Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, ERMD said:

If you see them as a form of punishment or threat, then you do not understand the reasons for disciplinary councils.

I fully understand the reasons a disciplinary court is held (and have been involved in many).  And I definitely do not believe they are a form of punishment or threat.  That is why what this Bishop is doing is wrong, IMO.  He is using it as a form of threat and punishment.  This couple desire to be left alone and have no ill will towards the church and have even expressed a love for the church.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[ERMD]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So this case is interesting because we have a chance to see if we are dealing with a bishop who is just on the stringent end of the discipline spectrum or whether or not we are witnessing the start of a church wide policy. My money is on the former.

Mine isn't.

[ERMD]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I fully understand the reasons a disciplinary court is held (and have been involved in many).  And I definitely do not believe they are a form of punishment or threat.  That is why what this Bishop is doing is wrong, IMO.  He is using it as a form of threat and punishment.  This couple desire to be left alone and have no ill will towards the church and have even expressed a love for the church.

Fascinating how you are able to determine his motivations (and theirs) from seeing something on the internet.

Unique gift you have there.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

So this case is interesting because we have a chance to see if we are dealing with a bishop who is just on the stringent end of the discipline spectrum or whether or not we are witnessing the start of a church wide policy. My money is on the former.

I agree.  I cannot imagine this will become standard procedure or a church wide policy.  It will be interesting to follow this story.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Fascinating how you are able to determine his motivations (and theirs) from seeing something on the internet.

Unique gift you have there.

Thank you.  Have you listened to the video/podcast over on Mormon Stories?  

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

FYI on policy implementation.

The policy clarification has nothing to do with her disciplinary council.  Let's be clear on that.  That had to do with what happens with the children.

I would work on the understanding that this Bishop has been wrestling with what to do about this member, and finally came to a conclusion.  And it's the right conclusion.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

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

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

I'm not saying you are wrong, but try looking at it from a different perspective. 

This woman made covenants, which the church was/is a part of, which she has broken.  The bishop is a judge in Israel who has accepted responsibility for helping such people repent, or if not that, helping them do the least amount of spiritual damage to themselvesas possible.

From that perspective only, could there be a valid reason this bishop doesn't feel it's appropriate to leave this woman alone?

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The policy clarification has nothing to do with her disciplinary council.  Let's be clear on that.  That had to do with what happens with the children.

From what I can tell, this is a direct result of the new policy.  Do you believe this Bishop would have sought them out if this new policy had not been announced?  Why didn't he do it years ago when they were first married?

Will they be charged with apostasy?  That came from the policy.

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I disagree 

Continued membership in an organization is subject to abiding the rules of that organization.  It doesn't matter if you attend the organization meetings on a regular basis or not, there are conditions for membership.

Gray is right.  Are bishops going to be visiting each and every member that is in violation of the criterial for membership in the church.  Either get married, split the family up or you are out?  Is this bishop visiting every single member who is living in sin and telling them they are out unless they repent?  How about the guy that isn't lving the word of wisdom?  Is the line in the sand drawn, quit or you are out?  

I could care less what criteria the church uses to determine whether a person is allowed to stay in the church.  That is totally up to the organization. Is the church just not big enough for sinners?  Or is it that the church is just not big enough for gay sinners.   I personally think targeting one group of sinners over another is wrong. Otherwise it just seems like another example of the church's ongoing targeting of gays both within the church and without.  It is a sad approach to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Is the church just not big enough to allow for a lesbian couple to be a member and receive even a small amount of influence from the church through RS and HT visits?  But hey, if that is how the church views the gospel of Christ, then others who defend this policy have a completely valid point of view.  The church could not be more clear on how it treats gay couples and their children. It is not like this is coming out of nowhere.  

Edited February 25, 2016 by california boy

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

From what I can tell, this is a direct result of the new policy.  Will they be charged with apostasy?  That came from the policy.

.

Post hoc fallacy.

[JLHPROF]

Let's change the violation.

If the inactive member started practicing polygamy, should their membership stay intact?
Should practicing polygamists who stop attending LDS meetings to attend fundamentalist meetings be allowed to remain members of the Church?

What about a more serious sin?  Adultery, child abuse, spousal abuse?

Which sins should allow inactive members to stay on the membership lists of the Church and which should be worthy of excommunication?

[rongo]

1) As with all of these "news items," we are only getting one version of what happened. Through John Dehlin, to boot.

2) My understanding of the policy change in November is that living in a gay marriage triggers a mandatory disciplinary council, because gay marriage was defined as prima facia apostasy. That's why I find the bishop's alleged giving of options (divorce, resign, or face discipline) to be interesting. My interpretation is that we don't have that kind of latitude. A bishop can choose to do nothing and "let people be," but that would be in violation of the policy. 

3) I have held a number of disciplinary councils over the years for people who committed/were committing homosexual acts. None of them had entered into a gay marriage (or wanted a gay marriage). I am going through the disciplinary process currently with multiple members whose transgressions include homosexual acts, but none of them are in or want a gay marriage. They were all voluntary confessions and involved cooperation from the member. I personally am unaware of any gay marriages in my ward, and am aware of only two in my stake. If it came to my knowledge that members of my ward were living in a gay marriage, then I would verify this with them, explain the Church's position and policy, and proceed accordingly. If they were repentant and willing to divorce as part of their repentance, I think that would be a significant mitigating factor in considering what action to take (no action, formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication). But, I wouldn't offer, out of the gates, in the initial meeting, a "plea deal" (divorce, resign, or face discipline). That has to be determined through a disciplinary council, but in my experience, is not pre-set.

4) I can't emphasize enough that I firmly believe that the bishop in question has a different version of what happened, what he said, and how he said it --- but we will never hear about that. We'll only hear John Dehlin's "mormon stories" . . . 

[ERMD]

If two people who are not married are living together (and I will not qualify that), are not LDS, are taught the gospel and want to be baptized, they must either get married or change their living arrangements (fruits meet for repentance).  If they do not, they cannot be baptized and join the Church.

This is not a special circumstance or witch hunt.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ERMD
edited for clarity, added "living together"

[ERMD]

16 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thank you.  Have you listened to the video/podcast over on Mormon Stories?  

.

And from that you know his motivation?

Edited February 25, 2016 by ERMD

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The policy clarification has nothing to do with her disciplinary council.  Let's be clear on that.  That had to do with what happens with the children.

I would work on the understanding that this Bishop has been wrestling with what to do about this member, and finally came to a conclusion.  And it's the right conclusion.

The policy change made disciplinary councils mandatory for anyone in a gay marriage.  So yes, it has to do with the policy change.

Edited February 25, 2016 by rockpond

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Post hoc fallacy.

Not.  LOL

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Let's change the violation.

If the inactive member started practicing polygamy, should their membership stay intact?
Should practicing polygamists who stop attending LDS meetings to attend fundamentalist meetings be allowed to remain members of the Church?

I can only give my opinion, but I can see no reason to seek out inactives who are practicing polygamy if they are not preaching against the church or organizing a group that is actively doing harm to the church.  Leave them alone as long as they are leaving the church alone.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, ERMD said:

And from that you know his motivation?

I ask again, have you listened to the podcast?

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

I can see bishops are going to be very busy in the coming years excommunicating many of the 10 million members on the roles who are inactive and sinning in one way or another. 

Let's not resort to unhelpful and inaccurate hyperbole.  Inactivity does not require discipline.  Apostasy does.  Many (most) forms of "sinning" do not require formal disciplinary proceedings.  Apostasy does.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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

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

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

Yeah..just avoid the driveway..that is so imposing and tacky..  Did he even bother first to just meet with them first.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

That would keep a bishopric busy.  Imagine having to ex inactive members..

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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

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

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

You suggest that a person in a state of apostasy "should be left alone."  While I think a reasonable argument can be made that bishops are not obligated to affirmatively investigate and seek out people who are in a state of apostasy (that is my assumption), I am not sure there is a reasonable argument that a bishop who through happenstance finds out that a church member is in a state of apostasy should "leave any such members alone."  This would seem to be an abdication of a bishop's responsibility.  

There are a number of scriptures mandating discipline by those in authority.  Consider the following:

• 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."

How do you reconcile your "leave 'em alone" position with these scriptures?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

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

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

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

When a bishop receives a report that any member of the Church is cohabitating, they normally will notify that person and hold a disciplinary council for a member or members not holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, even if those members are inactive (which is usually the case). I have two stepdaughters who been through such proceedings, although they declined to attend their disciplinary hearings.

The point of a disciplinary hearing is not punishment. Maybe one of the Bishops or former Bishops that post on this forum could explain that a bit more in detail.

I will echo Bluebell's own question, how can a person be described as "believing" or "faithful" LDS when they do not believe in certain aspects of LDS doctrine? Do not get started on Adam-God nor  the priesthood ban. 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.

The Bishop was just doing what he was supposed to do.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, ERMD said:

If two people who are not married (and I will not qualify that), are not LDS, are taught the gospel and want to be baptized, they must either get married or change their living arrangements (fruits meet for repentance).  If they do not, they cannot be baptized and join the Church.

This is not a special circumstance or witch hunt.

Exactly right - look at the reverse angle.

If you can't be in sinful relationships and become a member of the Church, why should you expect to be in sinful relationships and remain a member of the Church?

Is it OSAS that we want here?

Edited February 25, 2016 by JLHPROF

[will227457]

53 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Are you saying that this bishop is going home and slapping his wife?  That's what it sounds like.  Unless you have personal knowledge of this happening your comment is unwarranted and slanderous.

No I am not saying that at all, how does it sound like that? I didn't say that this bishop did that. I said that is a "type" is english a second language?