Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[rodheadlee]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That's pretty silly.  No heterosexual couple that doesn't go to Church is being targeted by leaders anyway.  If they were it wouldn't be because they are a heterosexual couple. 

It's easy to place a bet on something that will never happen.   Imagine, "we're a married straight couple and the Church is coming after us because we are heterosexual."

That is simply not true. Many of us gave examples but you reject them because there is no link, due to the fact that they didn't run to the media and cry.

[Sleeper Cell]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Of course not.  But that's not a valid comparison here, not even close.  You're comparing someone not getting to use a church they haven't attended in years at no charge for a private family event, to what is being discussed on this thread (the seeking out of couples/members and disciplining them?).  You can't be serious.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.  The family was removed from the church’s membership rolls for inactivity without being notified in advance, let alone given the opportunity to attend a disciplinary hearing.  They were not even aware they had been removed from the church rolls until they requested the room.  They were upset that they hadn’t been sought out.  They wanted the benefits of church membership without the obligations. 

[busybee]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Married straight couple being targeted because they are not gay?  Are you saying if a married straight couple is cheating on each other with others?  Well, I guess it's possible that local leaders would try and discipline any such inactive members, but it seems unlikely that'd happen.  I'd think most local leaders would try and talk to them first. 

Yes. Married people who are commtiting adultery or unmarried couples who are co-habiting.

As far as I can tell the Bishop in the case in point tried to talk to the lesbian member who is in a gay marriage as well. Otherwise where did she get the options available to her from. The OP says the bishop gave her what avenues were open to her to avoid discipline.

Edited February 29, 2016 by busybee

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Perhaps I wasn’t clear.  The family was removed from the church’s membership rolls for inactivity without being notified in advance, let alone given the opportunity to attend a disciplinary hearing.  They were not even aware they had been removed from the church rolls until they requested the room.  They were upset that they hadn’t been sought out.  They wanted the benefits of church membership without the obligations. 

Well, that's not what is happening here.  So it's not a valid comparison and is really very random.

(And, I think many would not be complaining if the church removed them from their rolls and stopped contacting them.  So, again...not a good comparison here.)

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

That is simply not true. Many of us gave examples but you reject them because there is no link, due to the fact that they didn't run to the media and cry.

I'm sure I've missed some.  What are you referring to?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If that's happening it's a bishop going rogue. There is no policy in place that treats divorce/remarriage as adultery. 

No, there is a policy in place when divorce is a result of adultery and the divorced partner marries the one they committed adultery with.  I am not saying that divorce/remarriage is automatically considered adultery, but when it is adultery, divorce/remarriage is not given a pass.  They are then not allowed to have a temple marriage until a minimum of years have passed and depending on the circumstances perhaps not even then.

And there are many instances where divorce results in a temple recommend being pulled from what I heard, not because of just the divorce, but the decision behind the divorce.  For example, in one case I know of the bishop informed the husband of a nonmember that he would lose his temple recommend if he divorced his wife solely for the reason that he wanted a temple marriage and his wife had no intent of converting.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, there is a policy in place when divorce is a result of adultery and the divorced partner marries the one they committed adultery with.  I am not saying that divorce/remarriage is automatically considered adultery, but when it is adultery, divorce/remarriage is not given a pass.  They are then not allowed to have a temple marriage until a minimum of years have passed and depending on the circumstances perhaps not even then.

And there are many instances where divorce results in a temple recommend being pulled from what I heard, not because of just the divorce, but the decision behind the divorce.  For example, in one case I know of the bishop informed the husband of a nonmember that he would lose his temple recommend if he divorced his wife solely for the reason that he wanted a temple marriage and his wife had no intent of converting.

Not doubting you but I'd love to see a reference on this.

[Storm Rider]

This remains a yawner.

A socially clumsy bishop talked to a member on the roles about her current standard of life that is conflict with being a member of the Church.  He, in that clumsy social manner that he has mastered, informs the inactive member what she would have to do to remain a member.  All that has happened up to this point is that a local church leader has poorly handled a situation with an inactive member.  Surprisingly there has been no burning at the stake, no hellfire and damnation speech, and no expressed desire to destroy the individual's life.  

What has been the response?  Not a simple, direct, "You know bishop, I have never met you and you don't know me.  I have been pretty happy the past many years and have no intention of leaving my wife.  If you feel you need to do something, go ahead because I am happy" ----- which would seem to be the typical answer one would have for almost all similar situations.  That did not occur.  What did occur is crying and gnashing of teeth about persecution and desires to destroy her family.  Hold it Sally Jane and stop the propaganda bus of gay liberation and promotion of gay persecution complex by the evil LDS Church - you say all you want to be is left alone.  Great - shut up and don't talk to the press.  Tell the bishop you are not interested and viola, no one talks to you again.  

People make mountains out of mole hills all the time.  This poor individual that has wrapped herself in the robes of a favored minority group is a joke and gets an F for stupid reactions.

[Jeanne]

It would be a plus if doctrine was used with a little common sense. 

[Sleeper Cell]

49 minutes ago, Gray said:

Scripture doesn't specifically address the issue of monogamous, committed gay marriage. "The church" isn't a person, it's an institution. No one can hurt its feelings. But arguably the current policy will be very damaging to the long-term health of the church.

If we're just going to go by Christian tradition, there is a lot about Mormonism we'd need to jettison. 

Scriptures usually doesn’t specifically address issues that weren’t issues at the time the scriptures were written.   

BTW, do you really think you can treat a church in an awful manner without hurting the feelings of those who love it?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not doubting you but I'd love to see a reference on this.

Handbook 1, I will get pages later from my husband (he has online access). 

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's not what is happening here.  So it's not a valid comparison and is really very random.

(And, I think many would not be complaining if the church removed them from their rolls and stopped contacting them.  So, again...not a good comparison here.)

.

But I bet that many would be complaining on the grounds that they were not given advanced notice and a hearing before their names were removed from the church rolls.  Like my roommate’s family did.  So. if the church contacts inactive transgressors prior to removing their names from church rolls and offers to give them a hearing, some will complain.  And if the church does not contact inactive transgressors and offer to give then a hearing prior to removing their names from church rolls, others will complain.  Apparently, the only way the church can remove a member’s name without risking offending someone is by resignation.  And even then it cannot be sure. 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

But I bet that many would be complaining on the grounds that they were not given advanced notice and a hearing before their names were removed from the church rolls. 

Well, since this is just speculation, I'm not sure why you think this is relevant here to this discussion.

You can bet all you want that people "would be complaining" about any number of things, but we're discussing a specific case here and not what "might" happen "if". 

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

No, there is a policy in place when divorce is a result of adultery and the divorced partner marries the one they committed adultery with.  I am not saying that divorce/remarriage is automatically considered adultery, but when it is adultery, divorce/remarriage is not given a pass.  They are then not allowed to have a temple marriage until a minimum of years have passed and depending on the circumstances perhaps not even then.

And there are many instances where divorce results in a temple recommend being pulled from what I heard, not because of just the divorce, but the decision behind the divorce.  For example, in one case I know of the bishop informed the husband of a nonmember that he would lose his temple recommend if he divorced his wife solely for the reason that he wanted a temple marriage and his wife had no intent of converting.

On one case what you're saying is adultery is treated as adultery. Of course that's true. But there is no on the books penalty for divorce in the church. 

Some bishops may be going off the reservation - but that doesn't speak to the church's policy on divorce. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Gray

[Sleeper Cell]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, since this is just speculation, I'm not sure why you think this is relevant here to this discussion.

You can bet all you want that people "would be complaining" about any number of things, but we're discussing a specific case here and not what "might" happen "if". 

.

If we are discussing just the specific case cited in the OP, then I agree that the bishop was wrong.  Assuming, of course, the individual gave a fair account of what happened.  (Of course, this assumption is more speculative than the speculation in my previous post, but never mind).

I believe it is relevant to this discussion because some posters have suggested that the church should not contact in-actives for disciplinary purposes.  Others have said that many of them would be upset if this happened. As you, yourself said on page 21: 

 “if the church leaders start actively contacting in-actives for disciplinary purposes, I imagine we (and others) will hear about it as they will speak up about it.”

My response was that “the only way the church can remove a member’s name without risking offending someone is by resignation.  And even then it cannot be sure.”   Again, why is it OK for an in-active member to leave a church, but not reasonable  for a church to remove an in-active transgressor from its church rolls.

Speculation that while some inactive members might not complain that their names were removed from the church rolls without notice, there would very probably be others who would?  Sounds quite likely to me.  Especially in light of my former roommate’s bitter complaints when he found that his church had done exactly that

[rodheadlee]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sure I've missed some.  What are you referring to?

Heterosexuals being given the same message if they are shacking up. Being told to get married or resign or be exed. Anecdotal evidence has been provided for this but largely ignored because a link cannot be provided. If it didn't make the internet news, blogs, Facebook or Mormonstories,  it did not happen.

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Heterosexuals being given the same message if they are shacking up. Being told to get married or resign or be exed. Anecdotal evidence has been provided for this but largely ignored because a link cannot be provided. If it didn't make the internet news, blogs, Facebook or Mormonstories,  it did not happen.

Non-married are not a one to one comparison.  I'm talking about heterosexual married couples. 

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

My response was that “the only way the church can remove a member’s name without risking offending someone is by resignation.  And even then it cannot be sure.”   Again, why is it OK for an in-active member to leave a church, but not reasonable  for a church to remove an in-active transgressor from its church rolls.

Speculation that while some inactive members might not complain that their names were removed from the church rolls without notice, there would very probably be others who would?  Sounds quite likely to me.  Especially in light of my former roommate’s bitter complaints when he found that his church had done exactly that

Well, your roommate (who was not a member of the Mormon church) seemed to only cared about not being able to hold a wedding at his former church for free.  

And, it's not reasonable for our church to remove an "in-active transgressor" from the rolls because that's not the proper laid out  procedure.  Our leaders try to do the right thing here and allow members to resign if they want to exit the church.

.

Edited March 1, 2016 by ALarson

[Sleeper Cell]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, your roommate (who was not a member of the Mormon church) seemed to only cared about not being able to hold a wedding at his former church for free.  

And, it's not reasonable for our church to remove an "in-active transgressor" from the rolls because that's not the proper laid out  procedure.  Our leaders try to do the right thing here and allow members to resign if they want to exit the church.

.

My question was not limited to our church.   I had said:

 “ Again, why is it OK for an in-active member to leave a church, but not reasonable  for a church to remove an in-active transgressor from its church rolls?”.

Do you think it is unreasonable for any church to remove an “inactive transgressor” from its rolls?

If  removing “inactive transgressors”  violates our church’s policy, then, I agree with you.  It is not reasonable for the local officials of our church to do so.  I had understood that the current policy of our church allowed local church officials  to remove “inactive transgressors” in some cases.  For example, in the case of those who enter into SSM.  In fact, I had understood that one of the primary arguments in this and related threads was essentially:  “Is it right (or reasonable) for church policy to treat those who enter into SSM differently than heterosexuals who violate the law of chastity.”   Please correct me if I am wrong.

[ALarson]

44 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said:

My question was not limited to our church.   I had said:

 “ Again, why is it OK for an in-active member to leave a church, but not reasonable  for a church to remove an in-active transgressor from its church rolls?”.

Do you think it is unreasonable for any church to remove an “inactive transgressor” from its rolls?

If  removing “inactive transgressors”  violates our church’s policy, then, I agree with you.  It is not reasonable for the local officials of our church to do so.  I had understood that the current policy of our church allowed local church officials  to remove “inactive transgressors” in some cases.  For example, in the case of those who enter into SSM.  In fact, I had understood that one of the primary arguments in this and related threads was essentially:  “Is it right (or reasonable) for church policy to treat those who enter into SSM differently than heterosexuals who violate the law of chastity.”   Please correct me if I am wrong.

When you state "remove inactive transgressors" from the rolls, are you referring to holding a church court and excommunicating them or just taking them off the records without them officially resigning?  I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  If it's the later (just removing their names), I cannot see that the church has done that or will do that.  A person deserves a voice and should either be allowed a church court or to submit their resignation.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't understand why we are accepting the nonsense premise that the bishop is targeting homosexuals. Last time I checked, the bishop was responsible to seek out and invite all people back to Church. They are also required to discipline those who need disciplined.

[USU78]

On 2/26/2016 at 3:43 PM, Walden said:

On 2/29/2016 at 10:51 AM, Jeanne said:

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

I don't understand why we are accepting the nonsense premise that the bishop is targeting homosexuals. Last time I checked, the bishop was responsible to seek out and invite all people back to Church. They are also required to discipline those who need disciplined.

It would be a plus if doctrine was used with a little common sense. 

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.

Well, I'm always pleased to have amused somebody.

Marriage is and always was between a man and a woman.  That other thing, whatever it is, is not like marriage.

The Bishop in question, whatever it is he said and/or did, was acting within the purview of his calling.  Those calling for nonjudgmentalism with respect to their pets sure have none themselves for volunteers in G_d's vineyard.