Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[will227457]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

You don't know anything about this man. It's offensive to imply such things about him. 

I never said anything bad about him How can I. I do not know him.

Poster removed.

[Kemara]

Like it or hate it, agree with it or not, the Church classifies gay marrieds as apostate. Their is ample evidence that the Church has actively sought out apostates and excommunicated them if they did not cease the apostate conduct. I don't see why some are getting bent out of shape about this specific apostate conduct, unless of course some are biased toward gay marriage. Comparisons to hetero couples shacking up, word of wisdom violators etc. are erroneous as these examples are not examples of apostate conduct. If anyone wants to make a comparison in an attempt to show some sought of Church bias or uber-obsession then it needs to be made between different types of apostasy.  If we were to do that, apostasy vs. apostasy, I don't think there would be much a difference in the way the Church deals with the matter. However, there can be quite a difference between the way the Church deals with non-apostate conduct. I can understand the reasoning behind the "live and let live" approach and personally I have a great deal of sympathy for it. However, the issue I would have with it, from a Church perspective, is that Church leaders must maintain the garden, if a leader becomes aware of an apostate weed he is duty bound to not simply sit idly and hope the weed doesn't grow.     

I have had the distinct displeasure of excommunicating people from the Church for a variety of reasons, both apostate and non-apostate conduct. I never again want to sit at the head of a disciplinary council table....or even at the side of the table for that matter. I even had to excommunicate one of my very best friends for apostasy (the tale is absolutely horrific), despite my repeated and sincere attempts we are no longer friends.  It is never a fun experience, its never something one wants to do, but it is a responsibility that must be met. I have also had the distinct pleasure of personally working with and readmitting to Church a person who was disciplined (not by me) for being in a lesbian relationship...I would be quite happy to sit at the head of this type of council table.    

Don't be too quick in judging this Bishop. The majority don't fiendishly sit in a dark corner drumming their fingers together plotting to "get" those nasty gays in the most diabolical ways imaginable.

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, will227457 said:

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?

Regardless of how you choose to define things, your comments about the bishop and spousal abuse are offensive.

If I told you that you sounded like the "type" of person who abuses their spouse, wouldn't you find that comment derogatory? 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Alan said:

The bishop has no option other than to proceed with discipline.

I would do the same.

The Bishop is correct technically.

But being correct technically is not always the right way to bring people to Christ.  And yes, he has a choice.  This is not a church of compulsion, even if you are a bishop.  These decisions can be difficult beyond comprehension unless you have had to make them.

On the other hand, he might be right to handle it the way he is.  The point is he DOES have options

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is the reason this is noteworthy (and therefore, we should care) because anyone who considers themselves to be a believing mormon should be allowed to be a member of the church regardless of their choices or beliefs?

Or is this an FYI kind of thread?

I know that probably sounds snarky but i'm sincerely asking for a frame work for understanding the OP.

It's called "creating controversy"

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

Another example of the post hoc fallacy.  We know, or can infer, the timing of a particular encounter, but the content of that encounter is filtered through the agendas of the publishers.  rp, and others, are making assumptions about the validity of what was asserted, the timing, the background of the particular encounter, and the motivations of the Bishop in question.

You, sir, are jumping to conclusions on scant evidence.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Is that an "option"?  Sure.

The Bishop can leave anyone committing sins while listed as members of the Church alone.
But then they wouldn't be much of a Bishop.

Do I really need to start listing scriptures to the contrary?  There are so many.

The priority should always be to do what is best to bring the member to Christ.  The answers are not easy.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, will227457 said:

I never said anything bad about him How can I. I do not know him.

When you say someone sounds like the kind of person who abuses his wife, that is you implying things about the person. 

If you didn't mean to imply such things, then you can clarify. 

[HappyJackWagon]

The love and compassion I'm reading is heartwarming. Wait...no. Not it's not.

When the church as a whole, or individual bishops and SP's, begin targeting a certain population for discipline it is not only a potential PR nightmare but also lapse in moral judgment. At that point the church essentially creates a hierarchy of sin. If they are going to seek out all inactive members living in sin, perhaps they should try being consistent in their application of "love".

Church leaders should go into every prison and hold disciplinary councils for the members who have committed serious crimes like murder, s3xual assault & abuse, etc. They should also find every person who is or who has been living with a significant other and discipline them. For that matter, the church could just as easily change the disciplinary policy  & begin disciplining members who don't pay tithing or don't follow the word of wisdom. Think how pure the church would be after that kind of cleanse. The church would be a Zion people, not because people became better, but because all who couldn't hack it were cast out, leaving only the best of the best.

Yep. That sounds like a fabulous plan

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The love and compassion I'm reading is heartwarming. Wait...no. Not it's not.

When the church as a whole, or individual bishops and SP's, begin targeting a certain population for discipline it is not only a potential PR nightmare but also lapse in moral judgment. At that point the church essentially creates a hierarchy of sin. If they are going to seek out all inactive members living in sin, perhaps they should try being consistent in their application of "love".

Church leaders should go into every prison and hold disciplinary councils for the members who have committed serious crimes like murder, s3xual assault & abuse, etc. They should also find every person who is or who has been living with a significant other and discipline them. For that matter, the church could just as easily change the disciplinary policy  & begin disciplining members who don't pay tithing or don't follow the word of wisdom. Think how pure the church would be after that kind of cleanse. The church would be a Zion people, not because people became better, but because all who couldn't hack it were cast out, leaving only the best of the best.

Yep. That sounds like a fabulous plan

 

Is this woman reading this thread, because if she's not, how is it even possible to be loving or compassionate towards her?

[mtomm]

Is it apostasy if an endowed member has an affair? What if they have not been active for 20 years or more?  Do we seek out that member and call them to a disciplinary council or do we wait for them to come to us and ask to begin the repentance process?

The problem lies with leadership roulette. I know one bishop really well who wouldn't touch either situation (the one described above or gay marriage) with a 10 foot pole. Obviously, we are seeing examples of other bishops who believe and do enforce discipline. 

Is leadership roulette a liability? If we don't have it we lose the ability for them to use discretion and inspiration.

[ERMD]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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

.

I have, and strangely enough, I have not developed the ability to peer into his soul and determine his motivations.

You can take that show on the road, or even have your own TV program!

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Is it apostasy if an endowed member has an affair? What if they have not been active for 20 years or more?  Do we seek out that member and call them to a disciplinary council or do we wait for them to come to us and ask to begin the repentance process?

The problem lies with leadership roulette. I know one bishop really well who wouldn't touch either situation (the one described above or gay marriage) with a 10 foot pole. Obviously, we are seeing examples of other bishops who believe and do enforce discipline. 

Is leadership roulette a liability? If we don't have it we lose the ability for them to use discretion and inspiration.

It would be if the church decided to insert a policy into the handbook.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is this woman reading this thread, because if she's not, how is it even possible to be loving or compassionate towards her?

We can be loving and compassionate to an entire group of people. I doubt she's on the thread but who knows. But there are likely people on the thread in similar situations. Should we only be loving and compassionate if we think the person is listening?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, mtomm said:

The problem lies with leadership roulette. I know one bishop really well who wouldn't touch either situation (the one described above or gay marriage) with a 10 foot pole. Obviously, we are seeing examples of other bishops who believe and do enforce discipline. 

True.  This case will be interesting to follow.  I will be watching to see if my Bishop receives any further instructions to start seeking these SSM couples out for discipline or if this is just some rogue Bishop doing what he believes he needs to do.  In my opinion, it's not a good precedent to start unless there has been a directive from church leaders regarding those in a SSM within your ward.

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Is it apostasy if an endowed member has an affair? What if they have not been active for 20 years or more?  Do we seek out that member and call them to a disciplinary council or do we wait for them to come to us and ask to begin the repentance process?

The problem lies with leadership roulette. I know one bishop really well who wouldn't touch either situation (the one described above or gay marriage) with a 10 foot pole. Obviously, we are seeing examples of other bishops who believe and do enforce discipline.

Is leadership roulette a liability? If we don't have it we lose the ability for them to use discretion and inspiration.

 

See this is the real issue being debated here.

Not whether this member was doing something worthy of excommunication (she was).
But whether it is fair that she might face Church discipline when someone else doesn't.

I'm sorry, but the "well, Timmy did it first" or "Sally did something way worse" excuses don't work for my kids either.
It's like when you get pulled over for speeding despite being passed by some leadfoot clearly going 15 faster than you.
Were you speeding?  Yep. So was he.
Too bad - enjoy your ticket.

 

[MorningStar]

Some people only seem to see excommunication as a punishment rather than releasing a person from the covenants they made.  If you marry someone of the same sex, then you're making the choice to continually break your baptismal covenant. 

[CA Steve]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

See this is the real issue being debated here.

Not whether this member was doing something worthy of excommunication (she was).
But whether it is fair that she might face Church discipline when someone else doesn't.

I'm sorry, but the "well, Timmy did it first" or "Sally did something way worse" excuses don't work for my kids either.
It's like when you get pulled over for speeding despite being passed by some leadfoot clearly going 15 faster than you.
Were you speeding?  Yep. So was he.
Too bad - enjoy your ticket.

 

While normally I would agree with the speeding analogy, I wonder if we would be seeing it differently if the only people getting pulled over were Gay?

[Ahab]

The bishop was within his rights and was acting with our Lord's authority when he met with that member and told her what needed to happen.  And one of those 3 things will.

The "leave you alone" option wasn't even offered and it would not have been good if he had.

 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Some people only seem to see excommunication as a punishment rather than releasing a person from the covenants they made.  If you marry someone of the same sex, then you're making the choice to continually break your baptismal covenant. 

And those inactives who are living together but not married or members committing other sins, aren't breaking their baptismal covenants?  Should they be sought out and disciplined too?  

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[ERMD]

The lack of understanding of covenants, judges in Israel, and disciplinary councils here is staggering.  Yet that does not prevent accusations being levied at the bishop involved.  So many are running to the defense of someone who is admittedly engaging in activity that is contrary to Church doctrine and to what the Church regards as the word and will of God, and at the same time are assigning the most vile of motivations to a man who is trying to uphold standards he did not set and to serve in position he did not seek.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

See this is the real issue being debated here.

Not whether this member was doing something worthy of excommunication (she was).
But whether it is fair that she might face Church discipline when someone else doesn't.

I'm sorry, but the "well, Timmy did it first" or "Sally did something way worse" excuses don't work for my kids either.
It's like when you get pulled over for speeding despite being passed by some leadfoot clearly going 15 faster than you.
Were you speeding?  Yep. So was he.
Too bad - enjoy your ticket.

 

Do you see any problem with targeting a certain segment of the population? What if police only enforced certain laws committed predominantly by a certain ethnic or racial group and ignored infractions committed predominantly committed by a more favored group? Would that disparity be worthy of attention and consideration?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

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

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.

[Kemara]

26 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I will be watching to see if my Bishop receives any further instructions to start seeking these SSM couples out for discipline or if this is just some rogue Bishop doing what he believes he needs to do.  In my opinion, it's not a good precedent to start unless there has been a directive from church leaders regarding those in a SSM within your ward.

.

Its an apostasy issue not a SSM issue. Apostasy is regarded as an issue where church discipline is mandatory. How is this Bishop "rogue" by doing something that is required? What type of Bishop is really rogue, the one who follows mandatory action or the one who decides to go off on his own? I certainly agree that there are various methods for handling the issue, and some are most definitely better than others. At face value, bailing up some sister in her driveway to pronounce a sought of interim judgment on her is certainly not one of the better one's. Their are options in how to deal with these matters, personally I favour a very softly-softly approach, even over the long term if necessary, but ultimately if the apostate does not discontinue the apostate conduct, the Bishop is left with only two choices, one is to follow Church policy (aka directive from Church leaders via the handbook) the other is to go rogue.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Kemara

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not questioning that Bishop's right to do it. But the wisdom in seeking out inactive sinners for Courts of Love. Sometimes it is better to just let sleeping dragons lay sleeping.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible