. 

I don't think the church should be to pleased with his behavior either.  Aren't these things supposed to be private and shouldn't that  privacy extend to the invitation itself? 

[Glenn101]

On 2/25/2016 at 2:23 PM, CA Steve said:

While I was just responding to Bluebell's question about why this case is interesting, I am curious if you can provide some Biblical justification for defining homosexual marriage as apostasy that would not also apply to sexual immorality between straight married people.

If those straight married people were claiming that whatever sexual immorality they are engaging in is not actually immoral and never has been, and that the General Authorities, the Church are wrong on the issue and are not interpreting the scriptures correctly, I would imagine that they also would be considered apostate.

Glenn

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Yirgacheffe said:

If a person doesn't attend or socialize in the church how would members get to know them by sight? 

I know most of the less actives and nonmormons in our ward just by being around the neighbourhood. We have a few on the street and their kids used to play with the kids next door till they all grew up.

I listened to the video twice and there was no indication that the man was unknown to the couple that I remember.

You don't do church work when you are on the clock for someone else.  Just wrong, imo.  And I agree such should be private and semiformal unless it is the bishop himself and he knows the family on a neighbourly basis and comes by not to call to court or resign, but to give the heads up sometime might be happening and why so they could decide how they want to handle it.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, Walden said:

Oh please, the LDS church's classifications of marriage are just as eroded as modern society's....from polygamy to monogamy to changing views on interracial marriages, or even the changing policies for those involved in interracial marriages, the LDS church and it's adherents have no room to be lecturing other's on the eternal definition of marriage, as the church has promoted and demoted different definitions of marriage since the church's founding. My great, great, great grandfather had 12 wives, and was commanded that this was necessary to receive the fullness of blessings; try that today and you will be excommunicated from the LDS church. An interracial couple would have had a difficult time getting a temple marriage in 1977; by 1979, not so much.

USU, to state that the church's definition of marriage never changed is completely laughable.

You overstate your case. When we recognized polygamy, we still do after death, we also recognized monogamy as valid marriages, we still do after death. Same with black couples before and after the Priesthood ban was lifted. They were still valid marriages. BTW while both SSM and OSM are valid in every state there is no requirement for any religion to recognize any marriage not conducted by them. Most that I know of do, but it is not required.

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Is there any reason to believe he didn't seek the Lord's counsel on the matter?

I have no information either way. But as a personal perspective there are many ways to achieve the same goal. Some nicer than others.

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If those straight married people were claiming that whatever sexual immorality they are engaging in is not actually immoral and never has been, and that the General Authorities, the Church are wrong on the issue and are not interpreting the scriptures correctly, I would imagine that they also would be considered apostate.

Glenn

That was already tried. It embarrassed members and leaders alike.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

If it is in Utah and a few other places (haven't read the stories yet), wards are very small and ward clerks can get to know pretty much everyone in the ward by sight.  My husband is a ward clerk plus takes the dog for walks around the neighbourhood frequently and stops and talks to anyone who wants to visit.

I don't think his employer would be too happy about it at all.  He should have just said "Hi, nice to see you" if he recognized her from previous social interaction.  OTOH, when church friends did come to the store and I could help them out by suggesting toys and books they would be interested in, my employer thought that was good thing.

I agree he probably shouldn't have been making appointments for the bishop while working at the store (if this is indeed what happened). But I also agree it is not at all abnormal for a ward member to know people in the neighborhood even if they don't come to church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

If a person doesn't attend or socialize in the church how would members get to know them by sight?  I walk around my neighborhood and stop and talk to anyone I see because I know them, honestly in about a 2 mile radius I can't walk be more than 5 houses without passing a house where I know the parent, the child or the child's grand parent who lives 12 blocks the other way.  But that is not what this hardware store fellow did, he approached someone he doesn't interact with socially, while working, to pester her about a church she doesn't attend. 

I don't think the church should be to pleased with his behavior either.  Aren't these things supposed to be private and shouldn't that  privacy extend to the invitation itself? 

How do you know he doesn't interact with her socially? You're getting one side of the story and getting hot and bothered by it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I know most of the less actives and nonmormons in our ward just by being around the neighbourhood. We have a few on the street and their kids used to play with the kids next door till they all grew up.

I listened to the video twice and there was no indication that the man was unknown to the couple that I remember.

You don't do church work when you are on the clock for someone else.  Just wrong, imo.  And I agree such should be private and semiformal unless it is the bishop himself and he knows the family on a neighbourly basis and comes by not to call to court or resign, but to give the heads up sometime might be happening and why so they could decide how they want to handle it.

There is any number of ways one might get to know people in the neighborhood even when they don't come to church. Associating with other parents at school functions is one way that comes to mind. 

[Sleeper Cell]

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Gray said:

 

[Sleeper Cell]

On Friday, February 26, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Gray said:

In this case, "repentance" involves trying to break up their families. Inviting them to divorce, never mind the fallout with their children.

This is of course not applied equally. Only gay people are singled out for this treatment.

In every other case, “repentance” requires that one must stop committing the sin.  Why should gay people be exempt?  

BTW, the very fact that there is no way that such SSM couples can stop committing the sin without breaking up the family is a good reason for regarding SSM as a more serious sin than “shacking up” by non-gay people.   

[ERMD]

19 hours ago, mtomm said:

So far in this thread I've read that the only family that is legit is the one God puts his seal of approval on. It's been stated that those REAL families are only those sealed in the temple. He only seals people in the temple if they can multiply and replenish the earth.  <My words by the way. Edited to add that I think the thing that is being implied with the reproduction talk is it really means people that have heterosexual penetration sex.

So by using God's definition as defined in these last few pages we have male/female couples sealed in the temple who have their own biological children. 

I'm not talking about the world's definition. I'm talking about God's (according to this thread.) 

 

Your inability to comprehend what has been clearly written and the ability to then twist it into what you want to have been written is staggering.

Edited February 27, 2016 by ERMD

[TrespassersW]

15 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

I don't see why the church had to track these women down, contact them repeatedly and then schedule a church court. 

Membership in the LDS church requires living by certain covenants. If someone is unwilling to live by those covenants then it is better for them to be released from those covenants than to continue to live in sin under them.

Because of this, as I understand it, when a bishop becomes aware that a person has committed a serious sin, the bishop seeks to meet with that person to determine if a disciplinary council should be convened. I'm not sure that it matters so much how the bishop became aware of it, whether it was because the person confessed or whether the person made their transgression a matter of public record, I think the bishop has an obligation to the transgressor to warn them about the consequences of their behavior. And if necessary, enact disciplinary measures up to and including referring the matter to the stake presidency for excommunication.

That is how I understand the situation, anyway.

[CA Steve]

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If those straight married people were claiming that whatever sexual immorality they are engaging in is not actually immoral and never has been, and that the General Authorities, the Church are wrong on the issue and are not interpreting the scriptures correctly, I would imagine that they also would be considered apostate.

 

Glenn,

 

Can you cite any examples of straight inactive  members being disciplined for apostasy because they were engaging in immoral behavior?

 

In your previous response to me you said

Quote

The prohibition against homosexual behavior goes back into Old Testament times and current latter day LDS prophets aver that it has always been prohibited and always will be.

Since you referenced the OT, I asked if you could provide a Biblical reference wherein homosexuality is defined as apostate behavior, which could not at the same time also define other sexual immortality as apostate behavior. My point being that whether or not we agree on if the Bible labels homosexual behavior as immoral, there seems to be little doubt that references to the Bible do not support labeling it, by itself as apostasy. In my opinion the recent changes to the church handbook wherein Gay marriage by a member or members is now officially defined as apostasy is not something that can be supported by the Bible without at the same time raising the question of why adultery, fornication or even divorce is not also so labeled.

 

[rockpond]

And now the Advocate's religion section has picked up on the story.  More great publicity for the Church.  Maybe we need to tell these journalists that this is what God revealed to the prophet that he wanted us to do!  Explain to them that this is the work our members and leaders are called to perform. God wants us to take time out of our schedules to make sure these married lesbians know that we don't want them on our records.  Maybe if we can just help these journalists and their readers understand the importance of following prophetic revelation.

http://www.advocate.com/religion/2016/2/27/mormon-church-threatens-same-sex-couples-disciplinary-action

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And now the Advocate's religion section has picked up on the story.  More great publicity for the Church.  Maybe we need to tell these journalists that this is what God revealed to the prophet that he wanted us to do!  Explain to them that this is the work our members and leaders are called to perform. God wants us to take time out of our schedules to make sure these married lesbians know that we don't want them on our records.  Maybe if we can just help these journalists and their readers understand the importance of following prophetic revelation.

http://www.advocate.com/religion/2016/2/27/mormon-church-threatens-same-sex-couples-disciplinary-action

It would be helpful to know what role the hardware store employee played in all of this.  Were they a ward leader acting on an official basis or just a fellow ward member, I wonder?  (I know this aspect of the story is already being discussed here.)

Leisha LaCrone said a hardware store employee tried to talk to her about the church a couple of times, and after she declined, the couple started receiving phone calls asking them to meet with the local Mormon bishop, and they also turned down these requests. 

It kind of sounds like the employee just knew they were members of their ward and after talking to them in the store ("a couple of times"), went to the Bishop about these women. The timing of them then starting to receive the phone calls to meet with their Bishop is suspect (that the employee talked to the Bishop), but of course not conclusive and maybe was just coincidental (?).  The hardware store employee might not have even been in their ward.  It's just odd.

Maybe they will reveal more details....but then again, maybe not.

.

Edited February 27, 2016 by ALarson

[Avatar4321]

On 2/25/2016 at 1:30 PM, thesometimesaint said:

Board error

[california boy]

 

Quote

 

And now the Advocate's religion section has picked up on the story.  More great publicity for the Church.  Maybe we need to tell these journalists that this is what God revealed to the prophet that he wanted us to do!  Explain to them that this is the work our members and leaders are called to perform. God wants us to take time out of our schedules to make sure these married lesbians know that we don't want them on our records.  Maybe if we can just help these journalists and their readers understand the importance of following prophetic revelation.

http://www.advocate.com/religion/2016/2/27/mormon-church-threatens-same-sex-couples-disciplinary-action

 

Does anyone know why the church's PR department has not issued a press release stating that all gay married couples in the church should immediately start divorce proceedings and decide what to do with their children.  I imagine it takes some time to figure out where the children should go and what parent if any should be allowed to raise them.  A lot of concerns have to be taken into consideration such as new homes needed and transferring children to different schools where necessary.  Not sure if brothers and sisters would want to stay together or be broken up.  It seems unfair for one parent to not be allowed to raise any of the children.  Or maybe like most divorces the children will be shuffled back and forth between two houses.  The church certainly wants as many divorces as possible to avoid having to excommunicate these gay members.  Maybe by issuing a press release, the church could explain more fully to the public why it is in the best interest of these families to be broken up so that everyone will understand the importance of divorce in these situations.  I don't think the church should allow outside media to "spin" what the church is trying to do.  The public needs to understand that this is an action of love and concern for these former families.

I would think the church should be a little more proactive in this rather than rely on The Advocate and other publications to get the word out.  And for those couples who are unwilling to break up their families, it will not come as a shock when the church starts calling them, visiting them and writing letters to them demanding they divorce or face excommunication

By issuing a press release, it would avoid any kind of confusion among the members and those unfamiliar with the church's policy targeting gay couples.  When those outside the church understand this act of love, they will be more likely to be drawn to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Perhaps church growth will start increasing again.

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

It would be helpful to know what role the hardware store employee played in all of this.  Were they a ward leader acting on an official basis or just a fellow ward member, I wonder?  (I know this aspect of the story is already being discussed here.)

Leisha LaCrone said a hardware store employee tried to talk to her about the church a couple of times, and after she declined, the couple started receiving phone calls asking them to meet with the local Mormon bishop, and they also turned down these requests. 

It kind of sounds like the employee just knew they were members of their ward and after talking to them in the store ("a couple of times"), went to the Bishop about these women. The timing of them then starting to receive the phone calls to meet with their Bishop is suspect (that the employee talked to the Bishop), but of course not conclusive and maybe was just coincidental (?).  The hardware store employee might not have even been in their ward.  It's just odd.

Maybe they will reveal more details....but then again, maybe not.

.

From my perspective it seems far more likely that the guy in the store is the ward executive secretary trying to set up appointments for the bishop. 

It's possible, I suppose, that he's a busybody on a witch hunt, but wouldn't that strike you as bizarre behavior? It would me, and certainly not typical of Church members I know or have known. 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From my perspective it seems far more likely that the guy in the store is the ward executive secretary trying to set up appointments for the bishop. 

It's possible, I suppose, that he's a busybody on a witch hunt, but wouldn't that strike you as bizarre behavior? It would me, and certainly not typical of Church members I know or have known. 

I don't see why it matters what his calling is.  I am sure his intentions were good.  Unfortunately it doesn't sound like the family is going to be broken up by divorce.  Maybe they will change their minds once they meet with the bishop and see what a blesing divorce would be for their children and themselves.  We will have to wait and see.

[Calm]

Quote

Does anyone know why the church's PR department has not issued a press release stating that all gay married couples in the church should immediately start divorce proceedings and decide what to do with their children.

Given that the standard policy for polygamists in countries where polygamy is legal is to tell them not to be baptized and to keep the families intact, I assume that what most leaders would assume is that just as with polygamists, the family should stay intact to care for any dependents.  However, since that means any adult member in such a relationship is in apostasy, they have the choice of resigning or being excommunicated.  It is possible that a leader was serious about telling a member to get a divorce, but it seems more likely to me they were just being thorough about options available, because divorce is certainly an option and if there were no children involved and no dependency or major social stigma attached to divorce like the women are in many countries where polygamy is legal and divorce is condemning the women and children to poverty and being outcasts in their society, repentance and divorce would be a viable option.  However with children involved who may not have other options of support, divorce while an option would likely not be seen as a good option.

It would not be a bad idea to clarify this, but I can also see a concern that this could play out as claiming the Church actually supports gay marriage as opposed to trying to deal with the consequences of actions already taken in the best possible way for any innocents involved.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given that the standard policy for polygamists in countries where polygamy is legal is to tell them not to be baptized and to keep the families intact, I assume that what most leaders would assume is that just as with polygamists, the family should stay intact to care for any dependents.  However, since that means any adult member in such a relationship is in apostasy, they have the choice of resigning or being excommunicated.  It is possible that a leader was serious about telling a member to get a divorce, but it seems more likely to me they were just being thorough about options available, because divorce is certainly an option and if there were no children involved and no dependency or major social stigma attached to divorce like the women are in many countries where polygamy is legal and divorce is condemning the women and children to poverty and being outcasts in their society, repentance and divorce would be a viable option.  However with children involved who may not have other options of support, divorce while an option would likely not be seen as a good option.

It would not be a bad idea to clarify this, but I can also see a concern that this could play out as claiming the Church actually supports gay marriage as opposed to trying to deal with the consequences of actions already taken in the best possible way for any innocents involved.

Boy that post is a surprise to me.  I thought excommunicating members was the last thing the church wanted to do.  So this is all about just getting rid of gay married members, not trying to set them on a path of repentance?  Now I am confused.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

Boy that post is a surprise to me.  I thought excommunicating members was the last thing the church wanted to do.  

Are you aware that they don't baptize people who are in polygamous marriages and do not try to encourage them to dissolve the families?  What is the difference?

The Church has never encouraged people to divorce spouses who are opposed to temple marriage or to abandon their families if the spouse refuses to allow them to get baptized or have the kids baptized.  The policy has always been to keep the family intact.  If a member for awhile distances themselves from the Church and living a righteous life and during that time marries a nonmember who is not willing to convert and then s/he later returns to belief and finds that she/he wants a temple marriage, they are not just told that as part of the process of repentance they should dissolve the marriage so they can get all the blessings they once counted as unimportant immediately.  They must live with the consequences of their decisions by making the best of their choices, including if possible having a wonderful nonsealed marriage.

I do not know if this is what is or will be taught to gay marriage participants, but I don't see much difference in their situations.  They have made choices in their lives and if they have made commitments to others that depend upon them, they should live up to those commitments until they reach a time where those individuals no longer need them.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From my perspective it seems far more likely that the guy in the store is the ward executive secretary trying to set up appointments for the bishop. 

It's possible, I suppose, that he's a busybody on a witch hunt, but wouldn't that strike you as bizarre behavior? It would me, and certainly not typical of Church members I know or have known. 

That's a pretty big leap to assume that the employee was the ward executive secretary.  I see nothing there to think that's who they were.  Maybe it was the executive secretary who began trying to set up an appointment with the Bishop after the incidents in the hardware store.