Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, ERMD said:

There is a problem with this?  Those who do have a problem with it do not understand the purpose of disciplinary councils.

The main issue I have is that it seems to conflict with the familiar meme that top church leadership does not meddle in local disciplinary councils.

Here, they are not only meddling.

They are labeling specific (and legal) behavior as "apostasy" and requiring local leaders to hold disciplinary councils.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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?

I don't see this at all as "a certain segment of the population".
I MIGHT see it as "a certain sin".
I don't accept sexual orientation to be the same as ethnicity or race at all.

If a Bishop feels that cracking down on the sin of homosexuality in his ward is more important than cracking down on the sin of blasphemy, that's not for me to say.
 

[Jeanne]

2 hours 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.

There are members in church every week that don't abide to the rules.

[smac97]

14 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.

I won't speak to your particular examples of bishops you have known.  However, I am curious as to your assessment of a bishop's responsibility to administer discipline to church members under his jurisdiction.  There are many, many scriptural mandates about such things.  Here are a few:

• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."

• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."

• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."

• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."

• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."

• 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."

• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but 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. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

So the Church has a role to play in such matters.  That role has some real and meaningful constraints (see D&C 134:10 above).  And that role must be played with soberness, discretion, reason, compassion, inspiration, and so on.  And that role sometimes requires bishops and stake presidents to do unpleasant, but necessary, things.  

As far as "leadership roulette," I'm not sure what your point is.  Let me lay out my thoughts a bit here:

1. There are scriptural mandates to be followed regarding discipline in the Church.  

2. There are policies and guidelines for disciplinary issues which are published by the Church and approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  

3. There are individual circumstances which bishops can and should take into account.  

4. There is the gift of inspiration which is available to bishops.  

5. There is the possibility that some bishops choose to abdicate their responsibilities under items 1 and 2 above (scriptural mandates and the Church's associated policies) by, for example, "not touch{ing} either situation (the one described above or gay marriage) with a 10 foot pole."  

These factors can combine in all sorts of ways, and result in all sorts of different outcomes.  Except for the potential adverse impact of #5, I'm not sure it's fair to characterize those different outcomes as "roulette."  That sounds rather cynical and snide.  It sounds like we're relying on sheer random chance rather than scriptural mandates and church policies and individual circumstances and inspiration.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERMD]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The main issue I have is that it seems to conflict with the familiar meme that top church leadership does not meddle in local disciplinary councils.

Here, they are not only meddling.

They are labeling specific (and legal) behavior as "apostasy" and requiring local leaders to hold disciplinary councils.

Legal has nothing to do with it.  Anyone can apostatize for a variety of reasons and be perfectly within the law.

Apostasy is as the Church defines it, and there must be guidelines given as to when a disciplinary council is or may be necessary.  This isn't meddling.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

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?

If they can't hear it, it's purposes are limited.  But some start feeling like they have to constantly refer to such sentiments just to keep silly accusations at bay.

For example, I do have love and compassion for them, and express that in other places and ways, but because you had no proof of that in this thread, you proceeded as if it didn't exist. (In a manner that shows no love or compassion for those you disagree with, but that's not important in your estimation.)

The one-sided judgements in the name of love and compassion get old.

But to be clear, I'm not arguing against the need to show love and compassion. I disagree with the idea that every single time we talk about certain subjects we must speak of our love and compassion or we need to repent.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

There are members in church every week that don't abide to the rules.

Yes, there are.
And as has already been pointed out on the thread, depending on severity they too are subject to excommunication.
 

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

"Sometimes it is better . . ."  I think it is within the province of the Presiding High Priest to determine when disciplinary proceedings are mandatory, such as apostasy.  

The CHI represents the position taken by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  

These men have evaluated recent developments in our society, including the newly-minted concept of same-sex marriage (which, until very recently, was not an issue facing the Church).  

These men have determined that a person in a covenant relationship with God who enters into a same-sex marriage has committed apostasy.  

The Brethren have publicly declared that this determination was the result of revelation given to the Presiding High Priest and sustained as such by the other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

So while "sometimes it is better to just let sleeping dragons lay sleeping," the Brethren have determined that this is not one of those times.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not sure bishops are expected to take affirmative steps to investigate members in their ward ("seeking out inactive sinners for Courts of Love," as you so cynically put it).

Edited February 25, 2016 by smac97

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, ERMD said:

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

That sounds like being judge and jury way before the council is in process.  I screamed at this policy..how anyone could not possibly see that all this was just around the corner is beyond me..and guess what..the child will pay the highest price..those three ultimatums made by the bishop  in the driveway..made no mention of a child.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

 

Not really.  I really want to see it that way.  But this is a marriage with children involved, as I understand it.  To break that up would be more damaging.  She likely went through a lot of soul searching to get where she is.  If I were her, my life and journey would feel completely ignored in something like this.  I'd rather be left alone. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not sure bishops are expected to take affirmative steps to investigate members in their ward 

I know that my Bishop does not feel that he is expected to do this or that it is mandatory to look up members and contact those who are in apostasy or sinning.   We do have at least 1 couple in our ward who are in a SSM (only one of them is a member), but I know my Bishop has no desire to start disciplinary steps with them.  Now, if he was directed from church headquarters to start the process, that would be different (I'm assuming this, but haven't asked him).

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

 

I'm not feeling particularly obligated to square these scriptures with the position I hold.  They don't seem to be thinking in the same vain to me.  I'm not granting that she is sinning. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by stemelbow

[ERMD]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know that my Bishop does not feel that he is expected to do this or that it is mandatory to look up members and contact those who are in apostasy or sinning.   We do have at least 1 couple in our ward who are in a SSM (only one of them is a member), but I know my Bishop has no desire to start disciplinary steps with them.  Now, if he was directed from church headquarters to start the process, that would be different (I'm assuming this, but haven't asked him).

.

Any such advice would come from the presiding high priest in the stake who holds the keys.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Any such advice would come from the presiding high priest in the stake who holds the keys.

And none has come directing my Bishop to seek out SSM couples in our ward for discipline.

Do you believe the Bishop in this case was instructed to contact these women?

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Not really.  I really want to see it that way.  But this is a marriage with children involved, as I understand it.  To break that up would be more damaging. 

Which may be why the Church revised the CHI policies pertaining to same-sex marriage.  As I understand it, I don't think that a church member who has entered into a polygamous marriage would be given the choice between divorce or excommunication.  In such circumstances it would seem that excommunication is mandatory (I am open to correction on this).  Similarly, I wonder if the Church is positioning bishops so that they are not obligated to issue ultimatums like "get a divorce or lose your membership in the church."  Instead, members of the Church who enter into a same-sex marriage are necessarily excommunicated (like polygamists).

Quote

She likely went through a lot of soul searching to get where she is.  If I were her, my life and journey would feel completely ignored in something like this.  I'd rather be left alone. 

But isn't excommunication going to do just that?  As long as she's on the roles of the Church, she won't be left alone.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

41 minutes ago, 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.

To marry a person of the same sex is to enter into a covenant not to comply with G-d's law of sexual morality.  There is a declaration that one is committed to not complying with G-d's law.

This is not the case where spouses are male and female:  even if one or the other or both engaged in conduct noncompliant with G-d's law of sexual morality, there is no commitment by covenant to break that law.

The two cases are not remotely the same.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not feeling particularly obligated to square these scriptures with the position I hold.  They don't seem to be thinking in the same vain to me.  I'm not granting that she is sinning. 

Okay.  I was speaking within the LDS paradigm.  You are not.  That being the case, there's not much point in further discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

57 minutes ago, ERMD said:

The lack of understanding of covenants, judges in Israel, and disciplinary councils here is staggering. 

I see no lack of understanding here.  There just seems to be a lack of continuity regarding how those who may have broken covenants are being treated.  That's what it comes down to.  I fully agree that this Bishop is within his rights to do what he's doing, but is he seeking out and contacting all those in his ward who have sinned, broken covenants or are in apostasy?  Or just those in a SSM?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which may be why the Church revised the CHI policies pertaining to same-sex marriage.  As I understand it, I don't think that a church member who has entered into a polygamous marriage would be given the choice between divorce or excommunication.  In such circumstances it would seem that excommunication is mandatory (I am open to correction on this).  Similarly, I wonder if the Church is positioning bishops so that they are not obligated to issue ultimatums like "get a divorce or lose your membership in the church."  Instead, members of the Church who enter into a same-sex marriage are necessarily excommunicated (like polygamists).

But isn't excommunication going to do just that?  As long as she's on the roles of the Church, she won't be left alone.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I don't know if she would or wouldn't.  She likely has neighbors whom she knows that are LDS and perhaps some active.  There are a number of gay people in my ward--that are LDS on the roles.  I've interacted with them over the years.  I'm curious if the bishop is planning to address them with a similar proposition.  I wouldn't doubt if some of them object to the occasional visits but I'd guess some of them enjoy a couple of friendly visits now and then. 

[busybee]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

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?

Or would we maybe be just as mad when they got a free pass because they were gay??

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And none has come directing my Bishop to seek out SSM couples in our ward for discipline.

You do realize bishops are responsible for disciplining everyone in their ward, whether or not someone in the ward is a member of the Church,  don't you?

Bishops are and have been taught constantly about who and how they should discipline everyone in their wards and that member is now going to be getting all of the directions she needs.

[thesometimesaint]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Sometimes it is better . . ."  I think it is within the province of the Presiding High Priest to determine when disciplinary proceedings are mandatory, such as apostasy.  

The CHI represents the position taken by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  

These men have evaluated recent developments in our society, including the newly-minted concept of same-sex marriage (which, until very recently, was not an issue facing the Church).  

These men have determined that a person in a covenant relationship with God who enters into a same-sex marriage has committed apostasy.  

The Brethren have publicly declared that this determination was the result of revelation given to the Presiding High Priest and sustained as such by the other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

So while "sometimes it is better to just let sleeping dragons lay sleeping," the Brethren have determined that this is not one of those times.

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not sure bishops are expected to take affirmative steps to investigate members in their ward ("seeking out inactive sinners for Courts of Love," as you so cynically put it).

It is their right. I just question the wisdom in doing so. Sometimes we all reach untenable positions from the best of intentions.

Not cynical at all. I've been in the Church long enough to remember that was what they were sometimes referred to as.

SEE https://www.lds.org/ensign/1972/07/courts-of-love?lang=eng

[ERMD]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And none has come directing my Bishop to seek out SSM couples in our ward for discipline.

Do you believe the Bishop in this case was instructed to contact these women?

.

I have no idea, and since I do not possess your ability to read minds, I will not venture a guess.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You do realize bishops are responsible for disciplining everyone in their ward, whether or not someone in the ward is a member of the Church,  don't you?

Um, no.  You can't seriously be stating that a Bishop can discipline a nonmember who lives within the ward boundaries.  Are you?  

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[mtomm]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

EDIT TO ADD: I'm not sure bishops are expected to take affirmative steps to investigate members in their ward ("seeking out inactive sinners for Courts of Love," as you so cynically put it).

Which is what I was saying. But I think you got hooked up on the word roulette and missed the part where I said we have to defer to discretion and inspiration.  
Impressive list of scriptures though.