Calm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 20 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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? Does he have to contact all who sinned to be consistent or just those who qualify under apostasy in your view?
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, ALarson said: Do you believe the Bishop in this case was instructed to contact these women? Before a disciplinary council can be held, the stake/district/mission president has to authorize it. A bishop can't hold one without his priesthood leader authorizing it. It's possible that the bishop was doing the front-end leg work preparatory to a disciplinary council, but the actual holding of one would require that the woman/women meet with the stake president. If the bishop were to simply hold one without getting approval, that could provide grounds for an appeal (unlike Kate Kelly's appeal and others like it). We don't know if the bishop was sent by the stake president or acting on his own, but it doesn't really matter. I remain unconvinced that he even laid down the "three-fold ultimatum." He could have, but I wouldn't have. That's something for the actual disciplinary council to require (divorce or face discipline). And I personally wouldn't recommend resignation as one of the options (and I don't know that he did). 1
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, ERMD said: I have no idea, and since I do not possess your ability to read minds, I will not venture a guess. I'm not reading minds. I stated that I know my Bishop has received no directive or advice to start seeking out those in our ward who are in a SSM. You were the one who stated that "Any such advice would come from the presiding high priest in the stake who holds the keys". So either this Bishop is acting on his own or he was advised to contact these sisters.
smac97 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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? Bishops are principally interested in inviting others to come unto Christ. So a bishop will encourage Church members within his jurisdiction to do things that facilitate that conversion, such as reading scriptures, praying, attending church meetings on Sundays, and so on. Some Church members are living in ways that impede the conversion process, such as violations of the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity. Sometimes there are more serious impediments, such as adultery, sexual abuse, serious crimes, and so on. So the discovery of such things is not a witch hunt ("seeking out and contacting all those in his ward who have sinned, broken covenants or are in apostasy"). Instead, usually a bishop fulfilling his pastoral duties will naturally come across these things through interacting with individuals. Bishops have all sorts of latitude in dealing with the innumerable types of sins he comes across. But that latitude is not unlimited. There are constraints. There are parameters which have been established by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for certain types of misconduct. These parameters include mandatory discipline for certain types of serious misconduct, one of which is apostasy. Thanks, -Smac 3
Calm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 14 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? I assume you don't actually mean they should be holding disciplinary courts for nonmembers, but just to clarify I am asking since this is how "discipline" is being used in this thread by others.
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, ALarson said: I'm not reading minds. I stated that I know my Bishop has received no directive or advice to start seeking out those in our ward who are in a SSM. How do you know that (since you're not reading minds)? Have you asked him?
smac97 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, mtomm said: 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. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. -Smac 1
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Calm said: Does he have to contact all who sinned to be consistent or just those who qualify under apostasy in your view? To be fair (for comparison sake), it would only be those who the church leaders consider to be in apostasy or other cases where it is mandatory. So I should have clarified that. I found this: Quote When a disciplinary council is mandatory[edit] Quote The LDS Church has instructed leaders that a disciplinary council is mandatory when evidence suggests that a member of the church may have committed any of the following offences against the standards of the church: Murder: the "deliberate and unjustified taking of human life". The church does not classify killings performed by police or soldiers in the line of duty as being murder. It also does not classify abortion as murder.[13] Incest: defined as "sexual relations" between a parent (or grandparent) and a natural, adopted, or foster child or a stepchild. It also includes sexual relations between siblings.[13] Apostasy: refers to members who "repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders" and also includes those who repeatedly present information as church doctrine that is not church doctrine and those who repeatedly follow the teachings of apostate sects or those who formally join another church. Merely failing to attend church meetings does not qualify as apostasy.[13]In November 2015, the church clarified that its members who are in a same-sex marriage are in apostasy.[14] Serious transgression while holding a prominent church position : "serious transgression" is defined as "a deliberate and major offense against morality" and includes "attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations (especially sexual cohabitation),[15] deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illicit drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing."[13] "Prominent church position" includes the positions of area seventy, temple president, mission president, stake president,patriarch, and bishop.[13] Transgressor who is a predator[13] Pattern of serious transgressions[13] (as defined above) Serious transgression (as defined above) that is widely known[13] Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, rongo said: How do you know that (since you're not reading minds)? Have you asked him? Yes. I'm one of his counselors and we just discussed this a couple of weeks ago (because of the member in our ward in a SSM). So unless he just received a directive, I know he's not received any advice or instructions to seek them out and start the disciplinary process. Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Thanks for clarifying. It would make a difference if I knew I had a household that this applied to in my ward. I'm interested to know if those advocating a bishops' "lassaiz faire" approach to gay marriage would also recommend "hands off" for other forms of apostasy: directly trying to tear the Church down and recruit people out of the Church. Would it be okay to "just let them be?" The three reasons for church discipline spelled out in CHI 1 are: 1) bring the sinner to true and full repentance 2) protect the innocent, and 3) protect the Church's name. If one were to ignore "church-tearing-down apostasy," one would be derelict of duty in my book. I happen to agree with the Brethren that gay marriage itself is not distinguishable from "church-tearing-down apostasy." They are both apostasy.
ERMD Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes. I'm one of his counselors and we just discussed this a couple of weeks ago (because of the member in our ward in a SSM). So unless he just received a directive, I know he's not received any advice or instructions to seek them out and start the disciplinary process. Do you not see the conflict between your seeking an additional "directive" and what you just quoted from the CHI stating when a council is mandatory (item 3, specifically)? How much more clear does it need to be? Edited February 25, 2016 by ERMD
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, ERMD said: Do you not see the conflict between your seeking a "directive" and what you just quoted from the CHI stating when a council is mandatory (item 3, specifically)? I haven't stated that I'm seeking a directive. I'm definitely not. I sincerely hope no directive ever is issued instructing Bishops to seek out those in SSM and discipline them. . Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson
CV75 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 I always thought becoming an "ex" was part and parcel of, and not the alternative to, getting a divorce...
mtomm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Here's another question. If we make it mandatory then can a bishop still use his inspiration and discretion? I get the feeling that many here feel it is no, they cannot because then they are derelict in their duties as bishop.
USU78 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Just now, mtomm said: Here's another question. If we make it mandatory then can a bishop still use his inspiration and discretion? I get the feeling that many here feel it is no, they cannot because then they are derelict in their duties as bishop. Define "it" in your 2nd sentence. Are you talking about excommunication or disciplinary council?
ERMD Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: I haven't stated that I'm seeking a directive. I'm definitely not. Your previous statements indicate you are. At least you are demanding that the bishop involved should only act if he has personally received a "directive". 2 hours ago, ALarson said: 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. . See your handbook quote. 1 hour 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). . See your handbook quote. 55 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? . Do you believe the handbook to reflect the views of The Council of the First Presidency and The Quorum of the Twelve? 47 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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? See your handbook quote. Edited February 25, 2016 by ERMD
Gray Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 hours ago, smac97 said: 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 I'm sure many millions of inactives are living in some kind of sin that would warrant discipline. 1
Popular Post smac97 Posted February 25, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 24 minutes ago, ALarson said: I haven't stated that I'm seeking a directive. I'm definitely not. I think ERMD's point is that the Brethren have already given a directive to bishops and stake presidents. The CHI is clear as to when discipline is mandatory. One of those circumstances is apostasy. One form of apostasy is a Church member being in a same-sex marriage. I won't presume to speak to any particular circumstance, but it seems clear that if a bishop is aware that a member in his ward is in a state of apostasy, then he is obligated to convene a disciplinary council about it. That's what "mandatory" means. While bishops have all sorts of latitude to exercise discretion in particular circumstances, these circumstances don't seem to allow for such discretion. Thanks, -Smac Edited February 25, 2016 by smac97 5
mtomm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, USU78 said: Define "it" in your 2nd sentence. Are you talking about excommunication or disciplinary council? A disciplinary council. Even if no action is taken as a result of the council there are always consequences from such. 1
USU78 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Just now, mtomm said: A disciplinary council. Even if no action is taken as a result of the council there are always consequences from such. And who is responsible for the consequences?
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) Haven't read through all six pages yet, so pardon if this has already been brought up. Would there even be any discussion here if this were a case of a man living in polygamy being approached by his bishop and told he either had to cease that behavior or be subject to a disciplinary council? Both living in polygamy and (according to the recent handbook revision) entering into a homosexual "marriage" are acts of apostasy. Convening a disciplinary council in either case is consistent with Church doctrine and practice. Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm sure many millions of inactives are living in some kind of sin that would warrant discipline. If we excommunicate everyone living in sin the church may reduce in size by 2/3 but at least everyone would be righteous wheat. 1
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, ERMD said: Your previous statements indicate you are. At least you are demanding that the bishop involved should only act if he has personally received a "directive". I've not demanded anything. This is a discussion and questions can be asked or thoughts can be shared. I've shared my opinion and what my experience has been with my Bishop. I definitely have not demanded that the Bishop involved had to have received a directive from his leaders to do what he's done here. I've stated that I know he's within his rights to contact these women in his ward. I still believe they should be left alone, but I've made no demands or stated that I'm "seeking" a directive. You need to stop putting words in my mouth. This is my question.... Do Bishops need to (mandatory) seek those out in their wards who are in apostasy and then start disciplinary proceedings or should they leave them alone if the member is not actively preaching or harming the church? . Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, mtomm said: Here's another question. If we make it mandatory then can a bishop still use his inspiration and discretion? I get the feeling that many here feel it is no, they cannot because then they are derelict in their duties as bishop. They can still use discretion in other cases of morality. But, policy-wise, they are supposed to hold a council for gay marriage. 1
bluebell Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 hour 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. 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. I completely agree in that I don't think divorce is a valid or reasonable choice for her. But I still think there are also valid reasons for the bishop not to leave her alone. She's a member of the church, and that implies that the bishop can and should be involved in her spiritual welfare.
Recommended Posts